• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Drug induced insights not true because they are drug induced?

slyvan wanderer

Bluelighter
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
1,331
Location
school in DC
Drug induced insights not true because they are drug induced? I had this told to me by a priest and I was thinking what others thought. His reasoning, from what I could gather was that since it was fake because it was drug induced.
 
yes, like dreams, drug experiences are never completely random. The thoughts you have do not come out of the chemical you injest. But, as the above poster said, they often provide a different perspective on those thoughts.
To make the choice to take a drug is to choose to put your body and mind in a situation where you know roughly what effect it will have. Like sky diving - you know you're gona get a huge adrenalin rush and basically have fun by doing this activity. Same with drugs. The "extreme" sports analogy is a good one, since the element of risk and danger can be equally applied.

it would be interesting to put something like that to the priest and gauge his response. You might add that a number of biblical "visions" could possibly be ascribed to things like sensory deprivation, hunger, fatigue etc.
 
ya as others have said drug is only chemichal and its your brain alone that produces the insight/experience.. not the drug.. and about true part, well im bit too tired right now for discussion about nature of truth and real but what you experienced musta been real to you but it may not be true/real to him atleast in same sense it was to u
 
I dont think insights with drugs is as substantial as that gained without 'em. You are always dependant on how far the chemical reactions caused by the drugs will allow you to go, and you can get some distorsians. I persoanlly feel its far better to get a good fundemental routine without drugs.
 
slyvan wanderer said:
Drug induced insights not true because they are drug induced? I had this told to me by a priest and I was thinking what others thought. His reasoning, from what I could gather was that since it was fake because it was drug induced.
is information wrong because it's from a calculator instead of a person? no...judge the information, not the source

psychedelics (or other drugs) can be used as tools to aide the mind. the drugs dont make insights, the mind does, sometimes the mind is different because of ingested chemicals, sometimes the mind is different because of endogenous chemicals (which are just as strong)
 
In Buddhism, where cultivation of peace of mind is the way, there is a slow disciplined journey to greater mindfulness, and for Buddhists, there is the faith that this development will help end suffering. This is a practical path, but sometimes slow going, and often you don't get where you thought were headed. In Zen and Insight meditation (I don't know much about the other schools) we are taught that visions, altered perception and spontaneous joy may happen but are not the goal, and if one is attached to these experiences it can interfere with the practice.

I realize that what I have said so far is a bit of a digression, but I hope you can see the relevance.

Are the insights, visions, and joyful emotions experienced on psychedelics 'real'? When experienced, certainly, but I think many of us have found that what we felt or saw is hard to integrate. And perhaps it was so beyond our frame of knowing that it is almost impossible to integrate, except that we have some sense of an 'other side' or 'over there' where knowledge can not follow.

But are these sort of suddenly transcendent experiences limited to drugs? How often in a moment of resolution have we said 'I am through being resentful; I forgive all people!' and then, two weeks later, we are again bitter with our co-workers, blaming of our family and so on. And yet we were quite sincere in our resolutions! How often will we find ourselves totally enamored of another person, feeling indeed a divine presence in our love for them, and then as quickly as it came it disappears, and all we have left are trivial criticisms: she was superficial, she was flighty. And yet we only two months before loved her with what we thought was the extent of our whole being!

As you can tell, I am heavily influenced by Buddhist thought and am here speaking of the nature of impermanence. Not real, not fake.

Now, I do not mean to say that forgiveness and love are totally relative! I belive with utmost conviction that we should move toward greater forgiveness and love. But at times, as if from a mountain peek, we get a glimpse of our destination and feel as if we have arrived, only to find that the road is still a long travel! What the wisdom traditions teach us is that the love is in the journey not the destination ... even so far that the epiphany is not delusion but itself a part of the enfolfing life.

In some regard, what the Priest said has value: is it useful, is it healthy?

Some people eat mushrooms every so often, do not become attached to their transcendent experience, find a wholeness or a freedom or a new way in their experience, and integrate or perhaps do not integrate the experience and are happy. That is a way.

Also of course people dabble in cocaine at parties, under the influence feel 'connected' to their friends, feel motivated, feel 'real' and become attached to this authenticity so much that real life begins to feel barren and more and more they return to the drug until that is the one and only part of their life with any consistency or passion! This is also a way.

(maybe it is wrong of me to use those particular drugs as an example, but that's my prejudice)

As monkeyjunky noted, the visions and epiphanies of prophets and saints were in many cases precipitated by fasting, and some have speculated that various spiritual teachers may have been epileptic or bi-polar or so on. The life of a prophet or saint is not necessarily the easiest path but for some that is their calling.

So, the Buddhists say beware attachment to the fruits of the experience and I say the same!

take care,
Nic
 
Last edited:
Every experience is a chemical reaction, the mechanics of how a drug effects your brain are no different to how the brain experiences emotions or thoughts, drugs are just another sensory stimulii.

Personally, if I were in your position I would laugh at your priest friend then explain to him that the world of computers as we know it wouldn't exist today without LSD and how psychoactive substances have been a rich source of innovation throughout the years, from alcohol to outright, mindbending psychedelic's. Innovation that was often to harsh repression and denialism from the church itself, really a priest should be the last person passing judgement on such things.
 
i was watching something kinda related to this on TV yesterday (Derren Brown tricks of the mind, in the UK).
basically this guy can make you recreate any intoxicated state (that you've previously experienced) by just making you visualise taking the drug, in this case alcohol.
and it fucking worked! the guy was literally stumbling around pissed out of his face, not able to walk in a straight line etc.

now how the hell?? thats gotta be testament to the power of the mind...
 
