Trigger Warning Night of LSD tripping went horribly wrong

[unodelacosa]

generally speaking if you have phases of blackout, you took too much.

This is a point I'd like to echo.

 

[specialrelativity]

LSD is pretty neutral. It is what you make of it. It's easy to psychoanalyze somebody else. But, unless do LSD yourself, you have no idea. Understanding is not the same as knowing. Do police officers equal a bad trip? What's an example of a good trip, then?

 

[pupnik]

LSD is pretty neutral. It is what you make of it. It's easy to psychoanalyze somebody else. But, unless do LSD yourself, you have no idea. Understanding is not the same as knowing. Do police officers equal a bad trip? What's an example of a good trip, then?

awkward characters and violence are not part of a good trip, one's defenses are not triggered, one relaxes into a more beautiful presence here and now.

 

[-=SS=-]

This is not an appropriate simile; the comparison is loaded. Not all people who use drugs abuse them, and this is a different abuse entirely than domestic abuse.

I disagree. I have never met a single person using a substance whether it be coffee, cannabis, or anything else that was using it in a medicinal way i.e. in the realm of psychedelics 'when you get the message hang up the phone'. Virtually everyone keeps on using the substance under the guise of this or that rationalization.

3. Idk why you seem to think self-awareness is impossible for someone who smokes weed, or does any drug, really. Many times drugs can enhance our abilities to strip layers of illusion off of the world and off of the way we see ourselves. Drugs can enhance a person's sense of spirituality and serve as wonderful tools for exploring the depths of "inner space", as it were. This should be celebrated and encouraged much as it is in the tribal rituals of indigenous peoples all over the globe.

This statement here reveals your blind spot. In the same way that many people infatuated with Eastern spiritual practices overlook critical analysis of said systems and techniques, because they are are mesmerized by the exotic nature of such things. The Western commercialistic idea of 'shop around' and try something until it fits, overlooking the fact that these rituals are placed with a context that is unique to the culture of those peoples. You can't just take a trip to the Amazon and do a bunch of Ayahuasca and expect the same outcome, for example. It's not that simple.

Psychedelics can help a person shake their head up, see things from another angle, that much is very true. But 'stripping away layers of illusion' is not accurate, because psychedelics are like changing the lens on a camera or kaleidoscope, in themselves it does not teach you about the nature of light or the perceiving apparatus itself. It is only by the comparison of the two states, that one can begin to triangulate. This is why repeated, prolonged use is not stripping away illusions because all you have done is substitute one lens for another. Extremely infrequent use is what they are meant for, which is not what your average psychedelic user is doing.

Ah the hallmarks of confirmation bias, or more to the point perhaps the availability heuristic bias. Of course you know what you've experienced. Personally I question my experiences and try to remain open-minded to the fact that even eye-witness testimony can be inaccurate.

This goes way back into early childhood, before I ever touched psychedelics. I did not immediately piece together what the kernel of truth was until much later in life, post psychedelics.. this is over an almost 30 year time span.

I'm not interested in continuing this dialogue because reading the rest of your post it's evident you're infatuated with scientism. Which is totally fine, but nothing productive is going to come from this dialogue and arguing back and forth about science. Cheers.

 

[pupnik]

I guess scientism kicks in when one person's common sense is at odds with another person's common sense.

In this thread I am the only one pointing the finger at blackout followed by somnabulism, rare but possible if examined - not just lumped into a diagnostic category.

sometimes loneliness is the perception that popular music is noise, that popular heroes are propaganda props, but that is another discussion altogether,

 

[unodelacosa]

I disagree. I have never met a single person using a substance whether it be coffee, cannabis, or anything else that was using it in a medicinal way

You've never seen a person take their ℞ medication? Never seen a legal, legit script for xanax or a painkiller? The majority of drugs are legal pharmaceuticals being used legally as prescribed by their doctors. It sounds like you're being really judgmental.

i.e. in the realm of psychedelics 'when you get the message hang up the phone'.

It's ironic that you quote Alan Watts here, known for interpreting and popularising Buddhist, Taoist and Hindu philosophy for a Western audience. The full quote is: "If you get the message, hang up the phone. For psychedelic drugs are simply instruments, like microscopes, telescopes, and telephones. The biologist does not sit with eye permanently glued to the microscope, he goes away and works on what he has seen." Do you also think Alan Watts is infatuated with "scientism"?

