crystal discussion

[Delta-9-THC]

I don't think he was attacking you specifically, just the generally ridiculous mindset some people have when it comes to disregarding science and logic completely in order to believe anything that they fancy or think sounds cool. Generally I don't have any problem with people devising their own spiritual systems as long as they don't promote or cause harm. All I know is that I am incapable of thinking that way.

Science and empirical investigation isn't the end all be all source of truth but it certainly is a useful tool that is grounded in and supports good judgment.

Edit: BTW, I definitely respect and understand your viewpoint it just doesn't work for me. Not to say that what your claiming is impossible, it is by no means illogical as it isn't a contradiction to say this and is really just a matter of fact that we are debating and not some eternal and undeniable truth of logic. That said your pseudoscientific explanation just isn't convincing for me.

Because it is a matter of fact, the only way to confirm it (beyond a reasonable doubt; nothing concerning matters of fact and cause and effect can be truly confirmed as utterly unquestionable as we do not know the ultimate nature or cause of ANYTHING) is actually a physical event occurring (as you claim) and not just mental trickery (so to speak) is through empirical observation. I only suggested a double blind type approach to confirm it is taking place physically rather than just mentally because it would allow us to establish a somewhat reliable correlation of events (i.e. the presence of certain crystals noticeably altering the strength or character of a trip on a consistent basis from person to person who are themselves unaware of the crystals) without the major possibility of bias or placebo.

But if it is satisfying and works for you then that's great.

 

[Roger&Me]

Energy can't vibrate; vibration refers to an oscillation of MATTER about an equilibrium point. Energy causes vibrations, it doesn't vibrate.

It doesn't sound like your conception of energy is accurate. There are energetic phenomena that do not have mass, photons being but one example.

 

[Propyl Power]

Because it is a matter of fact, the only way to confirm it is actually a physical event occurring (as you claim) and not just mental trickery (so to speak) is through empirical observation.

Actually it's very ambiguous for me... in fact it's quite likely that it's all in my mind

I value crystal-induced contemplations on the tight, sometimes paradoxical interplay between physical & mental events every bit as much as any other metaphysical properties that they may or may not possess, under certain circumstances 8(

 

[Coolio]

It doesn't sound like your conception of energy is accurate. There are energetic phenomena that do not have mass, photons being but one example.

Photons don't vibrate.

 

[JackARoe]

I only suggested a double blind type approach to confirm it is taking place physically rather than just mentally because it would allow us to establish a somewhat reliable correlation of events (i.e. the presence of certain crystals noticeably altering the strength or character of a trip on a consistent basis from person to person who are themselves unaware of the crystals) without the major possibility of bias or placebo.

I sort of agree on one hand, but one the other that can never be, only because when Damien said we may have to move 1/4 of the threads over to the spirituality section there was a truth to that. Here's why:

I remember a fellow I met in Houston Texas back in 1982. He had come to hang out with a few of my Deadhead friends and wanted "in" on the whole psychedelic deal. At the time we had a sheet of extremely strong octopus acid. Very strong hits. We all agreed that 1/4 of a hit was very strong. One of those times that we all knew it was a potent batch. So this fellow took our advice and started with half of one. Claimed nothing happened. So we try again with the other side of the sheet. He takes a whole one. Claimed nothing happened at all again. That was a solid dose. We figured the guy had the one hit on the sheet that didn't get any on the paper and try one more time from the middle of the sheet. Again nothing with a whole one. We had to listen to this guy tell a bunch of veteran and seasoned trippers that if anything happened by taking a small piece of paper it was placebo and he thought we were nuts. We could never explain it. The whole rest of the sheet went on tour and the other 97 hits were strong as hell for anyone that did them. It's all subjective. By explaining how thoughts and trips happen he claimed we were using pseudo scientific terms in an inappropriate way. Something I hear that is very common when we use the only words we can use for talking about experiences. Some things are hard to explain with some vocabulary.

People talk of meeting entities with high DMT doses or mushrooms. Believe me, I know how that is. Yet we take the talk without much ridicule. We all have our own opinions. But we do converse. But the only physical evidence for the effect is the method of action on the brain. The rest is subjective.

Crystals are interesting. Even when using them for a watch or guitar tuner. It is equally interesting that both a diamond and coal both have carbon atoms but something makes them different. Resonating is an interesting concept and the word vibration and energy isn't that hard to fit in. Sort of like talking about the Unified Theories and spirituality. It can sound hokey as well as interesting. And if Stephen Hawking and Einstein can talk about some of those theories it is good enough for me in discussion. Some New Age gibberish does have a basis in science. Sure there are bunny heads that ruin some of that with inappropriate use of terms like energy or vibration. But not everyone. I do like having a foot in science as well as spirituality. The mix is good.

