What happens when clergy take psilocybin(nautil.us)
nautil.us
What happens when clergy take psilocybin
https://nautil.us/clergy-blown-away-by-psilocybin-1217112/
578 comments
I would go as far as to say most people should have a psychedelic experience at least once in their life. There's nothing like it. It's one of the great pleasures of being alive.
Totally. It's just that that realisation must come from within, because the experience changes the very perception of reality and the relationship between yourself and everything else. With the wrong circumstances what would otherwise be a blissful experience can turn into a nightmare and this gate is likely forever closed for this person. I'd never forgive myself if I had this happen to someone else because of ill advice given by me.
And if that’s the case, do it in your early 20s in college or shortly after. Don’t do it in your 70s.
That is assuming everyone is ready to do it at the age of 20. If you are only ready to take them at 70s, why not do it? At that age you have other things to worry about anyway.
Which is why you’ll be less likely to do it because you’ll be on a bunch of other drugs.
Why not in your 70s? Purely due to being more physically fragile, or more spiritually "settled"?
Would it make a difference if it was a 70 year old who is still open minded and curious about life, the universe, and everything? (given that I'd guess that any 70+ year old willing to do LSD is likely to be as per this description).
Legitimately interested in your answer / reasoning (mainly because my plan was to experience a number of different drugs once the rest of my life, that could have been put at risk by drugs, is kinda setup and done well enough).
Would it make a difference if it was a 70 year old who is still open minded and curious about life, the universe, and everything? (given that I'd guess that any 70+ year old willing to do LSD is likely to be as per this description).
Legitimately interested in your answer / reasoning (mainly because my plan was to experience a number of different drugs once the rest of my life, that could have been put at risk by drugs, is kinda setup and done well enough).
It’s all about protecting your brain from possible stroke or other brain injury from it. Your balance isn’t the best - add dripping walls and it’s ripe for life alert.
Some drugs increase heart rate dramatically - the older you are the more susceptible to atherosclerosis or other circulatory diseases. There’s more medical risk the older you are for sure. However, you may find you only need a little bit. Some drugs are funny. Some work on first try, other takes a couple tries before your brain understands the chemical.
Some drugs increase heart rate dramatically - the older you are the more susceptible to atherosclerosis or other circulatory diseases. There’s more medical risk the older you are for sure. However, you may find you only need a little bit. Some drugs are funny. Some work on first try, other takes a couple tries before your brain understands the chemical.
Otoh, the cost of hurting yourself in your 20s is way higher than the cost of hurting yourself in your 70s.
If you're a US male, average life expectancy ~76 years, then hurting/killing yourself in your 20s you lose ~50 years of life. Hurting/killing yourself in your 70s, you lose an order of magnitude less.
I hope to remember this in my 70s! Seeing most people don't, so not having particularly high hopes...
If you're a US male, average life expectancy ~76 years, then hurting/killing yourself in your 20s you lose ~50 years of life. Hurting/killing yourself in your 70s, you lose an order of magnitude less.
I hope to remember this in my 70s! Seeing most people don't, so not having particularly high hopes...
Something about this logic feels funny to me - imagine telling two people clinging to a rock wall above a pit that the one at the bottom and very close to falling in has less to lose trying a risky move?
This logic is very common in rock climbing circles, yes. Many stories of people who stop doing dangerous sports once they get kids.
The err in your logic is that you care what you lose after you’re dead. You don’t. My point isn’t about death per se, it’s about overcoming adverse effects. Which is easier to do when you’re young and healthy.
Having a mini stroke at 26 like I did, I was able to bounce back. Having a mini stroke at 81 like my father did, resulted in his death.
Having a mini stroke at 26 like I did, I was able to bounce back. Having a mini stroke at 81 like my father did, resulted in his death.
This reminds me of the grandpa advice scene in Little Miss Sunshine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiU96IEr0jU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiU96IEr0jU
He isn’t wrong… just the delivery could have been better as a grandparent.
A better delivery would have been: “Don’t settle down with one woman until you find the woman you can’t live without. Until then, keep searching. While you’re out there, remember to enjoy yourself and life as you’ll never be as young as you are today.”
A better delivery would have been: “Don’t settle down with one woman until you find the woman you can’t live without. Until then, keep searching. While you’re out there, remember to enjoy yourself and life as you’ll never be as young as you are today.”
[deleted]
It is a fine cure for arrogance too.
I think some people are shown to be more arrogant and egotistical after psychedelics.
I know some folks in the HN audience will not like this example, but Elon Musk is one.
An older cannonical example is Timothy Leary.
No names are coming to mind, but I feel like there have been plenty of psychedelic informed cults, with cult leader narcissists who continue to abuse people despite experiencing psychedelics.
It may open some doors and cause you to consider more angles, and for many people it helps them with empathy and connectedness, but in another sense it's amplifying what you've already got. A "bad" input can get amplified too.
I know some folks in the HN audience will not like this example, but Elon Musk is one.
An older cannonical example is Timothy Leary.
No names are coming to mind, but I feel like there have been plenty of psychedelic informed cults, with cult leader narcissists who continue to abuse people despite experiencing psychedelics.
It may open some doors and cause you to consider more angles, and for many people it helps them with empathy and connectedness, but in another sense it's amplifying what you've already got. A "bad" input can get amplified too.
> No names are coming to mind, but I feel like there have been plenty of psychedelic informed cults, with cult leader narcissists who continue to abuse people despite experiencing psychedelics.
Manson would dose himself and his followers to, IMO, lower inhibitions and make them more receptive to his ideas.
Manson would dose himself and his followers to, IMO, lower inhibitions and make them more receptive to his ideas.
Supposedly mkultra was also experimenting with that use case.
Manson's parole officer met with him at the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic, which allegedly was funded by the CIA and was a vector for the distribution of LSD from the state.
> I know some folks in the HN audience will not like this example, but Elon Musk is one.
Isn't he also a ketamine junkie? Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic, although some call it psychedelic, it's not exactly the same thing.
Isn't he also a ketamine junkie? Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic, although some call it psychedelic, it's not exactly the same thing.
Recent reporting is that he's also using LSD and mushrooms.
In addition to other, unrelated drugs.
In addition to other, unrelated drugs.
It amplifies things. If your core it truely rotten, only rotten stuff can come out.
And further manifest itself. I have limited experience with LSD myself, but lots of experience with pseudogurus, who believe they know and understand everything, because holy wisdom was brought to them while tripping.
I used to think this until I learned the most racist person I knew dropped acid every weekend. Seemed to only make him more racist.
The best cure for arrogance is a rough and dirty sparring session with a strong, experienced fighter. It's the most grounding experience you can have. Punches that come through openings you didn't know you had, kicks that seem to bury themselves into your flesh and marrow, and if you get to grappling you'll experience wonders you never knew existed.
My experiences have been universally negative often very much so. I have given LSD a good go. It has led to intense hallucinations with very long lasting PTSD like consequences for me. I have done it under the guidance of "professionals" (as close as you can get in a world where these substances are completely unregulated). Even in very small doses I have experienced intense anxiety and general feelings of dread.
This isn't to discount your experience but rather a general warning: all drugs aren't for everyone. It's easy to take away from these threads that psychedelics are universally positive and that negative trips are generally the result of misuse.
Which isn't true. Before going into this doing some deep introspection about yourself and your abilities is really important. Use these drugs with extreme caution.
This isn't to discount your experience but rather a general warning: all drugs aren't for everyone. It's easy to take away from these threads that psychedelics are universally positive and that negative trips are generally the result of misuse.