This statement here reveals your blind spot. In the same way that many people infatuated with Eastern spiritual practices overlook critical analysis of said systems and techniques, because they are are mesmerized by the exotic nature of such things. The Western commercialistic idea of 'shop around' and try something until it fits, overlooking the fact that these rituals are placed with a context that is unique to the culture of those peoples. You can't just take a trip to the Amazon and do a bunch of Ayahuasca and expect the same outcome, for example. It's not that simple.

It's funny, I never said that or recommended people do this. I think this fixation is all you, bud. I was just opining that mind-altering drugs should be celebrated, not condemned and banned. Other cultures around the globe have shown that there are ways of integrated these tools into society without destroying said society, but I'm not advocating people take pilgrimages to the Amazon a la the McKenna brothers. That's fucking dangerous and stupid today, though it could be argued it was necessary decades ago when they made that trip. I, however, am definitely not going to hang out in some South American tribe just to drink some poorly made ayahuasca. You make a lot of assumptions about people…

Psychedelics can help a person shake their head up, see things from another angle, that much is very true. But 'stripping away layers of illusion' is not accurate, because psychedelics are like changing the lens on a camera or kaleidoscope, in themselves it does not teach you about the nature of light or the perceiving apparatus itself. It is only by the comparison of the two states, that one can begin to triangulate. This is why repeated, prolonged use is not stripping away illusions because all you have done is substitute one lens for another. Extremely infrequent use is what they are meant for, which is not what your average psychedelic user is doing.

I hear you chirping, Big Bird, but guess what? It's not up to you. It's an individual choice and it differs from person to person. You're taking a one-size-fits-all approach to psychedelics and this is more reductionist nonsense.

This goes way back into early childhood, before I ever touched psychedelics. I did not immediately piece together what the kernel of truth was until much later in life, post psychedelics.. this is over an almost 30 year time span.

That's great. That's you. Other people are different. Your experiences are not universal. I know you know this, but I'm pointing out the obvious for effect here.

I'm not interested in continuing this dialogue because reading the rest of your post it's evident you're infatuated with scientism. Which is totally fine, but nothing productive is going to come from this dialogue and arguing back and forth about science. Cheers.

Yeah I'll bet you do want to discontinue the dialogue right after you try to get in the last word without giving me a chance to reply, and you've ignored half the points I made previously. Also, I think the only obsession here is your obsession with painting me as someone "infatuated with scientism" in order to defend your superstitions, bad logic, and invented rules you want to project onto everyone else while criticizing anyone who disagrees as being irrational or as resulting from infatuation. Your arguments about me contradict one another, too: which one am I to you? → Obsessed with science, or advocating pseudoscientific quasi-spiritual pilgrimages to South American ayahuasca ceremonies? This is how I know you're projecting and trying to pin straw man arguments on me, because I'm neither.

But look, hey, no hard feelings, and I'm not trying to trawl through here thinking I'm the shit, either. I am a deeply flawed person with a history of making plenty of mistakes and doing stupid things. I can admit when I'm wrong. Here I'd just like to advocate that we keep our minds open and hold off on certainties until we have proof.

Have you ever seen the South Park mini-series “Go, God, Go!”? If not, and you if you like South Park, I recommend it. It's funny as hell, but it's point kinda reminds me of aspects of this conversation, particularly the point calling out people who get sanctimonious and preachy about science. If I'm coming across this way, that is not my intention, and I appreciate, and will reflect on, this feedback. Have a great rest of your day. I know you wanted to end this dialogue, and so in that spirit, do you have any final thoughts on this, and have I managed to sway you even slightly toward what I'm saying? If not, that's fine, too, but I'm just curious if you can see what I'm saying without attributing it to a made-up infatuation or obsession, or are you just convinced science is blinding rather than revealing as I see it?

 

[-=SS=-]

Have you ever seen the South Park mini-series “Go, God, Go!”? If not, and you if you like South Park, I recommend it. It's funny as hell, but it's point kinda reminds me of aspects of this conversation, particularly the point calling out people who get sanctimonious and preachy about science. If I'm coming across this way, that is not my intention, and I appreciate, and will reflect on, this feedback. Have a great rest of your day. I know you wanted to end this dialogue, and so in that spirit, do you have any final thoughts on this, and have I managed to sway you even slightly toward what I'm saying? If not, that's fine, too, but I'm just curious if you can see what I'm saying without attributing it to a made-up infatuation or obsession, or are you just convinced science is blinding rather than revealing as I see it?