 

[solistus]

I think all your talk about energy vibrations makes you sound like a silly hippie I also think it's telling that you blame our language for being 'unevolved' when you are using the same vague analogies as any stereotypical acid-soaked hippie. Many an author has explained a metaphysical concept coherently; it's difficult but not impossible. If there is something inexpressible involved in your thought, you should be able to explain the not-inexpressible part. Otherwise, what this sounds like to me is "I tripped balls with some crystals once and can't accept the idea that psychedelic experiences can be manifestations of the unconscious that defy a nice neat explanation, so I invented a very vague concept of crystal energy which I refer to whenever someone points out a hole in my world view."

I'm not trying to attack you hear, just letting you know why you get negative reactions from a lot of people. It's not because your brilliant crystal theory threatens their narrow materialistic world view; it's because it makes you sound like you haven't thought out yours at all yet insist on talking about it. Those of us who have been around all sorts of psychedelic users have run into this stereotype enough times to be annoyed by such antics. It's nothing personal, but when you have heard exactly the same hazy concept from dozens of people and all of them insist that it's some deep revelation that is just impossible to explain, maaaaan... Well, it's hard to take it seriously or not seem to respond with contempt. You seem like a nice, earnest guy... But you also honestly seem to believe you're saying something we haven't all groaned and dismissed before. Besides, a lot of us grew up arguing on the internet far too much for our own good

FWIW, my thoughts on the matter: crystals are sparkly and they can reflect/refract light in all sorts of interesting ways. They also have a long history of cultural significance in various myths. It's unsurprising that a lot of psychedelic users trying to reconnect with some sense of spiritual significance in our modern, alienating world end up treating them as a fetish object, but ultimately that's what they are: an ordinary object some people invest with 'magical' significance to fill in whatever gaps exist in their own world view. In my respectful opinion, it sounds like that is how they function in your mind as well. When people ask rational questions about how you see the world and how this view of yours relates to other information about the world, your response tends to be "it's inexpressible." As a psychoanalyst my ears basically shoot up when I hear this. Meaning is produced by language: to say something is inexpressible is to say you've been unable to find it a rational place within your symbolic order, your actual linguistically structured understanding of the world. Personally, I think psychedelics themselves in a way signify the necessity of such a lack. I guess what I mean to say with that last part is: don't view this as an attack, I'm not saying you're some stupid irrational person and therefore need this fetish to fill in your world view. The psychoanalytic conclusion is that everyone's world view operates in this way. The only 'solution' psychoanalysis offers is to recognise this process when it occurs in your own thought process so you can be self-critical, basically. when something cannot be put into words and any attempt to do so feels wrong, either for obvious reasons (it doesn't make sense when you try to explain it in specifics) or on some deeper intangible level (it makes sense but doesn't capture what you're trying to say), that implies you've stumbled upon the workings of ideology. So the bad news (if you care what I think, anyway ; ) is that that plane of positivity you imagine crystals operating within simply does not exist; the good news is that all of us are inevitably engaged in the same impossible search for higher meaning which we can never ultimately find an answer to; it is this basic human need that psychoanalysis views as driving many human actions. Believing in the power of crystals and associating them with psychedelic drugs is a far more benign way to act out this fundamental contradiction than committing genocide or even simply adopting a hateful world view. The worst thing your beliefs ever compelled you to do is sound like a silly hippie

 

[solistus]

Photons don't vibrate.

Actually, that's debatable. Heard of Static Photon Vibration Theory? The basic premise (although I'm probably mangling its accuracy in summing it up for my lay understanding of theoretical physics) is that the origin of photons' spin is an inherent property of vibration which expresses itself as spin when a moving photon is collapsed to a particle state but would look more like vibration if a theoretical static photon could be observed. At any rate, there is an inherent relationship between energy and vibration - vibration on a quantum level is, after all, merely the chaotic deterministic expression of that wave/particle's energy state, is it not? A particle vibrates because it possesses energy. That said, I certainly agree that Propyl Power's crystal theory is not using its terms in a scientific sense at all. It's an attempt at a metaphor for a very vague thought process, methinks, not any attempt at a claim about some currently not understood physical property of crystalline structures to emit energy of some measurable variety. At least I hope so

 

[zekethemusicman]

This talk, and many others from the psychedelic and occult communities would have struck an odd nerve in me a few years ago. For me, if there is absolutely no explanation found in science then i have no business in looking into it. Now, I've been open-minded since I could spell it, and have also been around the whole crystal phenomena during the past few years of psychedelic exploration, often as the people that are interested in one, are often co-intrigued by the other (and many others). My ex-girlfriend would swear by them, accounting a time similar to many others' reports about their significant effects to psychedelic experiences.

