If hallucinogens were appoached logically, not spiritually, would efficiency increase

[Mootoo]

I was just thinking in terms of tribes, how throughout much of time hallucinogens were actually an accepted part of society, even though recently they became demonized regardless of their recognized potential.

Now, about that potential - how come tribes, through their usage of DMT, Mescaline etc. not have a more thorough knowledge of the mind and psychology generally? (Or could psychology as is modernly understood differ from their approach?)

Could it be because they approach the psychedelic experience intuitively and not - as much as possible - scientifically? Psychiatrists thought that LSD could help people learn how schizophrenia worked when it was first invented, until that potential was soon squandered after all the brouhaha - but was there ever a potential with native people... or could this possibly be the difference between natural substances and synthetic ones? (With synthetic being more scientific, presumably.)

 

[rangrz]

Psychology in the modern sense is an empirical science, and thus follows the idea of an objective observer conducting experiment while rigorously following the scientific method and applying (generally mathematical) analysis after to the raw data. This doesn't seem to be in line with how tribes used psychedelics.

LSD was a very model of schizophrenia for numerous reasons.

Psychedelics are used in neuroscience research, mostly in vitro to study how various receptors work...

 

[iwish]

Psychedelic/Spiritual experience cannot be translated with language very efficiently and so science (as it is today) struggles to accept it. It's because of the materialistic emphasis that has been gradually increasing in society the past several hundred years. Anything that is not 'matter' is devalued and disregarded.
It is only with quantum physics, the measurement problem and so on, that science has seemed to be able to correlate to the subjective experience.

These tribes who have understood a timeless realm exists beyond form (the canvas in which the physical manifests) do not understand it through mental labelling but through awareness... intuition.... being.... whatever you want to call it. Humans have known their true essence is timeless for thousands and thousands of years. And we have discredited it all recently because the collective human consciousness has become so obsessed with manipulating the material world and neglecting it's true essence. Which is essentially and absolutely connected to everything. And ultimately, we are all "the watcher". The same consciousness "burdened" with different life stories.
So, certain tribes may not map electronic impulses in the brain and try to grasp what's happening in the physical realm so much as surrendering to the physical realm and in turn accessing that which is beyond a mental concept.

To summarize, I think a balance of the two worlds is necessary. But it will be meaningless unless the dreamer knows he's dreaming.

 

[ebola?]

Now, about that potential - how come tribes, through their usage of DMT, Mescaline etc. not have a more thorough knowledge of the mind and psychology generally...

Honestly, our understanding of the functions of the mind is still in its infancy. Cognitive neuroscience is less than fifty-years old perhaps, and even here, our models are woefully epistemologically and even ontologically incomplete, nearly as much as mythological understandings of archetypes are. We need to ask, what shape would a rational approach to psychedelic use even take? What do we mean by "rational", what theory of mind would shape our 'rational' approach toward an investigation thereof, and then what would be our ends in view guiding such a pursuit?

Psychology in the modern sense is an empirical science, and thus follows the idea of an objective observer conducting experiment while rigorously following the scientific method and applying (generally mathematical) analysis after to the raw data.

The problem is that 'raw' data is a convenient fiction when the scientist takes the mind as his object...

LSD was a very model of schizophrenia for numerous reasons.

These reasons are now mostly discredited...

Anything that is not 'matter' is devalued and disregarded.

We still have failed to clearly establish the division between matter and matter and how the two interact (or firmly establish how the dichotomy may finally be discarded).

To summarize, I think a balance of the two worlds is necessary.

I think that it is more important to figure out precisely how there are in fact not two worlds at all...

ebola

 

[Changed]

I think that it is more important to figure out precisely how there are in fact not two worlds at all...

Agreed; but quite ambitious, considering most people know more about Jersey Shore and Miley Cyrus than they do about themselves or the nature of reality.