I grew up watching South Park from season 1. Not sure your interpretation of those episodes supports what you're saying, in fact it supports what I'm saying; they were poking fun at scientism and how blind science can be to itself (to the adherents of it).. which extrapolated far into the future means they are super high-tech but have regressed to perpetuating the same old psychology of waring over trivial matters just like the Abrahamic religions have.

They do spell it out clearly towards the end, when arguing about 'the great question', and the otters literally say '..that is the logical choice'. Which is how science today is blind; science is logical, but logic devoid of intuition or wisdom closes one off to new discovery and reflection, which inevitably causes a regression back towards violence. Science should be revealing. I'm not anti-science, but the science of the 20th century has stagnated due to dogmatic adherence and failure to embrace new discovery. It is more interested in preserving the status-quo. There is ample evidence to support this - astrophysics is probably the best example.

 

[unodelacosa]

I grew up watching South Park from season 1. Not sure your interpretation of those episodes supports what you're saying, in fact it supports what I'm saying; they were poking fun at scientism and how blind science can be to itself (to the adherents of it).. which extrapolated far into the future means they are super high-tech but have regressed to perpetuating the same old psychology of waring over trivial matters just like the Abrahamic religions have.

They do spell it out clearly towards the end, when arguing about 'the great question', and the otters literally say '..that is the logical choice'. Which is how science today is blind; science is logical, but logic devoid of intuition or wisdom closes one off to new discovery and reflection, which inevitably causes a regression back towards violence. Science should be revealing. I'm not anti-science, but the science of the 20th century has stagnated due to dogmatic adherence and failure to embrace new discovery. It is more interested in preserving the status-quo. There is ample evidence to support this - astrophysics is probably the best example.

Yeah that's what I'm saying. I'm not some science fanboy claiming that over-adherence to scientific dogma is somehow a good thing. And the desire to argue and grandstand certainly seems baked into our DNA, so to speak. But just because we can point out some flaws in this thinking does not mean that we get to dismiss science altogether either. Spiritualism is not diametrically opposed to scientific discovery. The two can exist side-by-side and not necessarily conflict with one another.

The more I learn about scientific truths, the stranger the universe is revealed to be. From quantum entanglement to the theory of relativity, from “many world's" theory to black holes and the possibility of white holes… science is a real mind fuck the deeper it goes, and reality is stranger than most of us would ever think it is. Paradoxes abound.

Hey, I also grew up watching South Park from s1e1! I was already in high school when it premiered on Comedy Central, which I remember well. We hijacked the school's Channel 1 system to watch it in the library and thought we were the shit. Those were great years in my life, being young, going to Phish shows and 90s raves, watching South Park and imitating Eric Cartman… bleach blond tips and buying CDs from Camelot music in the mall; listening to Incubus, 311, and Cypress Hill… Weed was in three distinct groups: shwag, mid-grades, and dank which back then was expensive ("dank" or "kind" buds, I mean), not the norm aka: the regs, aka: the Reggie Miller… Crack was the big, bad drug; HIV scare + condoms were ubiquitous; ecstasy was brand new, readily available and uncut (but comparatively expensive); and Donald Trump was a Hollywood joke with a bad hair job from the 80s who had a cameo in Home Alone 2: Lost in New York playing himself (to this day he is still playing himself, dedicated to staying in character). LSD was largely supplied by Lenny Picard (bless him), and there was a lot more liquid acid back then. I loved that stuff, that liquid acid. There was all this mythological marketing buzz about the White Fluff, the Silver, the Cream, the Amber, the Blue, and the Lavender, and the dirty-ass purple acid, that I still took from time to time and enjoyed it anyway. LSD is for the children of the sun. Selah

Believe me: I realize what the point of the South Park episode was. I don't see us as having necessarily opposing viewpoints on the matter. I just tend to resolve the matter in my own mind by finding science to be, ultimately, as miraculous as anything magic, any spiritualism, any alchemy, any mysticism, &c. one can dream. Astra inclinant, sed non obligant. ("The stars incline us, but they do not bind us.")

and the otters literally say '..that is the logical choice'.

"Know this, Time Child, I shall smash your skull like a clam on my tummy!"