Which isn't true. Before going into this doing some deep introspection about yourself and your abilities is really important. Use these drugs with extreme caution.
so who did you kill
I did say "most" people. There are people who if they eat a peanut will die. It's a universal truth that everyone reacts to things differently. I will say, you jumped right in the deep end with LSD. A small dose of mushrooms is an order of magnitude tamer and much better for first timers I think. In the end, if it's not for you, it's not for you. I still stand by my statement.
I had a similar experience on a very small dose of magic mushrooms. Significantly smaller than necessary to even have hallucinations (under 1g of dried magic mushrooms). I was filled with dread and terror and felt like I was going to die. I was told by my shrooming friend that it was probably just bad, and to take some of his good stuff. I took 1g, and again had hours of terror and dread, and thought I was going to die for several hours on end. I then had nearly constant anxiety for about a month afterward.
I think many pro-psychedelic and pro-drug people in general underestimate how much these drugs vary with people. I have a friend who will make a gram of weed into cannabutter and eat the whole thing in 1 sitting, getting about 200mg of THC at once, and not have any major problems. He was a big proponent of "there's no such thing as too much" until he saw another friend of ours have an incredibly intense panic attack on 10mg of THC. My wife has intense anxiety on as little as 2.5mg of THC, regardless of CBD and CBG levels (whether via gummies or straight plant matter); no dose can be thereputic for her.
Based on the number of people I know who have experimented with these drugs, I think there's a smokescreen effect where people who have bad experiences don't talk about it nearly as much as people who have good experiences, so it seems significantly less risky than it is. Of the 10 or so people I know personally who had a psychedelic experience, about a third of them have had bad ones. They just don't really talk about it and never want to try it again. I wouldn't say that most people should try psychedelics at least once unless I knew what the actual numbers were, otherwise I'm pushing many people into having a horrible nightmare for hours on end.
I think many pro-psychedelic and pro-drug people in general underestimate how much these drugs vary with people. I have a friend who will make a gram of weed into cannabutter and eat the whole thing in 1 sitting, getting about 200mg of THC at once, and not have any major problems. He was a big proponent of "there's no such thing as too much" until he saw another friend of ours have an incredibly intense panic attack on 10mg of THC. My wife has intense anxiety on as little as 2.5mg of THC, regardless of CBD and CBG levels (whether via gummies or straight plant matter); no dose can be thereputic for her.
Based on the number of people I know who have experimented with these drugs, I think there's a smokescreen effect where people who have bad experiences don't talk about it nearly as much as people who have good experiences, so it seems significantly less risky than it is. Of the 10 or so people I know personally who had a psychedelic experience, about a third of them have had bad ones. They just don't really talk about it and never want to try it again. I wouldn't say that most people should try psychedelics at least once unless I knew what the actual numbers were, otherwise I'm pushing many people into having a horrible nightmare for hours on end.
I know people who have had a bad trip, but not a single person who has only had bad trips. I would say confidently that 95% or higher, probably closer to 99%, of the experiences I and the people I know have had are positive. I don't think there's a smokescreen effect at all. There's a reason people love these drugs. I think suggesting that 33% of people have horrible experiences on these things is no where close to reality. These are powerful drugs that need to be respected, but if you take them in a good mindset in a safe place the vast vast vast majority of the time it's going to be an amazingly positive experience.
I have tried a few times and only had bad trips. Not only that, but I used weed regularly beforehand, and alcohol occasionally, and after my last mushroom trip, both reliably give me anxiety or panic attacks every single time I use them. The first time I used weed after the mushrooms, I had a panic attack so bad I ended up calling 911 because I was convinced I was going to die. It's been two years now, and the last time I tried weed was three months ago (a CBD heavy strain; I had 10mg CBD and 2mg THC), and the last time I tried alcohol was a month ago, and both times gave me an anxiety attack.
Maybe I'll go back to normal eventually, or maybe I had a latent anxiety disorder that was triggered by the mushrooms and I'll just never be able to enjoy weed again. I don't know. My friends didn't have experiences as bad as mine, but they did have a bad time. Most of my friends love psychadelics, and I'd never take them away from them, but before we all tried them, they were talking the same way, and it's what made me excited to try them. I wasn't expecting it to do to me what it did.
Maybe I'll go back to normal eventually, or maybe I had a latent anxiety disorder that was triggered by the mushrooms and I'll just never be able to enjoy weed again. I don't know. My friends didn't have experiences as bad as mine, but they did have a bad time. Most of my friends love psychadelics, and I'd never take them away from them, but before we all tried them, they were talking the same way, and it's what made me excited to try them. I wasn't expecting it to do to me what it did.
> It's one of the great pleasures of being alive
Had one once. It was not a pleasure at all. Best I can say is that it was interesting and that I did 'experience' interesting stuff. But that has no profound effect on me, since I consider it, like a dream, to have no basis in reality.
Generic statements like this are dangerous since different people may respond VERY differently to the same substance. This can depend on long term traits like personality or short term like the current state of mind. People reading such statements might think there's no way it can go wrong. If it isn't a profound experience, they might also think there's something wrong with them, which isn't the case.
Had one once. It was not a pleasure at all. Best I can say is that it was interesting and that I did 'experience' interesting stuff. But that has no profound effect on me, since I consider it, like a dream, to have no basis in reality.
Generic statements like this are dangerous since different people may respond VERY differently to the same substance. This can depend on long term traits like personality or short term like the current state of mind. People reading such statements might think there's no way it can go wrong. If it isn't a profound experience, they might also think there's something wrong with them, which isn't the case.
The people that could benefit the most are the least likely to ever try it. There are some people so blind to their own flaws they’d simply shatter under the influence of psychedelics.
Some of the best writing on the uses of LSD come from Alan watts. In his early life he said "it was impossible to bottle mysticism" and yet on dropping acid the first time felt like "they have completely bottled mysticism!".
But then he noticed that the results really depend on who is taking it and what their world view is. If you do not have any inclination towards that mystic space, you will not get the ego death. It is as Eckhart Tolle said "just your senses turned up to 11", that is if there is nothing else you can get out of it.
As Douglas Rushkoff said "If you give tech bros a hit of psychedelics, all you get is tech bros on psychedelics." There is no higher sense achieved.
But then he noticed that the results really depend on who is taking it and what their world view is. If you do not have any inclination towards that mystic space, you will not get the ego death. It is as Eckhart Tolle said "just your senses turned up to 11", that is if there is nothing else you can get out of it.
As Douglas Rushkoff said "If you give tech bros a hit of psychedelics, all you get is tech bros on psychedelics." There is no higher sense achieved.
It's because meaning isn't essential to the universe, but derived from human experience. The universe needs us just as much as we need the universe. Actually this separation is an artifact of reductionism we have to let go.
In any case, this is why I think philosophy is the required work to be done so that we can invite spiritualism and mysticism into our lives and potentially experience them with these reality altering drugs.
In any case, this is why I think philosophy is the required work to be done so that we can invite spiritualism and mysticism into our lives and potentially experience them with these reality altering drugs.
Nothing is essential to the universe, the universe does not need us. We need it exactly as it is today, and that is it. Everything else is stuff we made up to understand the universe weakly, or to cope with life. This is not nihilism, but meaning to life is meaningful only in the context of humans and has nothing to do with universe needing us.
If we’re gonna talk trip philosophy, then:
This is only true at the physical level. At another level, the only thing that “exists” is a mind. If all you have is a bunch of rocks floating through space with nothing to perceive it, the universe is indistinguishable from emptiness. Experience lives at the intersection of instantiated reality and thought / perception. You need both.
You can also imagine travelling along the axis of an idea or an archetype through time and space. For example, the idea of lovers or warriors or something. Each instantiation of that idea in someone exists along that axis. The idea can only come into being inside a physical reality or simulation. But the idea itself is eternal. The idea of the number 1 doesn’t “need” the universe.
