• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

The Big & Dandy Psychedelic Books Thread

Nice Descartes medition 2 esque argument you got there especially since you are trying to defend the the supposed science in a book as being science.

Edit: Also I was addressing the quoted text not your original point that was basically was nit picking at a poorly formed response to your vague response to the book being called pseudoscience.
 
Last edited:
Look all jokes aside, I can even use a branch of science to prove science is useless, further adding more "empirical data" to my variance of opinion. Quantum Mechanics, one of the main arguments that it brings to the table is called the "Measurement Problem." This means you cannot measure (record, test, experiment) anything, without changing the outcome from observing.

ie. an atom only appears in a particular place, if you measure it... in other words an atom is spread about all over the place until a conscious observer decides to look at it; so the macrocosm of this, is that the act of measurement or obvervation "technically" creates the entire universe.

Thus, only adding to what the "mystic theories" have been telling us or what you have dubbed as "pseudoscience"

Besides this, tools like mathematics are entirely made up, somebody whether man or otherworldly, invented it at some point - we actually know who invented Algebra. What we think we know, and what we actually know, are two completely different things.
 
I haven't studied quantum mechanics so I can't comment on that. I can't deduce much from the text with out having a basis of understanding. Though, picking out a unsolved problem in a theory is hardly proving your point, especially with a theory/set of principles as young as quantum mechanics... From my understanding as well, this measurement problem isn't an argument for quantum mechanics, it is a problem with it. Einstein held that there should be a local hidden variable theory underlying quantum mechanics and that, consequently, the present theory was incomplete (from wiki article on quantum mechanics, I don't care enough to find a legit source for this). So how can you even begin to use that evidence for your point?

Also once again you are getting back into this decartes esque argument.

You've also said I've called something psuedoscience, which I haven't. I don't even know the book in question, let alone read a page from it.
 
Last edited:
Cloudy said:
I haven't studied quantum mechanics so I can't comment on that. I can't deduce much from the text with out having a basis of understanding.

Also once again you are getting back into this decartes esque argument.
Click to expand...

What is there to deduce exactly, this is simple wording here? Every, single, thing is "made up," that means; physically, literally, and mentally, however you want to put it or whatever label or classification you want to put it under - call it decartes esque or pseudoscience - it doesn't change the reality.
 
How can we have an debate if you are going to use that bullshit. That is completely silly! It just shows that you have nothing to bring to the table to refute my side of the debate. I mean anything can be disproved with that argument. I can disprove your existence with that argument, which proves to me that you are wrong considering you are not real and could possible just be "god" deceiving me! aka, (sorry to be a broken record here) Descartes meditation II.
 
Cloudy said:
How can we have an debate if you are going to use that bullshit. That is completely silly! It just shows that you have nothing to bring to the table to refute my side of the debate. I mean anything can be disproved with that argument. I can disprove your existence with that argument, which proves to me that you are wrong considering you are not real and could possible just be "god" deceiving me! aka, (sorry to be a broken record here) Descartes meditation II.
Click to expand...

You are really taking this way too personally, put away your emotions when trying to logically and maturely debate with someone. Also, you just said you do not know anything about Quantum Mechanics, therefore you cannot comment on it.

Keep editing your posts while you're at it.. see if that makes a difference...
 
Emotions? I didn't know you could observe my facial expressions or read what is going on in my head. Please don't bring pointless things into a debate.

I'm editing the posts (edit, is this ok with you?, hehe sorry I had to!) as I bring more thought into what i've said, to correct spelling and structural problems (I'm not a very good writer), and to add citations. I didn't realize that was a problem. You'll also see if you follow my posts through out the forum, that if I'm writing a response for a debate I'll usually edit the post at some point.

I don't know quantum mechanics but I can read information on the subject can't I? I pulled up information on the basics of what quantum mechanic is and on information on the measurement problem, hardly diving into the subject. What is the problem with that? I can easily have can some sort of understanding by doing so. I have a lot of experience with understanding scientific text as I am a chemistry major.

I don't understand what you are trying to get at with this last response. Please put something worth while down to say if you want to continue this debate.
 
Last edited:
Pharmako/Gnosis by Dale Pendell. He really captures the character of certain substances (LSD particularly, but also his chapter on Salvia divinorum in Pharmako/Poeia which is on Daniel Siebert's website) in a way I've not encountered with any other writers. It's poetic, interdisciplinary, and quite funny at times. Plus it's got nice pictures. :)
 
Cloudy said:
Emotions? I didn't know you could observe my facial expressions or read what is going on in my head. Please don't bring pointless things into a debate.

I'm editing the posts (edit, is this ok with you?, hehe sorry I had to!) as I bring more thought into what i've said, to correct spelling and structural problems (I'm not a very good writer), and to add citations. I didn't realize that was a problem. You'll also see if you follow my posts through out the forum, that if I'm writing a response for a debate I'll usually edit the post at some point.

I don't know quantum mechanics but I can read information on the subject can't I? I pulled up information on the basics of what quantum mechanic is and on information on the measurement problem, hardly diving into the subject. What is the problem with that? I can easily can some sort of understanding by doing so. I have a lot of experience with understanding scientific text as I am a chemistry major.

I don't understand what you are trying to get at with this last response. Please put something worth while down to say if you want to continue this debate.
Click to expand...



I'm not going to go in circles with you about the facts on something you've not studied. Use the trivium.
 
BiG StroOnZ said:
Look all jokes aside, I can even use a branch of science to prove science is useless, further adding more "empirical data" to my variance of opinion. Quantum Mechanics, one of the main arguments that it brings to the table is called the "Measurement Problem." This means you cannot measure (record, test, experiment) anything, without changing the outcome from observing.
Click to expand...