 

[youarethebest]

@wod467 you describe what I would expect was an overly high dose hallucinogen experience.
do you know how much lsd you took?

generally speaking if you have phases of blackout, you took too much.

thats right , you want level 4 (very visionary (almost big hallcinations) or minidose (maybe like 0,5 grams mushrooms if youre not a light head 150 mics. or less

80 mics can be very enjoyable

i really much believe in shifting between almost big doses and mini doses for variety

it is a good life, or at least a better one. almost much

 

[-=SS=-]

The more I learn about scientific truths, the stranger the universe is revealed to be. From quantum entanglement to the theory of relativity, from “many world's" theory to black holes and the possibility of white holes… science is a real mind fuck the deeper it goes, and reality is stranger than most of us would ever think it is. Paradoxes abound.

Without going into a long essay about it, every single one of those scientific areas you mentioned in this quote are nothing but fiction. That's the real mind fuck. It's not that modern science is wrong as a process, but as a process over the past century it has built itself a mathematical-physics paradigm that has absolutely no relation to reality. This was done on purpose; creating the entropic big-bang paradigm, space-time, and all the derivative components/"laws" that keep the prevailing status quo in place.

Yeah that's what I'm saying. I'm not some science fanboy claiming that over-adherence to scientific dogma is somehow a good thing. And the desire to argue and grandstand certainly seems baked into our DNA, so to speak. But just because we can point out some flaws in this thinking does not mean that we get to dismiss science altogether either. Spiritualism is not diametrically opposed to scientific discovery. The two can exist side-by-side and not necessarily conflict with one another.

The problem is that the scientific establishment has intentionally excluded the bridges between the two, specifically around the turn of the 20th century with Tesla, Heaviside, and others who were expounding electrical experiments and theory that clearly revealed there is in fact something quite remarkable just out of sight. Something that actually shows that science and spiritualism are not even side-by-side but complementary components of a dynamism. That there is no separation in fact - electricity is intimately connected with the life process, from material to immaterial/aetheric.

Modern science does deserve far more criticism than it gets. Our dystopian modern world is a fucking disgrace. Wholly inefficient, destructive, and modern science is one of the prime pillars that holds it up. It's futile trying to argue this point to those who can't see it, but I assure you if you stare at things long enough you will see it too. Like one of those Magic-3D pictures, eventually the mind finds the pattern and it pops out. I can forgive the average person for not being able to see it, but modern science is a cult with a priesthood, and it lost its way a long time ago now.

 

[pupnik]

@-=SS=-
while it is true that "science and spiritualism are not even side-by-side but complementary components of a dynamism"
what is true about it is that the viewpoints are on different sides of one reality, and neither of the viewpoints are comprehensive, but reality is reality just the same.
moreover, it is not one set of opposite or complimentary (to be kind) sets of views, but innumerable distortions of views that are all limited by the viewers position in time and space.

 

[foodcrisis]

Do you guys ever notice that when a substance causes a person to do something really violent and harmful, other people who use the substance without causing violent harm will step up to defend the substance as if the substance were responsible for the harm and others will step up to defend the notion of the person as an individual who would not commit such a violent harmful action?

Why isn’t there just a healthy middle ground of; my partner did something violent and harmful while on lsd so I’m going to let them know that I can’t continue to be a part of their life if they continue using the substance, and likewise I need them to pursue professional help under the assumption that some dark part of them needs professional help?


It doesn’t need to be lsd=inherently bad nor does it need to be personal=inherently bad.

It can just be that person =\= using psychedelic drugs

the start of this reminds me of something i heard on reddit, "All people that jump out windows on lsd are suicides." really didn't match my experience at all. i felt like sunlight in window could be so distorted that i thought it was some type of portal to jump out of... i stay away from high dose lsd myself. maybe i'd try again in the right environment, but that'd have to be in a place where it were legal and also maybe like a festival where i couldn't jump out a window or people were around to restrain me if i were trying to gouge my eyes out or something... i really doubt something like that would happened. i tripped a lot and that's not really the reaction i get, but really who knows. i'm not 100% sure how well i know myself even after a lot of high dose tripping.. like the wrong thought could trigger a really bad trip... i could see commiting suicide on lsd irrationally too like the person on reddit described, but saying all lsd deaths involving jumping out of high places are calculated suicides. it doesn't go along with what i experienced like i said... i'm kind of side tracking the OP's story, just something i was thinking about.

 

[unodelacosa]

Without going into a long essay about it, every single one of those scientific areas you mentioned in this quote are nothing but fiction.