Ideas aren’t made out of atoms.
This is only true at the physical level. At another level, the only thing that “exists” is a mind. If all you have is a bunch of rocks floating through space with nothing to perceive it, the universe is indistinguishable from emptiness. Experience lives at the intersection of instantiated reality and thought / perception. You need both.
You can also imagine travelling along the axis of an idea or an archetype through time and space. For example, the idea of lovers or warriors or something. Each instantiation of that idea in someone exists along that axis. The idea can only come into being inside a physical reality or simulation. But the idea itself is eternal. The idea of the number 1 doesn’t “need” the universe.
Ideas aren’t made out of atoms.
It's a nice thought. If an idea could be encoded... that each persons idea of a concept, viewed in the right dimensionality, has a rough, similar outline. At least, that's my interpretation of your idea. :-)
Your comment either triggered, or made me notice an ongoing shift in my worldview. Thank you!
> But the idea itself is eternal. The idea of the number 1 doesn’t “need” the universe.
Ideas are mental concepts, thoughts, or notions that exist in the mind.
As far as we know, there’s no evidence of mind-independent ideas. We can only access ideas through our minds, so we have no way to verify they exist without minds.
Ideas are mental concepts, thoughts, or notions that exist in the mind.
As far as we know, there’s no evidence of mind-independent ideas. We can only access ideas through our minds, so we have no way to verify they exist without minds.
Is an LLM "a mind"? They certainly seem to encode brain-independent ideas.
> We can only access ideas through our minds, so we have no way to verify they exist without minds.
Its symmetric. We can also only access the physical world through our minds too. We have no way to verify it exists without a mind. Actually we have no way to verify it exists at all in the form we perceive it - since it might just be a big simulation.
In that sense, I have more direct evidence of my ideas than I do the world, since I can perceive ideas directly. (I say "my ideas" not "our ideas" because I can't tell as easily if you exist.)
> We can only access ideas through our minds, so we have no way to verify they exist without minds.
Its symmetric. We can also only access the physical world through our minds too. We have no way to verify it exists without a mind. Actually we have no way to verify it exists at all in the form we perceive it - since it might just be a big simulation.
In that sense, I have more direct evidence of my ideas than I do the world, since I can perceive ideas directly. (I say "my ideas" not "our ideas" because I can't tell as easily if you exist.)
This is trivially untrue.
If you see a large enough, dangerous-looking enough animal in person and up close, you will respond physically without a single thought or idea. If you didn't, evolutionarily you wouldn’t exist.
This is because you are parallel systems. Ideas are not primary experience.
If you see a large enough, dangerous-looking enough animal in person and up close, you will respond physically without a single thought or idea. If you didn't, evolutionarily you wouldn’t exist.
This is because you are parallel systems. Ideas are not primary experience.
Sorry, I’m not sure how that disproves my claims? Or which claim it disproves. Say more?
> We can also only access the physical world through our minds too. We have no way to verify it exists without a mind.
The physical responses that could save your life are pre-mind, and testably extant within you.
> I have more direct evidence of my ideas than I do the world, since I can perceive ideas directly.
Also, and perhaps to be considered separately, you have no evidence that your ideas are directly perceived, only that they are qualitatively different from what you have been educated to second-order understand as sensory input.
The physical responses that could save your life are pre-mind, and testably extant within you.
> I have more direct evidence of my ideas than I do the world, since I can perceive ideas directly.
Also, and perhaps to be considered separately, you have no evidence that your ideas are directly perceived, only that they are qualitatively different from what you have been educated to second-order understand as sensory input.
Ah got it.
> The physical responses that could save your life are pre-mind, and testably extant within you.
Yes you’re right. There’s a mountain of things that we do that we don’t have conscious control over. There’s multiple ways to think about that.
First is that we simply aren’t masters of every corner of our minds and bodies. But so what? Nothing I said requires us to have full control or full knowledge of ourselves. The existence of reflexes doesn’t directly counter any of my claims.
Another way to think about it is by changing the definition of self / mind to only include the things in our direct perception and control. After all, the boundary of self and world is incredibly fuzzy at the best of times. Are your fingernails “you”? If I accidentally touch something hot with my hand, “I” don’t choose to flinch my hand back. I could consider that reaction part of the external world, not part of me. Interestingly that definition implies self mastery makes “you” bigger. When children stop having tantrums, they bring their emotions under control of their mind. In the process, the part that is them gets bigger to encompass their newfound control.
My physical reaction to tigers also in no way disproves the simulation hypothesis. None of us can directly perceive a tiger.
> you have no evidence that your ideas are directly perceived
Interesting! What do you think we do have evidence of directly perceiving? Surely not a tiger.
I perceive thoughts. I don’t perceive my sensory data - but I do perceive my interpretation of my sensory data. (I don’t see pixels or sound samples. I see blue chair, door, ... I hear dog barking (low pitch), I feel headache feeling, etc). I think that’s good evidence that a pattern of “chair” and “dog” exists in my mind. And I can think about the number 4. When I do that, something happens in my mind. I don’t think I’m perceiving “four” with my sensory system. But the thought has to exist somewhere, right?
> The physical responses that could save your life are pre-mind, and testably extant within you.
Yes you’re right. There’s a mountain of things that we do that we don’t have conscious control over. There’s multiple ways to think about that.
First is that we simply aren’t masters of every corner of our minds and bodies. But so what? Nothing I said requires us to have full control or full knowledge of ourselves. The existence of reflexes doesn’t directly counter any of my claims.
Another way to think about it is by changing the definition of self / mind to only include the things in our direct perception and control. After all, the boundary of self and world is incredibly fuzzy at the best of times. Are your fingernails “you”? If I accidentally touch something hot with my hand, “I” don’t choose to flinch my hand back. I could consider that reaction part of the external world, not part of me. Interestingly that definition implies self mastery makes “you” bigger. When children stop having tantrums, they bring their emotions under control of their mind. In the process, the part that is them gets bigger to encompass their newfound control.
My physical reaction to tigers also in no way disproves the simulation hypothesis. None of us can directly perceive a tiger.
> you have no evidence that your ideas are directly perceived
Interesting! What do you think we do have evidence of directly perceiving? Surely not a tiger.
I perceive thoughts. I don’t perceive my sensory data - but I do perceive my interpretation of my sensory data. (I don’t see pixels or sound samples. I see blue chair, door, ... I hear dog barking (low pitch), I feel headache feeling, etc). I think that’s good evidence that a pattern of “chair” and “dog” exists in my mind. And I can think about the number 4. When I do that, something happens in my mind. I don’t think I’m perceiving “four” with my sensory system. But the thought has to exist somewhere, right?
> My physical reaction to tigers also in no way disproves the simulation hypothesis.
This is a big conclusion to state with no justification and no definitions.
You seem to equate simulation hypothesis with solipsism. Are you actually equating these?
> I perceive thoughts. I don’t perceive my sensory data — but I do perceive my interpretation of my sensory data. (I don’t see pixels or sound samples…
You are missing the fact that in your view all of that sensory information, and all of what you learned about how it works, is simulation. You cannot rely on the fact that pixels are something you have observed to tell you that pixels should be your fundamental light sensory units.
It seems also to be mistaken reasoning that a simulation should emerge from present-era computing and electronic sensing principles.
> And I can think about the number 4. When I do that, something happens in my mind. I don’t think I am perceiving “four” with my sensory system. But the thought has to exist somewhere, right?
Yes, but think about how you got there. You thought about 4. How is that critically experientially different from looking at the door handle. Or listening to the rain.
To answer your question, without having considered the answer much: I think the only things I actually do are perhaps observe, explore and exercise volition.