 

[iwish]

I think that it is more important to figure out precisely how there are in fact not two worlds at all...

ebola

http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j46/hameroff.asp

Wonderful article about the relationship between consciousness and quantum physics. Theory by Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff. A must read : )

 

[yagecero]

Psychology in the modern sense is an empirical science, and thus follows the idea of an objective observer conducting experiment while rigorously following the scientific method and applying (generally mathematical) analysis after to the raw data.

LOL. Psychology. "Empirical" science.

The problem is that 'raw' data is a convenient fiction when the scientist takes the mind as his object...

This 100%.

The turn toward "empirical" evidence in the social sciences is utterly absurd. To take what a person says as fact is just ridiculous.

 

[Psyduck]

LOL. Psychology. "Empirical" science.

Well, yeah... In its more ancient sense, it was the study (logos) of the Soul (psuche, anima). The philosophical discipline asked speculative questions such as: is the soul immortal? Is the soul a unity? These are no longer themes of contemporary psychology. In this sense it's empirical. The empirical approach does not coincide with the study of natural/material objects.

 

[Changed]

http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j46/hameroff.asp

Wonderful article about the relationship between consciousness and quantum physics. Theory by Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff. A must read : )

something similar... http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/interviews/alternative.html

edit: now that I read your link, it is the same guy doing a different interview...

 

[yagecero]

Well, yeah... In its more ancient sense, it was the study (logos) of the Soul (psuche, anima). The philosophical discipline asked speculative questions such as: is the soul immortal? Is the soul a unity? These are no longer themes of contemporary psychology. In this sense it's empirical. The empirical approach does not coincide with the study of natural/material objects.

It's empirical how? I'm talking Freud and post-Freud.

I'd also like to know how "empirical" evidence functions, more generally, in the social sciences. Running human responses through a mathematical statistics program like PASW19 hardly negates the fact that the original responses were based on the linguistic capabilities of the participants of the investigation.

 

[Foreigner]

Just because shamanic cultures do not explain it scientifically, does not mean they aren't still working with the mind in profound ways. Modern science holds an incredible amount of knowledge and validity, but it really has to make the epistemological leap that not everyone approaches knowledge, learning and experience the same way, yet those experiences are still genuinely authentic.

It's sort of like how plant based medicine systems can be incredibly powerful, but they have a differing philosophical reality around medicine and its use. Different ways of knowing.

Logic can only take you so far. It's not going to be a holistic experience if you attempt to segregate the type of learning or analysis into one form. And as the user of a hallucinogen, it's impossible to really do that anyway.

 

[P A]

It's sort of like how plant based medicine systems can be incredibly powerful, but they have a differing philosophical reality around medicine and its use. Different ways of knowing.

Unless you appreciate a very different meaning of the word 'powerful' than do I, I can't imagine what this would mean to a patient, Western or not. Most folk remedies have been utterly discredited by the medical establishment, and understandably so, since all coherent questions of causality are typically removed from the discussion thereof. Penicillin treats bacterial infection by a known mechanism, and is employed for that purpose and (generally) that purpose alone. Same goes for most other drugs in the 'Western' (real) pharmacopeia, with varying degrees of safety, efficacy, &c. Those few folk remedies whose supposed healing properties were actually borne out over the course of rigorous controlled trials to amount to an effect size slightly greater than placebo have since been adapted into 'Western' (real) medicines, or are currently being/have historically been developed as such. The 98% of folk remedies that are literally useless - or worse, harmful - have been consigned to the dustbin, and with good reason.

If you give someone a few drops of a belladonna tincture or attempt to bleed them to better health, you would probably be charged with assault, if not attempted murder...regardless of which 'philosophical reality' you choose to live in. 8)

 

[panic in paradise]

Same goes for most other drugs in the 'Western' (real) pharmacopeia, with varying degrees of safety, efficacy, &c.

If you give someone a few drops of a belladonna tincture or attempt to bleed them to better health, you would probably be charged with assault, if not attempted murder...regardless of which 'philosophical reality' you choose to live in. 8)

Ones 'philosophical reality' as to the state of their physical health, can be the difference between being sick, or not. Some people who have lived through a chronic health condition, after they heal, can begin to manifest prior symptoms in a subconscious attempt to receive the same attention as they did while sick.