That's a bold statement to claim concepts like black holes, quantum entanglement, and relativity are “fiction.” I'm curious, do you extend this skepticism to other established areas of science?

Quantum entanglement, relativity, and black holes are all supported by experimental data and observations. The claim that modern science is a conspiracy is far-fetched. You state that it has “built itself a mathematical-physics paradigm that has absolutely no relation to reality.” This directly contradicts the overwhelming body of evidence supporting these theories, from experimental data to technological applications. Can you provide specific examples of how these theories fail to align with observed reality?

Furthermore, you assert that this disconnect was “done on purpose,” a deliberate attempt to maintain the “status quo.” This implies a vast conspiracy involving countless scientists and institutions. Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: that established scientific theories are the result of rigorous testing and peer review.

The problem is that the scientific establishment has intentionally excluded the bridges between the two, specifically around the turn of the 20th century with Tesla, Heaviside, and others who were expounding electrical experiments and theory that clearly revealed there is in fact something quite remarkable just out of sight.

Ok, I noticed you're an overt fan of Tesla and Heaviside. While both were brilliant innovators, it's important to separate their groundbreaking contributions from their more speculative ideas. Historical context is crucial. As a corollary and for example, Newton, a pioneer of modern physics, also engaged in alchemy. This doesn't invalidate his scientific achievements. But it also doesn't mean we can transmute lead into gold once we find the "philosopher's stone". He wasn't the only alchemist in his time though. Again: context is clutch. In Tesla's time, before Einstein's theory of special relativity, many people considered the potential for the existence of an aether medium as a way of explaining electromagnetism. Nothing against Tesla, but I feel like you might over-credit the man and accept all of his speculations as certain fact.

Something that actually shows that science and spiritualism are not even side-by-side but complementary components of a dynamism. That there is no separation in fact - electricity is intimately connected with the life process, from material to immaterial/aetheric.

Ah, this explains the Tesla and Heaviside comment and why you specifically mentioned electricity. Listen: the so-called "æther" is considered pseudoscience quackery, you know. While exploring the intersection of science and philosophy is valuable, it's essential to distinguish between empirically supported scientific theories and metaphysical beliefs.

Modern science does deserve far more criticism than it gets. Our dystopian modern world is a fucking disgrace.

What's one got to do with the other? You blame the study of science for your disapproval of society? To characterize modern science as a “cult with a priesthood” that has “lost its way” is hilarious trolling, inaccurate, and rich with both irony and projection.

While constructive criticism is essential for scientific progress, dismissing entire fields of research as “fiction” without providing concrete evidence undermines the very process of scientific inquiry.

On a different note, I'm sorry you have such a critical view of the world, but it's understandable and I empathize. I detest all the violence across the globe in 2025 and the ways in which the rich few oppress the poor masses. I, too, am drawn to alternative theories and I love reading about pseudoscience, conspiracies and various outlandish perspectives. Doesn't mean I believe them, and science is updated all the time as our understanding of the world grows. I think there's plenty we still don't understand and hope that one day we do, and I neither think it validates pseudoscientific beliefs nor invalidates spiritualism & the quest for some higher purpose.

I'm open to ideas, and I'm persuaded by logic and reason. Just please provide specific examples and evidence to support your claims, rather than relying on broad generalizations and conspiracy theories.

 

[-=SS=-]

That's a bold statement to claim concepts like black holes, quantum entanglement, and relativity are “fiction.” I'm curious, do you extend this scepticism to other established areas of science?

Absolutely. As I've posted elsewhere, another example is the field of virology which is completely erroneous; there is no such thing as a pathogenic virus, it's all misinterpretation of visual data (electron microscopy) and false assumptions.

Quantum entanglement, relativity, and black holes are all supported by experimental data and observations. The claim that modern science is a conspiracy is far-fetched. You state that it has “built itself a mathematical-physics paradigm that has absolutely no relation to reality.” This directly contradicts the overwhelming body of evidence supporting these theories, from experimental data to technological applications. Can you provide specific examples of how these theories fail to align with observed reality?

There's too much to unpack without an essay; the easiest doorway to seeing the false construct is through astrophysics/cosmology. Time after time our own incoming data completely contradicts the prevailing paradigm, and they just put more and more band-aids on it in an attempt to fix the glaring incongruence e.g. dark matter and galactic rotation. Black holes are a completely mathematical construct, they have/can not be tested (same with dark matter), which is completely antithetical to science itself.. mathematics should be used to describe what experiment reveals, and not to construct a concept structure which they then try to validate with cherry-picked observational data. Tesla stated this himself a century ago, and it is more valid than ever.