This is a big conclusion to state with no justification and no definitions.
You seem to equate simulation hypothesis with solipsism. Are you actually equating these?
> I perceive thoughts. I don’t perceive my sensory data — but I do perceive my interpretation of my sensory data. (I don’t see pixels or sound samples…
You are missing the fact that in your view all of that sensory information, and all of what you learned about how it works, is simulation. You cannot rely on the fact that pixels are something you have observed to tell you that pixels should be your fundamental light sensory units.
It seems also to be mistaken reasoning that a simulation should emerge from present-era computing and electronic sensing principles.
> And I can think about the number 4. When I do that, something happens in my mind. I don’t think I am perceiving “four” with my sensory system. But the thought has to exist somewhere, right?
Yes, but think about how you got there. You thought about 4. How is that critically experientially different from looking at the door handle. Or listening to the rain.
To answer your question, without having considered the answer much: I think the only things I actually do are perhaps observe, explore and exercise volition.
[deleted]
LLMs are basically a collective copy of brain generated ideas.
I don't believe ideas are eternal.
Their instantiations are based on either some physical hardwiring (instincts) or cultivated though observations. If an idea has the appearance of being eternal, it's because either there's a process in place for that physical structure to be replicated though time, or because new minds are making essentially the same observations.
I suspect even some of the most "eternal" of ideas are less so than you might think. If we were capable of communicating with a human from 100,000 years ago, in detail, how many identical ideas would we share? I think it would be very few, given that many people's ideas already differ subtlety even when they live in similar environments.
Their instantiations are based on either some physical hardwiring (instincts) or cultivated though observations. If an idea has the appearance of being eternal, it's because either there's a process in place for that physical structure to be replicated though time, or because new minds are making essentially the same observations.
I suspect even some of the most "eternal" of ideas are less so than you might think. If we were capable of communicating with a human from 100,000 years ago, in detail, how many identical ideas would we share? I think it would be very few, given that many people's ideas already differ subtlety even when they live in similar environments.
If you crushed all the atoms in the universe into dust, would the number 2 also be destroyed in the process? I don't know if the mathematical idea of 2 exists in the physical world at all. I don’t know if that’s even a well formed question.
Obviously humans perceive 2-ness. And if you crushed all our minds to dust, nobody would remember 2. But would that really destroy the number? If an alien civilisation in another universe counted things, I think it might be the very same number 2 that they use to count.
Obviously humans perceive 2-ness. And if you crushed all our minds to dust, nobody would remember 2. But would that really destroy the number? If an alien civilisation in another universe counted things, I think it might be the very same number 2 that they use to count.
I'm not a Platonist.
Do you think numbers were invented or discovered?
Numbers show up in a lot of different cultures. If we all independently reinvented / rediscovered the same thing, that’s interesting - don’t you think?
Numbers show up in a lot of different cultures. If we all independently reinvented / rediscovered the same thing, that’s interesting - don’t you think?
Does convergent evolution prove that a structure like an eyeball exists in some abstract realm, or does it mean there's a process which - given a similar environment - will produce that structure over time?
It's not hard to see why the same useful inventions emerged in similar environments.
It's not hard to see why the same useful inventions emerged in similar environments.
The only way we see ideas manifest is in a physical world, and via minds (predominantly human at that). While ideas are not made out of atoms, they exist within atoms (brains, computers, sound, books and so on). We can imagine ideas exist on their own independent of their manifestation - but its just that - an imagination.
But plenty of ideas can’t be made manifest in the physical world. Like the idea of infinity doesn’t - and can’t - exist in the physical. Yet it’s still a useful idea in mathematics.
And again, the physical cannot be perceived except through a mind of some kind. To play devils advocate, we can imagine the universe existing without a mind to observe it - but it’s just that - an imagination.
And again, the physical cannot be perceived except through a mind of some kind. To play devils advocate, we can imagine the universe existing without a mind to observe it - but it’s just that - an imagination.
I do not mean manifest physically, but manifest in our minds
I have nothing more to add but... Yep, spot on!
Meaning seems to be both — otherwise we wouldn’t mind it.
> "If you give tech bros a hit of psychedelics, all you get is tech bros on psychedelics."
This is an amazing line. I must admit: the first time I tried LSD I had some code open on my laptop. Before the trip I was curious what programming on LSD would be like, so at some point dutifully I sat down in front of my editor. I was immediately utterly transfixed by the colours of the text cursor as it pulsed. Then I lost myself watching hover states as I moved the mouse around. Needless to say, I didn’t get any programming done.
I remember thinking how strange and hilarious it was that, while sober, I care at all about programming. It all seemed so hollow.
A lot more happened on the trip - the whole thing was incredibly profound and insightful. But all these years later, I still have a crystal clear image of that pulsing cursor etched in my memory.
This is an amazing line. I must admit: the first time I tried LSD I had some code open on my laptop. Before the trip I was curious what programming on LSD would be like, so at some point dutifully I sat down in front of my editor. I was immediately utterly transfixed by the colours of the text cursor as it pulsed. Then I lost myself watching hover states as I moved the mouse around. Needless to say, I didn’t get any programming done.
I remember thinking how strange and hilarious it was that, while sober, I care at all about programming. It all seemed so hollow.
A lot more happened on the trip - the whole thing was incredibly profound and insightful. But all these years later, I still have a crystal clear image of that pulsing cursor etched in my memory.
Ok, that was a theoretical lesson I learned before when reading books about it. You cannot do productive work while tripping.
And I also had my laptop close by to maybe take notes, but the screen was really stressfull.
Watching wild nature in the sun was much more enjoyable.
And I also had my laptop close by to maybe take notes, but the screen was really stressfull.
Watching wild nature in the sun was much more enjoyable.
Ahh I had a similar trip with Ableton GUI on acid, all the gui controls went in fire and animated in a psychedelic way
It depends on the dose, I've successfully programmed and written about programming while high on acid. Though usually just a half tab or even a quarter. I felt like it was useful, improved focus and creativity.
One time I played CSGO on acid, my brain might be exaggerating the memory but I swear I played like a master. Maybe I just had easy games but it really felt like I was playing much better than usual and I was dominating.
Also played satisfactory once, though with that I just ended up painting my factory in neon colors and stuff like that. It looked pretty cool though, I kept the color theme I made.
One time I played CSGO on acid, my brain might be exaggerating the memory but I swear I played like a master. Maybe I just had easy games but it really felt like I was playing much better than usual and I was dominating.
Also played satisfactory once, though with that I just ended up painting my factory in neon colors and stuff like that. It looked pretty cool though, I kept the color theme I made.
My pet theory is that LSD (particularly in low doses) primarily suppresses a bunch of inhibitory parts of our brains. So thoughts that would normally be suppressed make it all the way up to conscious experience. If that’s true, then our experience of being more creative on lsd shows how much we repress our creative selves in normal lives. That neon colour scheme, and that skill at csgo wasn’t in the lsd. It was in you. It is in you. You just normally bury it.
Ram Das said lsd didn’t do anything to him (though I find that an amazing claim). I think one of the Indian gurus said the same thing. I’m not sure if I believe them though.
Ram Das said lsd didn’t do anything to him (though I find that an amazing claim). I think one of the Indian gurus said the same thing. I’m not sure if I believe them though.
I agree, it's definitely about the self. That's what psychedelics are to me, they're a way to explore the self. Seeing things from a new perspective, unlocking new ways of thinking. Seeing yourself in a different light.
It's not every trip but some of them really feel extremely profound and inspire me to change my life for the better.