Personally, I have to give a great deal of credit to mescaline for helping to heal me. I tried an array of the most modern and proven effective drugs to suppress my immune system. My white-blood-cells stayed in around a 25-30 count, and didnt know any better but to eat me alive inside out. With the use of mescaline I was able to identify within myself a root of fear, and a root of hope. One of the drugs in particular I was prescribed, Humira, came at the price of $1250 per injection, every 10 days, that is more then most individuals physically capable of working, could actually afford, and so their life becomes entirely dependent on that drug and state/federal assistance in order to maintain the insurance to provide the medication; maybe you see the vicious circle forming with this example.

In regards to your speculation as to the rigorous testing that goes on with modern pharmacopeia, you would alarmed at the reality of the situation. Again as a quick example with what I took, Remicade and Humira, a few years after being released, they were discovered to cause numerous types of cancers, and other things.

 

[P A]

In regards to your speculation as to the rigorous testing that goes on with modern pharmacopeia, you would alarmed at the reality of the situation. Again as a quick example with what I took, Remicade and Humira, a few years after being released, they were discovered to cause numerous types of cancers, and other things.

You're right about one thing: The convolved and inefficient process(es) by which drugs are tested and approved are far from perfect. That said, the implication that such methods are somehow inferior to their 'folk' counterparts is asinine, and is certainly contrary (in almost every way conceivable) to the spirit of harm reduction that should abound on these boards.

 

[panic in paradise]

Im not sure if folk medicine includes stuff like Ashwagandha, Turmeric, Lime Juice, and Marijuana, but they are each powerful medicines that sound too simple and good to be true; an inconvenient truth for one, is a convenient truth for another.

Feeding the market with one Miracle Drug after another, is far more dangerous then those on the outside looking in can realize. People will feel naturally less of a need to take precautions and place restrictions on what they consume or tolerate being in their environment with promises of how it will be okay for them.

 

[P A]

Im not sure if folk medicine includes stuff like Ashwagandha, Turmeric, Lime Juice, and Marijuana, but they are each powerful medicines that sound too simple and good to be true

Whether these folk remedies are efficacious or not, however, is to be determined by multiple independently duplicated, randomized, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of each modality in the treatment of the condition for which it is indicated (e.g., cannabis for nausea, curcumin for gastrointestinal pathologies, etc.). Whether you elect to call it a 'folk remedy' or not, the efficacy of a particular chemical compound (or assortment of compounds) is either supported by the available biomedical literature or it is not, irrespective of which 'philosophical reality' happens to be in fashion this week.

Feeding the market with one Miracle Drug after another, is far more dangerous then those on the outside looking in can realize. People will feel naturally less of a need to take precautions and place restrictions on what they consume or tolerate being in their environment with promises of how it will be okay for them.

Again, irresponsible marketing practices by drug companies and inefficient screening protocols by regulatory apparati are contemptible, but these regrettable facets of the pharmaceutical industry have little to offer to a discussion about the scientific method and its indisputable role in the development of safe, effective medicines. I don't deny that many traditional remedies have proven safe and beneficial - but the overwhelming majority of 'folk remedies' are either biochemically inert or unacceptably toxic, which is exactly what you'd expect: The use of these 'medicines' is predicated upon a combination of dubious historical tradition and superstition, neither of which have any place in the practice of humane, evidence-based healing.

 

[panic in paradise]

Whether these folk remedies are efficacious or not, however, is to be determined by multiple independently duplicated, randomized, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of each modality in the treatment of the condition for which it is indicated (e.g., cannabis for nausea, curcumin for gastrointestinal pathologies, etc.). Whether you elect to call it a 'folk remedy' or not, the efficacy of a particular chemical compound (or assortment of compounds) is either supported by the available biomedical literature or it is not, irrespective of which 'philosophical reality' happens to be in fashion this week.