However, in recent years I have become aware of a new theory of physics. Many new scientists are trying to unify all of the field theories of physics (there's 4: weak & strong nuclear forces, the electromagnetic forces, and the force of gravity. They are basically trying to combine Einstein's theory for Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, as the laws of each break down when considered from the other perspective. This new theory implies that everything in our Universe is made up of incredibly minute vibrating strands of energy, called strings; thus the theory is called String, or Super-String Theory.

Now, Ive always been a science nerd, with physics and chemistry leading the way. Science was my shit back in the day, and sadly to a smaller extent, today, so I can do much better at physics and chemistry than your average bear (not cartoon bear, theyre human in some sense), but insane mathematics that goes into string theory completely boggles my mind. I have no way to go about figuring out the equations that for the time being i am doomed to "just theory" with no tangible mathematics to help me understand the complexity of this theory, so please correct me if I am not correct. It is my understanding through the research of my own and others that these vibrating stings can both emit vibrations, or receive to vibrate. It is this strands of energy that combine to make up the most fundamental sub-atomic particles, then so on with other sub-atomic particles to form the proton, and then atom. Now i think the differentiating factor between various vibrating strings is obviously the frequency, amplitude, and such features that define different subatomic particles. Anyways, these "vibrations" and their frequencies are what is important to this discussion.

If any of this is true, and as a skeptic I must say that if its not, then that's fine, we keep looking, and if it is, it explains so many occurrences that we could not previously explain. I have personally experienced, and read many anecdotal experiences of psychedelics the interesting phenomena that occurs when one senses the "vibes" of other living things, ie plants, animals, and sometimes much more interesting entities. The aura, the body energy, your vibes, this explains all of that. This is especially novel to realize that other animals and plants can receive your vibrations, and some animals including household pets can be very attune to changes in your outward heading energy. Its just very weird for me because this in some ways validates some of these eccentric and occult practices and beliefs. It doesn't completely validate it, as someone said above due to some factors of existence, we can never know exactly 100%

Im sorry this was so long, i just got stoned and im snowed in by my self in my parents large house. Bluelight has been my best friend this week and i really like talking about string theory, as its just really fucking fascinating to me. I mean, its some really revolutionary stuff. Go look up string theory.

 

[solistus]

Just a few theoretical physics notes, zeke: String Theory, to be precise, is a proposed theory of quantum gravity. Some String Theory advocates also propose a Unified Field Theory of some flavor, but String Theory itself, strictly speaking, does not require a unification of the fundamental forces to be valid. It's also far from widely accepted; there are several competing quantum gravity models and plenty more standard model supporters who doubt any of them are accurate, but we need more empirical data to corroborate or disprove them. Also, electromagnetic and weak forces have already been unified in the standard model as electroweak interaction and some theoretical models argue that strong interactions can also be unified under the same explanation. Basically, all three converge to act identically at high enough energy values, and it is possible to explain the differences at lower energy values without defining them as distinct interactions but rather as distinct variations of the same fundamental interaction with a different arrangement of particles interacting. Strong is more complicated due to its variance over distance but that gets a bit over my pay grade.

FWIW, general relativity and the dominant Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory do not contradict per se, but their interactions are not entirely clear. The big problem, again, is gravity, which is a big part of why quantum gravity theories like String Theory are so big in theoretical physics these days. We are pretty certain based on mounds of empirical data that the quantum theory model we have now is quite accurate, but we don't know how to apply it to forces of gravity strong enough to bend space-time. Quantum theory as it exists today is all based in 'flat' spacetime, and there is no universally accepted model for how to adapt its various conclusions/predictions to curved spacetime, say around a black hole or immediately after the Big Bang. That's also a major reason why those two topics remain among the most mysterious to modern physics.

I, like you, am a "just theory" kind of guy - the concepts of quantum theory have fascinated me since I started reading up on it early in high school, but I never went far enough in math or science in school to wrap my head around the actual math. The best I could manage was developing a basic conceptual understanding of wave mechanics so I could understand quantum theory in the abstract.


This thread reminds me of a pet theory of my own I would call pseudo-scientific - it's based in my interpretation of quantum theory but it hardly lives up to the scientific method and is not empirically falsifiable. You know the basic 'problem' of determinism vs. free will (i.e., if the universe is a deterministic physical machine and out brains follow all these physical rules, there's no space for conscious beings to be influencing events at all - choice implies that one physical state could potentially become one of many, perhaps infinite potential future states based on a conscious decision.

That was certainly a big philosophic conundrum pre-quantum theory, but quantum theory opens the door for that last idea of one state possibly branching into infinite potential futures as consistent with our understanding of material reality. Any system exists as potentia until observed, when it collapses to a definite state.