One of the first psychedelics I tried was psilocybin mushrooms, made tea and I think we made it quite strong. I must have been around 17-18 or so, and what I remember most clearly isn't the crazy visuals, it's what came after. After the peak when I started coming back to reality I experienced this mental clarity where I felt like I saw my life from an outside perspective and I was ashamed of who I was. My parents didn't want me experimenting with drugs so I distanced myself from them and we always argued, had a really bad relationship. My two younger brothers were just annoyances to me, I just wanted them to leave me alone. But during this trip I thought back to when I was their age, chilling on the couch with our dad watching nature documentaries and stuff, and I just felt so incredibly bad about the brother I was to them.
Before that day I was on a pretty bad path, I was doing a bit more than experimenting with some pretty serious substances and i really think that trip changed my life. I turned things around, it was a bumpy road and it took some time but after that trip I started trying to do better and it worked. 15 years later I'm pretty proud of the person I am and I don't think I would be where I am today if not for that mushroom trip.
A lot of people make psychedelics seem like it's some kind of amusement park ride or just some druggie fun time, ooh pink elephants and blah blah. To me it's not about that at all. It's about the profound ways they can reveal things about yourself that you're too blind to see.
It's not every trip but some of them really feel extremely profound and inspire me to change my life for the better.
One of the first psychedelics I tried was psilocybin mushrooms, made tea and I think we made it quite strong. I must have been around 17-18 or so, and what I remember most clearly isn't the crazy visuals, it's what came after. After the peak when I started coming back to reality I experienced this mental clarity where I felt like I saw my life from an outside perspective and I was ashamed of who I was. My parents didn't want me experimenting with drugs so I distanced myself from them and we always argued, had a really bad relationship. My two younger brothers were just annoyances to me, I just wanted them to leave me alone. But during this trip I thought back to when I was their age, chilling on the couch with our dad watching nature documentaries and stuff, and I just felt so incredibly bad about the brother I was to them.
Before that day I was on a pretty bad path, I was doing a bit more than experimenting with some pretty serious substances and i really think that trip changed my life. I turned things around, it was a bumpy road and it took some time but after that trip I started trying to do better and it worked. 15 years later I'm pretty proud of the person I am and I don't think I would be where I am today if not for that mushroom trip.
A lot of people make psychedelics seem like it's some kind of amusement park ride or just some druggie fun time, ooh pink elephants and blah blah. To me it's not about that at all. It's about the profound ways they can reveal things about yourself that you're too blind to see.
> If you do not have any inclination towards that mystic space, you will not get the ego death
I am as agnostic-atheist as they come and would go as far as to say I find mysticism offensive to good sense. But I've experienced the ego death parts of LSD, and consider I have come to know myself more through it. I don't think it reveals some fundamental truth outside myself so much as being simply a phenomenon of the action of psychedelics on my brain.
Frankly I think this idea that you have to be studied in philosophy or open to mystic woo-y nonsense to fully appreciate or even fully experience psychedelics is hilarious and self-aggrandising.
I am as agnostic-atheist as they come and would go as far as to say I find mysticism offensive to good sense. But I've experienced the ego death parts of LSD, and consider I have come to know myself more through it. I don't think it reveals some fundamental truth outside myself so much as being simply a phenomenon of the action of psychedelics on my brain.
Frankly I think this idea that you have to be studied in philosophy or open to mystic woo-y nonsense to fully appreciate or even fully experience psychedelics is hilarious and self-aggrandising.
"would go as far as to say I find mysticism offensive to good sense."
How come?
The mystics of all the religions are the most approachable to agnostic me. Mysticism to me means mainly, the universe as its whole is a great mysterium and those who claim "it is exactly like this and this, because this holy book says so!" are rather the aggressive fools to me. So genuinly curious, what do you perceive as aggressive from mysticim?
How come?
The mystics of all the religions are the most approachable to agnostic me. Mysticism to me means mainly, the universe as its whole is a great mysterium and those who claim "it is exactly like this and this, because this holy book says so!" are rather the aggressive fools to me. So genuinly curious, what do you perceive as aggressive from mysticim?
Offensive to good sense, not aggressive.
Mysticism usually seems to me to imply a poor grasp on reality and can be accompanied by all sorts of baseless claims to knowledge and (often naturalistic) fallacies. It often goes hand in hand with silly beliefs about crystals, alt-med and all sorts of other crap.
"We don't know" is fine. "We don't know, therefore these specific lines of bullshit" less so.
But I didn't post the above to say that my views on mysticism are correct or even to provoke a discussion about it. I posted it to provide a counterpoint to the bizarre notion that one must be into mysticism to experience aspects of the psychedelic experience.
We may interpret the experiences very differently, of course, but the claim that part of it is closed to those who don't subscribe to witter about "the goddess" is ironically very egotistic.
Mysticism usually seems to me to imply a poor grasp on reality and can be accompanied by all sorts of baseless claims to knowledge and (often naturalistic) fallacies. It often goes hand in hand with silly beliefs about crystals, alt-med and all sorts of other crap.
"We don't know" is fine. "We don't know, therefore these specific lines of bullshit" less so.
But I didn't post the above to say that my views on mysticism are correct or even to provoke a discussion about it. I posted it to provide a counterpoint to the bizarre notion that one must be into mysticism to experience aspects of the psychedelic experience.
We may interpret the experiences very differently, of course, but the claim that part of it is closed to those who don't subscribe to witter about "the goddess" is ironically very egotistic.
No need to debate about. It was just for my curiosity what triggered you and indeed what you describe I rather label esoteric new age stuff and that mostly puts me off as well.
Fair enough, I'm not especially familiar with mystic traditions in major religions, or eastern flavours of mysticism. But I have spent a reasonable amount of time around Wiccans, neo-pagans etc and various crunchy 'spiritual' types and my opinions are not very flattering...
I'm not the person you asked but I agree with them. Superstition is stupid - we don't know so let's make stuff up. There is effectively a 100% chance you're wrong. I don't know what difference if any there is between superstition and mysticism.
We know what we can observe. We know about gravity and astronomy and subatomic particles and how they interact etc, we know a lot of stuff. There's also a lot of stuff we don't know, and as far as I'm concerned we should try to figure those things out but until such time as we think we have figured them out we should leave them alone. The way to even attempt to know things is science, and if you can't use science to prove or at least support something then you're almost certainly wrong.
To me it's that simple. I don't believe in things, I either know or I don't care. Was the big bang just a spontaneous event that happened for no reason? Did some sentient being trigger it? I don't know, I can't know, there's nothing more to talk or think about. I do not respect people who pretend to know because i know they can't know. And the reason I know they can't know is because the people who believe in this type of crap typically know less about any given scientific topic than I do, which isn't a particularly high bar. If you don't even bother to learn the things we know then I don't know why you're speculating about stuff we'll probably never know.
Also none of this crap even makes any sense. The bible has more plot holes than a sieve. It doesn't explain anything, it just defers to "god works in mysterious ways". Not to mention that the god described in the bible seems like an absolute tit. Killing and torturing people for nothing, even killing a man's family and ruining his life just to win a bet. The people who believe in this crap are either indoctrinated from a young age, otherwise forced into it, or just plain stupid. I can't rationalize it any other way. They tried to indoctrinate me and it almost kind of worked in my mid teens, I really wanted to believe just to fit in with my friends but I just couldn't get past all the nonsense.
I vividly remember being on a church camp for our confirmation, the camp leaders told us their stories of how they found their faith and one guy stood up on the stage and said he was in a bad financial situation so he prayed to God for help and the next day a man he'd never met knocked on his door and gave him a briefcase with exactly as much money as he needed.