Again, irresponsible marketing practices by drug companies and inefficient screening protocols by regulatory apparati are contemptible, but these regrettable facets of the pharmaceutical industry have little to offer to a discussion about the scientific method and its indisputable role in the development of safe, effective medicines. I don't deny that many traditional remedies have proven safe and beneficial - but the overwhelming majority of 'folk remedies' are either biochemically inert or unacceptably toxic, which is exactly what you'd expect: The use of these 'medicines' is predicated upon a combination of dubious historical tradition and superstition, neither of which have any place in the practice of humane, evidence-based healing.

This is the danger in taking the word of others, as fact. Those things I mentioned, that you assumed as Folk Remedies, have mounds of scientific backing towards their credibility at treating a multitude of modern chronic illness(such as carcinogenic cells and tumors w/ reasonable speculation at preventing alzheimers), with no harm caused to others, for hundreds/thousands of years.

There are people and establishments who's current life and legacy depends on their theory or patent remaining undisputed. But don't take my word for it, look at this recent study and publication about the possible future of marijuana, as a medicine and not a recreational substance.

"What we found was that his Cannabidiol could essentially 'turn off' the ID-1," Desprez told HuffPost. The cells stopped spreading and returned to normal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ancer_n_1898208.html?utm_hp_ref=san-francisco

 

[P A]

This is the danger in taking the word of others, as fact. Those things I mentioned, that you assumed as Folk Remedies, have mounds of scientific backing towards their credibility at treating a multitude of modern chronic illness(such as carcinogenic cells and tumors w/ reasonable speculation at preventing alzheimers), with no harm caused to others

And that^, PiP, is the danger of neglecting to thoroughly read others' posts before responding to an argument that they never made. From my post above, verbatim:

I don't deny that many traditional remedies have proven safe and beneficial...(e.g., cannabis for nausea, curcumin for gastrointestinal pathologies, etc.)

With my sole point being:

Whether you elect to call it a 'folk remedy' or not, the efficacy of a particular chemical compound (or assortment of compounds) is either supported by the available biomedical literature or it is not, irrespective of which 'philosophical reality' happens to be in fashion this week.

 

[panic in paradise]

And that^, PiP, is the danger of neglecting to thoroughly read others' posts before responding to an argument that they never made. From my post above, verbatim:



With my sole point being:

I noticed that, but, for most w/e they read first is what they will believe to be true, and look what you did there in the highlighted portion.

This is a good argument, but far off topic now.

... I would like to add though, how there have been a few good articles I have read recently about prescription drug medications, both psychological and psychical, failing miserably at blind and double blind placebo tests. When this happens, often the manufacturers will seek out new reasons to prescribe and continue producing the meds, or when new medications take there place the same scenario occurs, such as with Thorazine and Haldol, both powerful "dinosaur" neuroleptic anti-psychotic drugs; Haldol is being used more and more in Emergency Departments rather then narcotics and Thorazine is being introduced as a prospect to fight cancer by destroying sickle cells. There are other ways, that sort of thing is avoidable.

 

[MrGrunge]

I'd also like to know how "empirical" evidence functions, more generally, in the social sciences. Running human responses through a mathematical statistics program like PASW19 hardly negates the fact that the original responses were based on the linguistic capabilities of the participants of the investigation.

Freud is not representative of the modern of Psychological field. Heck, psychoanalysis (dream interpretation and whatnot) in general has fallen by the way-side.

My experience with academic Psychology dealt mostly with large amounts of anonymous questionnaire responses and observational data. Unless the the focus of the study required that the responses be vocalized, there was very little interaction between subject and researcher. Obviously, it's much easier to be honest and objective with nobody to judge you.

From these hundreds, sometimes thousands, of data points we'd run some basic statistical analysis and identify any trends or lack thereof, then revise our hypothesis and start again. That's really all psychological research is - obtaining numbers and running analyses. The thousands of psychological institutions across the globe are adding significant quantities of information into the current knowledge pool, which allows for some pretty significant meta research to take place. The claim that Psychology is not an "empirical" field is patently false.