Furthermore, you assert that this disconnect was “done on purpose,” a deliberate attempt to maintain the “status quo.” This implies a vast conspiracy involving countless scientists and institutions. Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: that established scientific theories are the result of rigorous testing and peer review.

It doesn't require a monolithic conspiracy involving every single person. It only takes a few at the top who have the strategic view of all the pieces, then through compartmentalization and conditioning you can have vast swathes of people contributing without them even having the slightest inkling. They may be sincere and good people in fact, but contributing none the less to a false paradigm. All that is required is to interject momentum at certain critical points and then social momentum/laws take over for you.

Now two or three generations after that interjection, through the education system you can create pools of people who have absolutely no idea or way of seeing through what is presented as fact for they do not teach the whole picture, the whole story of the disagreements and divergences. You have to go digging in your own time to see the evolution of the science.

Ah, this explains the Tesla and Heaviside comment and why you specifically mentioned electricity. Listen: the so-called "æther" is considered pseudoscience quackery, you know.

No, it's not. I'm putting you on ignore now.

 

[unodelacosa]

Well folks, it's unfortunate that our SS moderator friend has chosen to end the conversation. I was hoping for a productive exchange of ideas, not a bunch of quack theory pseudoscience. And of course, as soon as I confront the idea and push back, they "put me on ignore". I get no specific answers to the questions I asked, no retorts to any points I made… just generalized bullshit and some lame duck excuse about having to write essays in order to explain their so-called "alternative theories". Like that's an excuse for offering no valid evidence: they'd have to write too much Typical snake oil moves. I even tried to maintain a respectful tone and attempted to relate to their nonsense, but some people get butt-hurt when others don't respect their superstitions and/or charlatan-esque ways, and they lash out with disrespect.

I stand by my previous statements, and encourage everyone to use critical thinking when evaluating extraordinary claims.

 

[-=SS=-]

Well folks, it's unfortunate that our SS moderator friend has chosen to end the conversation. I was hoping for a productive exchange of ideas, not a bunch of quack theory pseudoscience. And of course, as soon as I confront the idea and push back, they "put me on ignore". I get no specific answers to the questions I asked, no retorts to any points I made… just generalized bullshit and some lame duck excuse about having to write essays in order to explain their so-called "alternative theories". Like that's an excuse for offering no valid evidence: they'd have to write too much Typical snake oil moves. I even tried to maintain a respectful tone and attempted to relate to their nonsense, but some people get butt-hurt when others don't respect their superstitions and/or charlatan-esque ways, and they lash out with disrespect.

I stand by my previous statements, and encourage everyone to use critical thinking when evaluating extraordinary claims.

When you referenced South Park as some sort of intellectual-philosophical point I knew the dialogue was never going to be productive and that's why I wound down my part in it - I don't watch it anymore because I realized what Matt and Trey have done to peoples reasoning and psychology by absorbing their 'disparage everything but stand for nothing' bullshit.

Even if I wrote you out an essay, you still wouldn't grasp it. Not because it's difficult to comprehend but because you're not open to seeing another angle that's all. You can deny that all you want, but people like you are a dime a dozen my friend, people who feel the need to champion and defend the prevailing scientific paradigm for whatever reason despite the fact that if you just thought about what is already known you would come to the same tangent as myself and thousands of others have. It's not difficult, but you have to concede that you might be wrong, is all.

And be real, you weren't hoping for a productive exchange of ideas but just waiting for something to hang your hat on. Same old same old.

 

[unodelacosa]

[More skirting-the-issue, blaming of South Park, and desperate attempts at wannabe rebuttals]

I hear you chirpin', big bird. What happened to putting me “on ignore”?

I'm putting you on ignore now.

clearly.

If you keep dishing out disrespectful shit-talking I'm gonna dish it right back. What say we call a truce right here and agree to disagree on this point? I'm sorry if I was a little harsh back there. Hopefully we can agree that OP's significant other would be better off avoiding taking LSD in any high dosage if at all. Thoughts?

 

[pupnik]

that is true,
the high dose is not necessary, and this person is somnabulistic. He moves under blackout conditions.

 

[unodelacosa]

that is true,
the high dose is not necessary, and this person is somnabulistic. He moves under blackout conditions.