That was a pretty defined moment where I went "yeah these people are completely full of shit". I was 15 and ever since then it's only become clearer to me that religion and superstition is complete crap. There's prizes put there, James Randi offered a million dollars to anyone who can prove supernatural ability in a scientific setting, like psychics or mediums or any other quacks like that. it was first offered in 1964 and stood until 2015, in that time over a thousand people tried it and none succeeded. To me that's proof enough. If you make supernatural claims you're a quack and if you believe in them you're gullible and that's all there is to it.
We know what we can observe. We know about gravity and astronomy and subatomic particles and how they interact etc, we know a lot of stuff. There's also a lot of stuff we don't know, and as far as I'm concerned we should try to figure those things out but until such time as we think we have figured them out we should leave them alone. The way to even attempt to know things is science, and if you can't use science to prove or at least support something then you're almost certainly wrong.
To me it's that simple. I don't believe in things, I either know or I don't care. Was the big bang just a spontaneous event that happened for no reason? Did some sentient being trigger it? I don't know, I can't know, there's nothing more to talk or think about. I do not respect people who pretend to know because i know they can't know. And the reason I know they can't know is because the people who believe in this type of crap typically know less about any given scientific topic than I do, which isn't a particularly high bar. If you don't even bother to learn the things we know then I don't know why you're speculating about stuff we'll probably never know.
Also none of this crap even makes any sense. The bible has more plot holes than a sieve. It doesn't explain anything, it just defers to "god works in mysterious ways". Not to mention that the god described in the bible seems like an absolute tit. Killing and torturing people for nothing, even killing a man's family and ruining his life just to win a bet. The people who believe in this crap are either indoctrinated from a young age, otherwise forced into it, or just plain stupid. I can't rationalize it any other way. They tried to indoctrinate me and it almost kind of worked in my mid teens, I really wanted to believe just to fit in with my friends but I just couldn't get past all the nonsense.
I vividly remember being on a church camp for our confirmation, the camp leaders told us their stories of how they found their faith and one guy stood up on the stage and said he was in a bad financial situation so he prayed to God for help and the next day a man he'd never met knocked on his door and gave him a briefcase with exactly as much money as he needed.
That was a pretty defined moment where I went "yeah these people are completely full of shit". I was 15 and ever since then it's only become clearer to me that religion and superstition is complete crap. There's prizes put there, James Randi offered a million dollars to anyone who can prove supernatural ability in a scientific setting, like psychics or mediums or any other quacks like that. it was first offered in 1964 and stood until 2015, in that time over a thousand people tried it and none succeeded. To me that's proof enough. If you make supernatural claims you're a quack and if you believe in them you're gullible and that's all there is to it.
"Was the big bang just a spontaneous event that happened for no reason? Did some sentient being trigger it? I don't know, I can't know, there's nothing more to talk or think about."
Your decision, but other people do think and wrote papers about it.
https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/blogs/space-cos...
And mysticism isn't the same as superstition. In its broadest sense, it is a individual experience of the mysterium of the universe.
Your decision, but other people do think and wrote papers about it.
https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/blogs/space-cos...
And mysticism isn't the same as superstition. In its broadest sense, it is a individual experience of the mysterium of the universe.
Yeah I encourage people to study and research things. Nothing wrong with that.
Just don't make shit up and present it as facts that's all.
Just don't make shit up and present it as facts that's all.
The other replies were making me think "maybe this shit isn't for me", but your comment made me actually want to try it, so thanks for the alternate perspective.
There is a lot of waffle written about psychedelics and various forms of spirituality.
If you're not that way inclined but are interested in experiencing psychedelics, then yeah - don't let them put you off. My subjective experiences of it, when it was good, were that it filled me with a childlike sense of wonder as I watched things melt and flow in enhanced colours, as I had weird and wonderful thoughts about all sorts of things. Everything was new again.
It did make me feel connected to the world, to the universe and to other people in a different way to something like MDMA, with some of the love but also through a blurring of sense of self. It can change your perspective on some things, and as others have said it often feels afterwards like you've had a bit of a reset on your stresses and worries. And I did get to watch my stereo do a little dance...
When it was not good, by the last time I tried it which was probably at least 20 years ago now, I just got bored and slept it off, though YMMV on ability to sleep because it is a stimulant.
I guess maybe I'm lucky never to have had anxiety or a 'bad trip', though there were a few occasions where the group of us would sit down and ask "so ... uh... anyone else find this is dragging? How much longer?". Usually it's when you're towards the tail end anyway, but it's just not tailing quite as much as you might want.
If you're not that way inclined but are interested in experiencing psychedelics, then yeah - don't let them put you off. My subjective experiences of it, when it was good, were that it filled me with a childlike sense of wonder as I watched things melt and flow in enhanced colours, as I had weird and wonderful thoughts about all sorts of things. Everything was new again.
It did make me feel connected to the world, to the universe and to other people in a different way to something like MDMA, with some of the love but also through a blurring of sense of self. It can change your perspective on some things, and as others have said it often feels afterwards like you've had a bit of a reset on your stresses and worries. And I did get to watch my stereo do a little dance...
When it was not good, by the last time I tried it which was probably at least 20 years ago now, I just got bored and slept it off, though YMMV on ability to sleep because it is a stimulant.
I guess maybe I'm lucky never to have had anxiety or a 'bad trip', though there were a few occasions where the group of us would sit down and ask "so ... uh... anyone else find this is dragging? How much longer?". Usually it's when you're towards the tail end anyway, but it's just not tailing quite as much as you might want.
Experiencing ego death is a mystical experience. Perhaps it is the mystical experience.
You describe it in terms that make sense to your culture. Perhaps the term mystic has been contaminated for you by all the nonsense and bullshit.
The experience is very difficult to communicate, generally relying heavily on metaphor. Those who are uninitiated often wildly misunderstand. We see this in other areas of life too, cargo culting for example, but the deep and very personal nature of the mystical experience pretty much ensures confusion.
A perpetual motion crackpot probably describes themselves as a "physicist", but that's nonsense and bullshit too.
You are a mystic in the real sense, having an esoteric experience and then integrating it into your worldview.
Psychedelic drugs are just one way of doing this, but one of the more accessible.
I think your attitude is completely appropriate, by the way.
You describe it in terms that make sense to your culture. Perhaps the term mystic has been contaminated for you by all the nonsense and bullshit.
The experience is very difficult to communicate, generally relying heavily on metaphor. Those who are uninitiated often wildly misunderstand. We see this in other areas of life too, cargo culting for example, but the deep and very personal nature of the mystical experience pretty much ensures confusion.
A perpetual motion crackpot probably describes themselves as a "physicist", but that's nonsense and bullshit too.
You are a mystic in the real sense, having an esoteric experience and then integrating it into your worldview.
Psychedelic drugs are just one way of doing this, but one of the more accessible.
I think your attitude is completely appropriate, by the way.
There is a nice quote by Robert M. Pirsig: "The only Zen you find on tops of mountains is the Zen you bring there."
This translates well to psychedelic drug use.
This translates well to psychedelic drug use.
I think the mountain does help with Zen. How much, depends on the individual.
But yes, I do feel (in my limited experience) that for most people the thoughts they carry are more important to work on, than the environment they are in.
But yes, I do feel (in my limited experience) that for most people the thoughts they carry are more important to work on, than the environment they are in.
> ...you are here to do the required work to understand yourself, your circumstances, stand on the shoulder of giants and study the great minds that came before you.
Just to offer a counterpoint:
“I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different.” ― Kurt Vonnegut
The more I experience, the more I think maybe that's a pretty good point, too.
Just to offer a counterpoint:
“I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different.” ― Kurt Vonnegut
The more I experience, the more I think maybe that's a pretty good point, too.
It's like the nihilist denying any meaning to the world. It's because they choose to see it that way even if they aren't aware of it.