Well, what is observation if not the presence of consciousness? The first thing that struck me about quantum theory was that it made observation by a conscious being a physically meaningful event that cannot be brushed off as an 'illusion' by empirical reductionists: there would BE no reality as we know it if we weren't here to, well, know it. That's not the pet theory part, though. My pet theory is this: what if the way consciousness operates physically is by controlling the seemingly random quantum events of just a handful of neurons or even just subatomic particles within neurons in a way that allows it to influence their behavior? This still leaves open the question of what that conscious entity outside physical reality but able to intervene in it is, exactly, but if my understanding of quantum theory is correct, it provides a mechanical explanation of how conscious choice might interact with the brain physically to produce various patterns of thought and action based on our conscious decisions. Personally, I ascribe to a world view called transcendental materialism - I think consciousness emerges physically as a result of the functioning of the brain, but that once it emerges, it takes on a life of its own - much like software, trying to trace the origin of its higher functions to the magical sequence of power flowing through circuits and transistors toggling between '0' and '1' states is not nearly as effective as understanding the software's own internal logic. The ego emerges as a structural necessity of language (in order to access language as it seems to be structured on the neurological level and all the survival benefits it provides, it is necessary to construct an "I" who is speaking). Anyway, I'm getting off topic - check out the book Zizek's Ontology by Adrian Johnston, written in 2008, if you want to melt your brain with more talk of transcendental materialism and the subject as subject of the signifier (i.e., constituted through language). The point I meant to ramble about is the thing about neurons acting at the quantum level as the physical gateway for consciousness. I've frustrated many a physics geek with that one before but so far nobody has been able to convince me that this view is inconsistent with any reproducible empirical findings, so that's good enough for me.

 

[zekethemusicman]

^^^Awesome thanks for the corrections holmes, that helped out. Most of the information ive gotten about string theory is through the books The Elegant Universe (cant remember the author), and Hyperspace, by Michio Kaku. This book is excellent and goes into a wide variety of theories and work done by these scientists.

I would almost certainly believe that a select group of neurons can somehow control or affect objective reality. This is one area where i see psychedelics becoming valuable because of their ability to heighten our capacity to "see," witness, or interact with higher dimensions, the astral plane, hyperspace, etc. DMT seems especially keen for this, although I have never personally taken it.

 

[JackARoe]

Awesome thoughts and posts. One thing I can say for sure, the crystal (or at least the crystal thread) inspired some excellent thoughtful posting. We have the proof right here. %)

But I think we can honestly say that storing K near one doesn't do much for the K. :D

 

[psood0nym]

solistus: you may be interested in a, albeit controversial, paper by Jason Schwartz titled QUANTUM PHYSICS IN NEUROSCIENCE AND PSYCHOLOGY: A
NEUROPHYSICAL MODEL OF MIND/BRAIN INTERACTION.

Schwartz does research on self-directed neuroplasticity and attempts to use it to take that next step into understanding and defending freewill you're alluding to.

... um, crystals are pretty.

 

[JBrandon]

QFT


QFT x2

There is no reason to get hostile when discussing these things..
Perhaps just agreeing to disagree.

Whoa, sorry buddy! I got majorly misinterpreted on this one.

I didn't mean to come across as a dick at all - what I wanted to express was that while I don't agree with the crystal ideas put forth by the poster, I thought he/she was kinda charming because they knew from the get-go they were going to get flamed but didn't mind!

My second post was just to say that I like how the poster maintained a funny and positive attitude in the face of all this angry criticism. He/she didn't get nearly as worked up as any of their detractors.

edit: When they said...

I may be spouting bullshit, but at least I'm much nicer and have a sense of humor about it

... and I said I agree with that statement, I meant I agree with the "nicer and sense of humor" part - not the spouting bullshit portion!

If I came across as a douche, that's my fault entirely - but it wasn't my intention!

 

[Delsyd]

^i was agreeing with you brother.

QFT= quoted for truth

 

[ResinTeeth]

those of us who have been around all sorts of psychedelic users have run into this stereotype enough times to be annoyed by such antics. It's nothing personal, but when you have heard exactly the same hazy concept from dozens of people and all of them insist that it's some deep revelation that is just impossible to explain, maaaaan... Well, it's hard to take it seriously or not seem to respond with contempt. You seem like a nice, earnest guy... But you also honestly seem to believe you're saying something we haven't all groaned and dismissed before.

This!

 

[JBrandon]

^i was agreeing with you brother.

QFT= quoted for truth

Hahaha - I thought it meant "Quit Fucking Talking".

Learn something new everyday!

 

[Xorkoth]

Bump for prune