What IS a psychedelic?

[Solipsis]

Does it really matter if we can unequivocally call a compound a psychedelic or not? Ketamine can have psychedelic effects, yes. Even if it is usually categorized as a dissociative anaesthetic. Deleriant effects seem distinctly different from psychedelic effects. Cannabis can be psychedelic but to be honest the great majority of the time I have been high/stoned it was barely that. Yet spacecake has made me trip pretty much on par with 2-2.5 grams of mushrooms.

Psychedelic as a term IMO should either refer to a compound that is expected to only produce psychedelic effects and not other types, but also refer to particular mind-manifesting effects any compound might have or that can be had even sober or while meditating etc.

But too much debate on whether someone has had actual psychedelic experiences or not is a waste of time in my opinion. It is a word that can signify something to point to a general phenomenon but if you assault it with a microscope it may be hard to find the exact edges of the definition and you better spend your time on the effects that can easily be unique to the experience.

 

[futuretastic]

Why are we always in the need to classify things? It doesn't effect the way the drugs function, or the experience.

I think deep down this guy is the most right about this conversation.

I think this is a great thread and it is a worthwhile subject that provokes thought and was an interesting read.

However, I personally don't think the term means a whole lot, it's not scientific. It was coined by some dude, now it's a social construct at the whim of the masses that wield the word.

I do think further vocabulary delineation of the psychedelic experience (I used that meaningless word again) is warranted beyond regurgitated freudian psychology about 'ego loss' and so forth.

I propose we call them zxxcvcz's to represent their unpronouncable holiness. That first state you reach where your mind is opened will be called the wibblezoffer.

 

[futuretastic]

Also, I think that the reason we use it so much, and the reason why I used it in the post above, is because it serves a utilitarian purpose in speaking about this group of chems that spans multiple chemical groups (phens, tryps, etc.)... maybe there is some type of common biological action in these chems that is or could be labeled and common across the same approximate groups of chemicals. like 'seratonin receptor agonists' but even that leaves out that special flavor of the psychedelic, you can have seratonin receptor agonists that don't make you trip etc... interesting...

the word seems to fill some kind of gap though, that's what I was trying to describe in my paragraph above.

 

[Survived Abortion]

^Well it's not a useless term; it has served to roughly connote something which is otherwise indescribable. But I agree with nikol that it would be somewhat of an interesting challenge, if not beneficial, to come to an agreement on a new adjective descriptor to denote as far as possible the common ontological paradigm shifts that many structurally dissimilar and similar compounds share the ability to elicit. That is, if it would help people who understand 'psychedelic drugs' to only be a classification of the currently accepted 'classic psychedelics' i.e. not including ketamine, salvia etc. which should definitely be included in a description of drugs which reveal the soul.

 

[futuretastic]

^well, I think it is useless, in a sense. I think one could also make a sound argument for it being detrimental even. Again I point back to the lack of any real scientific thread in the word, hence the confusion it generates about what really is and is not "psychedelic".

The word is what you make it or perceive it to be, but it's not an empirical classification, it's almost a wishy washy stereotype if seen in a certain light.

It's used because it was used but that doesn't make it very useful.

 

[greenberryhaze]

Interestingly, I think that the tactile effects and visuals are another aspect of this same thing. There is a reason that geometric visuals are often self-similar (fractals). I think that this process is also related to a softening in the self-other border (or its entire disillusion if you get far out enough).

My own pet theory regarding the fractal patterns experienced on psychedelics is that information in various visual processing streams leaks backward, creating a recursive process. To see how this is possible look here and here, and/or do a search for optical feedback.

 

[solistus]

I don't think anyone will ever nail down a concrete definition that everyone can agree on, but the basic core property that something needs to qualify as psychedelic to me is a profound change in the experience of self and/or external reality. Anything that causes 'ego death' (defining that is another toughie, but it's like porn, you know it when you see it ; ), synaesthesia, significant alteration of sight, sound and/or touch (more unusual than just feeling numb or having blurred vision)... Any effect which seems difficult or impossible to express adequately with words is probably a good candidate.

Another aspect is how unpredictable or dynamic the effects are. Most drugs feel very 'static' in their effects; the intensity might ebb and flow, but each effect can be explained very simply. Opiates give me a certain warm, pleasant feeling, they have certain consistent physical side effects like itchiness, a familiar body load, etc. Compare that to LSD or mushrooms, where there are a wide range of common effects, but none of them are nearly as consistent or predictable and they tend to react much more dramatically to your mental state. Opiates feel pretty much the same no matter what mood I'm in or what I'm doing. Some moods and settings are more or less suited to those opiate feelings than others, but the feelings themselves don't really change much.

So, I guess my tl;dr list of criteria boils down to two things:

-Sufficiently 'weird' effects, and
-Dependent on set and setting.