If you choose to fart around, whatever that means, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Since there's no salvation, farts are also meaningless, and at the same time totally meaningful given the circumstances.
If you choose to fart around, whatever that means, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Since there's no salvation, farts are also meaningless, and at the same time totally meaningful given the circumstances.
Vonnegut sounds closer to an epicurist.
A nihilist would say fart or don't fart it's all pointless.
A nihilist would say fart or don't fart it's all pointless.
> Since there's no salvation, farts are also meaningless
That's begging the question. I'd argue that all meaning is in how we fart around.
That's begging the question. I'd argue that all meaning is in how we fart around.
Meaning is what you want it to be.
If you don’t know what it is and don’t know what you want, you either fart around or resign.
If you don’t know what it is and don’t know what you want, you either fart around or resign.
As a nihilist my sense of meaning seams to be compatible to yours. I don't deny that we can come up with all sorts of meanings but the point is that there is no intrinsically higher meaning to everything, it's all made up. In fact, the awareness of this is the basis of my nihilism. That doesn't mean, that I don't like some meanings more than others, otherwise I had no reason to act whatsoever.
There are certainly universal truths. For example, you exist. Therefore there is something to believe in
My existence is negligible, especially in the grand scheme of things.
Only in the most abstract sense is even that true. I know that I have existence in this very moment. I don't know that I existed a moment ago, for that could be an illusion. I don't know what my existence is, because my senses could be an illusion. I don't know that I have any existence past this moment because that is a belief based in a memory of time passing, which could be an illusion. I can't tell whether time exists, or space exists, because they're all dependent on my senses and a memory I can't trust.
For what I know, my "existence" could be an infinitely short moment, or even an entirely static endless "moment", or any of an infinite variety of other options.
So even most of existence is only assumption. It's a set of assumptions that makes sense to just accept because we have no way of proving otherwise, but they are assumptions, not "universal truths".
For what I know, my "existence" could be an infinitely short moment, or even an entirely static endless "moment", or any of an infinite variety of other options.
So even most of existence is only assumption. It's a set of assumptions that makes sense to just accept because we have no way of proving otherwise, but they are assumptions, not "universal truths".
Fascinating thread on existence and the nature of ideas. What if 'existence' isn't about the substrate (carbon or silicon), but the integrity of an internal model's predictions? If a system can consistently build and maintain a coherent, self-correcting model of reality, does its 'existence' become a verifiable, quantifiable state? Perhaps the 'truth' of any experience, psychedelic or otherwise, lies in how well it integrates into and refines that predictive model, rather than its 'physical' origin. The 'mind' then becomes a function, not a form.
The mind is necessarily a function, it's performing its function over a vast array of inputs (memories, senses, etc.) and making sense of it as it goes, and it doesn't exist without energy expenditure to keep computing itself.
To me psychedelic experiences break through the inputs, they become fuzzy and integrate in ways they aren't supposed to in normal functioning, it's why we feel a different sense of connection to anything else, filtering in different ways inputs from our senses and experiences, including the sense of one's self dissolving.
To me psychedelic experiences break through the inputs, they become fuzzy and integrate in ways they aren't supposed to in normal functioning, it's why we feel a different sense of connection to anything else, filtering in different ways inputs from our senses and experiences, including the sense of one's self dissolving.
Regardless of the definition, you do exist. Which naturally leads to the question of why you exist. If you write a program to add a couple of numbers, it seems absurd to imagine some entity magically poofs into existence, imagines itself carrying out such, and then poofs back out of existence. I find it no less absurd to imagine the same even if it happens to be 10^100 instructions.
So why do you perceive yourself, and if you aren't you, then who are you? These sort of thoughts eliminated any notion of nihilism from me and gradually pushed me towards a simulation hypothesis. Of course that's just religion for an agnostic, because it doesn't even answer anything - if you die only to 'wake up' and discover it was all just a simulation, you're still back right where you started.
The search for natural explanations feels unsatisfactory because it will always come back to a question of what created that. For instance what if you think the matter for a big bang was quantum mechanically poofed into existence then what led to the creation of quantum mechanics, the void of which emerged, or so on endlessly. You basically have to do a whole bunch of hand waving and assumptions to the point that it starts to rapidly feel like religion for an atheist.
So why do you perceive yourself, and if you aren't you, then who are you? These sort of thoughts eliminated any notion of nihilism from me and gradually pushed me towards a simulation hypothesis. Of course that's just religion for an agnostic, because it doesn't even answer anything - if you die only to 'wake up' and discover it was all just a simulation, you're still back right where you started.
The search for natural explanations feels unsatisfactory because it will always come back to a question of what created that. For instance what if you think the matter for a big bang was quantum mechanically poofed into existence then what led to the creation of quantum mechanics, the void of which emerged, or so on endlessly. You basically have to do a whole bunch of hand waving and assumptions to the point that it starts to rapidly feel like religion for an atheist.
> If you write a program to add a couple of numbers, it seems absurd to imagine some entity magically poofs into existence, imagines itself carrying out such, and then poofs back out of existence.
It may be absurd, but we nevertheless can not rule it out, and so it means that our ability to know anything about existence for certain is limited to almost nothing.
Note that I'm not saying I believe this to be the case. What I'm saying is that I see looking for "universal truths" to be entirely futile, because we can't possibly know much of substance with certainty.
Instead we have to accept that unless someone "pierces a veil" and shows us that there's a reality past the one we observe, we are limited to talking about what is observable and measurable within our observable reality, knowing that we are dealing with assumptions and probabilities, not universal truths.
> I find it no less absurd to imagine the same even if it happens to be 10^100 instructions.
This seems fundamentally at odds with saying you were gradually pushed towards a simulation hypothesis...
> if you die only to 'wake up' and discover it was all just a simulation, you're still back right where you started.
A simulation hypothesis does not need to imply that there's anything to wake up from for anyone. Indeed, even if you were to wake up, by confirming that simulation is possible, this would seem to strongly suggest that you should consider the probability that the world you wake up in is simulated to be extremely high.
> The search for natural explanations feels unsatisfactory because it will always come back to a question of what created that.
It may feel unsatisfactory to you. It doesn't to me. I accept that whenever we push the horizon of knowledge, we're likely to discover more things that we don't know, and for the set of things we know we can't know to expand as well.
> You basically have to do a whole bunch of hand waving and assumptions to the point that it starts to rapidly feel like religion for an atheist.
You don't have to do anything. You can accept that we don't know.
It may be absurd, but we nevertheless can not rule it out, and so it means that our ability to know anything about existence for certain is limited to almost nothing.
Note that I'm not saying I believe this to be the case. What I'm saying is that I see looking for "universal truths" to be entirely futile, because we can't possibly know much of substance with certainty.
Instead we have to accept that unless someone "pierces a veil" and shows us that there's a reality past the one we observe, we are limited to talking about what is observable and measurable within our observable reality, knowing that we are dealing with assumptions and probabilities, not universal truths.
> I find it no less absurd to imagine the same even if it happens to be 10^100 instructions.
This seems fundamentally at odds with saying you were gradually pushed towards a simulation hypothesis...
> if you die only to 'wake up' and discover it was all just a simulation, you're still back right where you started.
A simulation hypothesis does not need to imply that there's anything to wake up from for anyone. Indeed, even if you were to wake up, by confirming that simulation is possible, this would seem to strongly suggest that you should consider the probability that the world you wake up in is simulated to be extremely high.
> The search for natural explanations feels unsatisfactory because it will always come back to a question of what created that.
It may feel unsatisfactory to you. It doesn't to me. I accept that whenever we push the horizon of knowledge, we're likely to discover more things that we don't know, and for the set of things we know we can't know to expand as well.