(Note: I'm writing this in-part to a larger audience. Please forgive some of the redundancy here and inclusion of info you no doubt are already aware of, @pupnik)

A "blackout" state from LSD consumption is not the same thing as somnambulism. They are fundamentally different experiences. LSD-induced "blackout" refers to periods of profound altered consciousness where memory formation is severely disrupted. It's not a loss of consciousness in the traditional sense, but rather a disruption of cognitive processes that allow for memory encoding. LSD significantly alters perception, cognition, and mood, and high doses can lead to states where the individual experiences significant memory gaps. These gaps are due to the drug's impact on brain function, not necessarily a state of sleep. The user is awake, but in a highly altered state.

Somnambulism (sleepwalking) is a sleep disorder where individuals perform actions while asleep. It occurs during deep, non-REM sleep. Individuals are in a sleep state, not a waking state. I'm not sure how you made this leap into thinking that a drug-induced state of altered brain functionality is the same thing as a sleep disorder, but I see no reason to connect the two, plus no studies, empirical evidence, or respected papers supporting this claim. This is an interesting conjecture, but there's nothing to back it up. It's fine to discuss and all, but it's preaching it like it's the absolute gospel, which is inaccurate and probably unwise. That's just my $0.02 on the topic, take it or leave it. My only aim is to help, and please understand that although we may disagree here, I still respect you and value your opinions.

An LSD-induced "blackout" is not the same as somnambulism. It's a state of altered consciousness and memory impairment caused by the drug, not a sleep disorder. The hippocampus is affected in many different ways such as to cause amnesia and so-called "auto-pilot" behaviors. They're not all sleepwalking instances.

 

[unodelacosa]

It's not difficult, but you have to concede that you might be wrong, is all.

I've been reflecting on this and I wanted to explore the notion that perhaps I'm wrong here. So I set about attempting to defend your view on this topic. I cannot honestly say that your opinion is defensible though, and try as I may, I cannot get around the fundamental flaws in your argument, which I've laid out and boil down to the aether being disproven science supplanted by the theory of special relativity. I'm well aware of the arguments that Tesla made against Einstein and his theories, and brilliant though Tesla was, he was not infallible and I'm afraid time and intelligent consensus have shown that special relativity has prevailed. This is why we have technologies such as, e.g.: accurate global GPS, particle accelerators, radar guns, cathode ray tubes, electromagnetism, and nuclear power. Essentially, any technology that involves high speeds or precise measurements of electromagnetic phenomena is likely to have some reliance on the principles of special relativity.

A pivotal experiment in the late 19th century, the Michelson-Morley experiment aimed to detect the Earth's motion through the supposed aether.¹ The experiment's null result—it failed to detect any such motion—presented a significant problem for the aether theory.²

Special relativity, as formulated by Einstein, is built on two key postulates:

1. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion.³
2. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.⁴

These postulates directly contradict the idea of a stationary aether. If an aether existed, it would provide a preferred frame of reference, which special relativity denies.⁵

There's also the issue with the speed of light.

A core tenet of special relativity is the constancy of the speed of light. This means that light always travels at the same speed, regardless of the motion of the observer or the source.⁶ This is incompatible with the aether, which would have been expected to affect the speed of light.

___________________________________
1. MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT | Encyclopedia of Cleveland History
2. Michelson and Morley report their failure to detect the luminiferous ether - This Month in Physics History | American Physical Society
3. Special relativity - Wikipedia
4. Einstein and Stuff, Special Relativity
5. 10.1 Postulates of Special Relativity - Texas Gateway
6. Einstein and Stuff, Special Relativity

When you referenced South Park as some sort of intellectual-philosophical point

No, this was just a joke to grant the convo a little levity when I sensed you were tightening up. I thought we'd share a chuckle, not turn it into some philosophical point.

people like you are a dime a dozen my friend,

This feels like an unnecessary and rude statement to make. It's unclear to me why you felt the need to try to put me down there, although it does have the faint stench of desperation. You can tell by the inclusion of "my friend".

people who feel the need to champion and defend the prevailing scientific paradigm for whatever reason despite the fact that if you just thought about what is already known you would come to the same tangent as myself and thousands of others have.

I'm not sure you understand what the word "tangent" means here, but it's ironically appropriate that you would write this.

And be real, you weren't hoping for a productive exchange of ideas but just waiting for something to hang your hat on. Same old same old.

I was at least hoping for something more clever than a recital of clichés.