"Every experience is a chemical reaction, the mechanics of how a drug effects your brain are no different to how the brain experiences emotions or thoughts, drugs are just another sensory stimulii."

That's quite right. All normal experience is 'chemically induced' as well, and there's no firm standpoint from which to say a normal diet gives you a more true perception than including a psychedelic. Furthermore, whether one's psychedelic thoughts are corrupt or wrong is a matter of testing their validity, just like baseline thoughts. Applicability, like it is outlined in scientific method of studies, is one thing. Well, anyway, my guess would be that the ratio of good and bad thoughts is about the same under the influence as it is sober. It's just that it takes place more quickly, or intensely. The formation and functionality of the brain will stay intact and the way "it's meant to be", if we consider that to be, in humans, the way our biochemical build determines it. Outside that, I'd be reluctant to say the brain can be made, in itself, to work worse. Certain transmitter systems are targeted, and their relative activity increases, and admittedly that's - by definition - a state unlike being sober. A mind may not be able to make practical use of this unless it is motivated by willingness to adapt and think it through while it's happening.

You mention a priest, so I assume insights of a spiritual kind were being discussed? That kind of high-level concept is more hard to discuss than the simple notion of "validity of perception", which, I'd say, is never valid, as it is only a systematically shaped surviving entity on this planet, but which OTOH is not moved to a worse direction by psychostimulants. So, it's not about validity as such but rather about simple variables that you could think of in terms of computers or information processing in general. To say that not having drugs guarantees you genuine insights and an unadulterated perception of the world sounds on the other hand a bit flaky, doesn't it?
 
slyvan wanderer said:
Drug induced insights not true because they are drug induced?

That makes no sense. The reasoning of this statement:

"<insert characteristic of object> <insert object> is not true because it is <insert characteristic of object>"

Religious insights are not true because they are religious. 8)
 
^^^Ok Mr. Makes Logical Sense, uhhh.... So yeah you're right. But I don't think the statement's precise logic is the goal here.

slyvan wanderer, a person can have correct perceptions, thoughts or ideas from the worst sources, and horribly wrong insights from very good methods.

You're asking a very basic epistemological ( ie, studying how we know) question, with no simple answer. I would argue against the priest. How we come to an answer does not determine the truth content of that answer.

However, we would want to waulify whether that method is the best way to get to the answer or whether superior methods exist and that we have access to.

Anyways, neat question!
 
Ok, well what about when THC produces paranoia? I would say in that case, the paranoia isn't "true" because obviously, other people aren't really out to get you. But the alteration in brain chemistry caused by THC produced the false perception.

So, can't you say the belief "isn't true because it is drug induced."?

The problem lies in how we interpret the word "because."

No, you can't say that any drug-produced insights are necesarily false just because it it wasn't your sober mind that produced them.

But I think it is entirely possible that psychedelic drugs can make your brain attribute cosmic significance to things which really aren't cosmically signficiant.

If I am on LSD and say:

"Anything I focus my attention on seems to be cosmically significant."

you would be having a tautological experience...because what is really happening is that you are taking one concept (cosmic significance), and applying it to EVERYTHING in your experience.

But if everything is cosmically significant, then how do you go about defining exactly what that significance is?

And if you can't define it, i.e. you just claim that "everything is one" and discrete events are not really discrete, then are the revelations really "true" in any sense?

In the psychedelic state, it makes perfect sense to see the world as one system, because for whatever reason that is what drugs like LSD do.

But you can't just deny the truth value of a revelation. A better thing to say would be that there is nothing about a psychedelic revelation that is any more "true" than anything else. And I think that may have been what the original poster was hinting at.
 
Last edited:
insights you gain on drugs aren't necessarily untrue just because they're drug induced, but nor are they necessarily true. anything that you hold to be true ought to be explainable through reason. so if the priest can't argue against your reasoning, then he's the one who's deluded, not you. but then again, if you can't explain why you believe your drug induced "insight" is true, then it's probably not a valid truth.
 
I might add that most 'spiritual experience', from my experience, has always occured when I am extremely exhausted, in pain, near a nervous break-down.. extremely sleep deprived, or maybe even a combination of all of them. Psychedelic compounds trigger processes that are already innate within us.

I just think the closer you come to seeing (you're own) death-as a conscious-receiving organism, the more 'insight' you're capable of experiencing... like how the eye dilates when you die... the window just becomes wider, just not it's widest (death/birth being the widest of windows). Maybe my metaphoric isn't exactly correct, but maybe i'm in the right direction.

There is no wrong or right way. Even 'priests' can have insight that they act on falsely.

(after re-reading a lot of the posts, it feels like i was just repeating what's been said)
 
Last edited:
All insights are brought on by a catalyst therefore a drug as a catalyst is just as valid as anything else. Insights caused by any catalyst need to be evaluated because a catalyst is generally something big and can produce false perceptions.
 
if you can't explain why you believe your drug induced "insight" is true, then it's probably not a valid truth.
This is self-evident, I think. The real problem lies in trying to describe drug experiences which lie outside the realm of sober experience.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if a child learned how to speak their language on LSD...
 
Top