Here is what you've said to me. You brought up the measurement problem with quantum mechanics. You said that this is one of the main arguments for quantum mechanics. I looked up information on the measurement problem as well as quantum mechanics. One of the first things I saw was that the measurement problem, which you said to be one of the arguments for quantum mechanics, is actually not a argument for quantum mechanics, but rather a problem with quantum mechanics, which refutes what you just said. I also quoted a text from an article on quantum mechanics which said, "Einstein held that there should be a local hidden variable theory underlying quantum mechanics and that, consequently, the present theory was incomplete." I'll expand that quote for further understanding, "Albert Einstein, himself one of the founders of quantum theory, disliked this loss of determinism in measurement. Einstein held that there should be a local hidden variable theory underlying quantum mechanics and that, consequently, the present theory was incomplete." This also refutes what you said as the loss of determinism in measurement results in a hole in the theory. So once again, the measurement problem isn't an argument for quantum mechanics. I don't need to understand quantum mechanics to understand this. It also sounds like you don't understand quantum mechanics as well...

There isn't any need to discuss facts on the matter as your point involving quantum mechanics is incorrect, therefore your proof to disprove science doesn't work.

Anyway, this argument isn't getting anywhere as you aren't bringing anything to the table. I'm going to drop this as the thread has been derailed as well as it is time for me to go to bed. 4:17am is to late for me considering I slept only 4 hours last night! Night, night.
 
B9 said:
The electric kool aid acid test - if you want scientific mumbo jumbo this book is not for you - if you want full bore taking it to the limits and cutting edge ( dated but still valid imo) thinking then it's well wortn a read
Click to expand...



Def this one, if no other - gives you an insight where the whole psychedelic multimedia thing arose (from Ken Kesey & the Merry Pranksters). Tom Wolfe's style in this book even gives an idea of what the psychedelic experience is like.

Each time I've read the book I get filled with an urge to take psychedelics

Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas also has some vivid descriptions of functioning on psychedelics =D


Tghere are plenty of sciientific books on the subject of psychedelics, but most are heavy going if you don't have a pharmacology background


PS B9 - can I have my copy of The El;ectric Kool Aid Acid Test back now? :)


PPS if you mean psychedelics in the wider sense (ie including those other than 5HT2a agonists) I'd highly recommend K: ketamine dreams & realities by Karl Jansen
 
BiG StroOnZ said:
Look all jokes aside, I can even use a branch of science to prove science is useless, further adding more "empirical data" to my variance of opinion. Quantum Mechanics, one of the main arguments that it brings to the table is called the "Measurement Problem." This means you cannot measure (record, test, experiment) anything, without changing the outcome from observing.

ie. an atom only appears in a particular place, if you measure it... in other words an atom is spread about all over the place until a conscious observer decides to look at it; so the macrocosm of this, is that the act of measurement or obvervation "technically" creates the entire universe.

Thus, only adding to what the "mystic theories" have been telling us or what you have dubbed as "pseudoscience"

Besides this, tools like mathematics are entirely made up, somebody whether man or otherworldly, invented it at some point - we actually know who invented Algebra. What we think we know, and what we actually know, are two completely different things.
Click to expand...
Quantum mechanics hardly proves that science is useless 8).And the measurement problem is only problematic for measurements on a small scale (elementary particle scale), as on any large scale with meaning in our macroscopic universe, statistical treatment of quantum mechanics can be used,and although the values of every single measurement is unknown the average of huge amounts gives exact results.
 
INFINITE JEST BY DAVID FOSTER WALLCE

probably the best book about drugs and addiction ever written, centers around a fictional psychedelic drug, a bit heavy for most people (1000+ pages) but it mentions DOM and TMA and many others
 
BiG StroOnZ said:
Look all jokes aside, I can even use a branch of science to prove science is useless, further adding more "empirical data" to my variance of opinion. Quantum Mechanics, one of the main arguments that it brings to the table is called the "Measurement Problem." This means you cannot measure (record, test, experiment) anything, without changing the outcome from observing.
Click to expand...

Dude you misunderstand the point of that assertion.

To be able to see something, you have to shine a light on it. At the sub-atomic level, the act of observing a particle involves hitting it with a very energetic beam of electricity, or "light" if you will, which inherently causes large changes in the kinetics and position of the particle.

The act of observing a subatomic particle changes the outcome of an experiment because you have to light the damn things up to be able to see them, it has nothing to do with us literally changing reality with our minds by just looking at something....
 
BiG StroOnZ said:
ie. an atom only appears in a particular place, if you measure it... in other words an atom is spread about all over the place until a conscious observer decides to look at it
Click to expand...

Also, this isn't about observing atoms, we can observe those just fine. I think you're thinking of observing electrons.....?

Man, QM is not a subject you can just read about and think you know whats up. You need to be able to understand the mathematics and experimental procedures in order to start to understand what it actually means. IMO you should dig into the subject a bit deeper before you start using it to back you up in debates, because to me it sounds like your interpretation of quantum mechanics is wayyyy off from what its actually telling us.
 
hamhurricane said:
INFINITE JEST BY DAVID FOSTER WALLCE

probably the best book about drugs and addiction ever written, centers around a fictional psychedelic drug, a bit heavy for most people (1000+ pages) but it mentions DOM and TMA and many others
Click to expand...

I just received this book for Christmas. I can't wait to break it open, though I don't think I'll have time till the summer.


I'm going to recommend "Island" by Aldous Huxley. It mentions the use of psychedelics in a very spiritual positive manner as a tool for growth in a Utopian society. Very philosophical book. A must read in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top