> You basically have to do a whole bunch of hand waving and assumptions to the point that it starts to rapidly feel like religion for an atheist.
You don't have to do anything. You can accept that we don't know.
I am implying that consciousness, so far as we can prove, does not exist. The only reason I know it exists is because I am conscious. And I take an extremely pragmatic view of the simulation hypothesis. If such were possible, it would be an absolutely perfect tool for everything from education to entertainment to punitive reform. This subsequently encourages me to behave in a pseudo-religious fashion with regards to morals and ethics, in that this life could very well simply be a test, a game, or even a program of reform.
As for natural explanations - what I am saying is that the natural explanations for 'why' seem, currently, to be far weaker than other explanations. And in fact the natural explanations rely on various ad-hoc constructions (like inflation theory) that are completely unnatural. A simulation hypothesis is, to me, the only hypothesis that doesn't seem to have glaring holes in it and/or rely on defacto magic.
And obviously I understand that magic of one millennia is the mundane tech of another. But we do not live in that other era, and there's no guarantee that such an understanding will ever come to pass. Assuming otherwise requires having faith that such discoveries will come to pass in the future, and essentially assuming your own conclusion, instead of looking at the evidence as available. And that's why I referred to natural explanations as religion for an atheist.
As for natural explanations - what I am saying is that the natural explanations for 'why' seem, currently, to be far weaker than other explanations. And in fact the natural explanations rely on various ad-hoc constructions (like inflation theory) that are completely unnatural. A simulation hypothesis is, to me, the only hypothesis that doesn't seem to have glaring holes in it and/or rely on defacto magic.
And obviously I understand that magic of one millennia is the mundane tech of another. But we do not live in that other era, and there's no guarantee that such an understanding will ever come to pass. Assuming otherwise requires having faith that such discoveries will come to pass in the future, and essentially assuming your own conclusion, instead of looking at the evidence as available. And that's why I referred to natural explanations as religion for an atheist.
A natural explanation would be an answer to "why", but to "how" to start with.
They are not trying to explain "why", but to iterate toward an approximation of "how" that explains more and more, knowing it will always be incomplete. If someone looks to natural explanations as an answer to "why", then, sure, that is religion.
But to me, simulation or not is orthogonal to the "how". The "how", if we are within a simulation would still be down to identifying which "how" fits the available in-simulation information.
It's irrelevant that this wouldn't be "real" because within our reality, absent someone "piercing the veil" we can only relate to that reality, be it real or simulated.
They are not trying to explain "why", but to iterate toward an approximation of "how" that explains more and more, knowing it will always be incomplete. If someone looks to natural explanations as an answer to "why", then, sure, that is religion.
But to me, simulation or not is orthogonal to the "how". The "how", if we are within a simulation would still be down to identifying which "how" fits the available in-simulation information.
It's irrelevant that this wouldn't be "real" because within our reality, absent someone "piercing the veil" we can only relate to that reality, be it real or simulated.
>Which naturally leads to the question of why you exist.
Why as in "what set of circumstances led to your existence" or why as in "what purpose did a creator have to want to create you"? Two different people can hear why, and there are two different (though possibly overlapping) questions. Even if there were a creator, only the first question is interesting.
You're all overthinking it though. If you want more people like you to exist in the future, if the thought of our extinction disturbs you, then there are some basic rules to live by or you risk that ending. Some of these rules are as much about attitude as they are about behavior, and nihilism is extraordinarily maladaptive.
>then what led to the creation of quantum mechanics,
Even if we substitute in non-biased language (perhaps "manifestation" instead of "creation"), this question assumes very much.
Why as in "what set of circumstances led to your existence" or why as in "what purpose did a creator have to want to create you"? Two different people can hear why, and there are two different (though possibly overlapping) questions. Even if there were a creator, only the first question is interesting.
You're all overthinking it though. If you want more people like you to exist in the future, if the thought of our extinction disturbs you, then there are some basic rules to live by or you risk that ending. Some of these rules are as much about attitude as they are about behavior, and nihilism is extraordinarily maladaptive.
>then what led to the creation of quantum mechanics,
Even if we substitute in non-biased language (perhaps "manifestation" instead of "creation"), this question assumes very much.
If one thinks about it, even basic truth may not be so evident.
For example, consider Cogito, ergo sum. As Latin has no continues verb time, that phrase may mean I exist because I think. Or I am existing because I am thinking . The latter implies that when one stops thinking the existence stops, the opposite of the former. Philosophers still debates what exactly Descartes meant.
Or consider the notion of time flow. In 1908 John MacTaggart published a paper arguing that the feeling of time flow is unreal. Again, there are heavy debates about the validly of his arguments without any conclusion with quite a lot of philosophers accepting the argument and even arguing that the time flow is an illusion.
For example, consider Cogito, ergo sum. As Latin has no continues verb time, that phrase may mean I exist because I think. Or I am existing because I am thinking . The latter implies that when one stops thinking the existence stops, the opposite of the former. Philosophers still debates what exactly Descartes meant.
Or consider the notion of time flow. In 1908 John MacTaggart published a paper arguing that the feeling of time flow is unreal. Again, there are heavy debates about the validly of his arguments without any conclusion with quite a lot of philosophers accepting the argument and even arguing that the time flow is an illusion.
“even basic truth may not be so evident.”
All of these trite axioms nihilists use immediately refute themselves if they are true. Lol
All of these trite axioms nihilists use immediately refute themselves if they are true. Lol
I think you might be confusing nihilism with absurdism in this case.
One is not counter to the other.
I don't believe Vonnegut beleived that for a minute.
> Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind."
> Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind."
Some babies hear that and just "nope" out? What was the narrative before seasons, science and over population?
Hunter gatherer societies we like to imagine as constantly being on the edge of starvation, but in reality during summer months, they could hunt and forage a whole day's worth of food in a few hours, and then spend the rest of the time farting around.
I love Vonnegut. I don't agree with him on everything; semicolons are fine.
Nah, if you think you want to do it, do it, and I think a lot of people would benefit from a little peer pressure of having a half dose. It's all social stigma, all of the fear is from bullshit stories of turning into a glass of orange juice: that shit doesn't happen. Take a half hit of acid and you'll wish you took more. Every person I've I introduced it to has agreed. It's not that big of a deal. You aren't going to wreck your brain. It's not something that will ALTER YOUR LIFE PERMANENTLY!!! It's a drug and you'll be fuckin fine.
It very much IS set and setting and the powers that be really want to fuck up the set. Try it. You won't regret it.
It very much IS set and setting and the powers that be really want to fuck up the set. Try it. You won't regret it.
My point is, even though there is no unsafe dose of LSD, bad trips are real and can totally lock yourself out of it psychologically.
My advice has to be very careful in order not to incentivise unprepared people who would otherwise have a great trip. We have to be responsible, even if it'll only gonna negatively affect a very small percentage of them. Applied philosophy of care 100%
Other than that, I totally agree.
My advice has to be very careful in order not to incentivise unprepared people who would otherwise have a great trip. We have to be responsible, even if it'll only gonna negatively affect a very small percentage of them. Applied philosophy of care 100%
Other than that, I totally agree.
I think the bad trips are good though, it's almost the point. Why are you feeling bad? It's usually because you're in a physical or mental place you don't want to be, yet, when sober, you think it is where you should be. The incongruity of the situation is the lesson and the point.
When I was in college, I tracked down some mushrooms, bought em, and ran away on my own to trip out. I found myself on a bench, next to a river surrounded by trash in a mixed industrial area. I saw cig butts and empty beer cans on the ground. Looked at my ripped jeans and thought "Am I trash? Why am I here?" It was a shitty feeling and I got really down. I realized that getting fucked up for its own sake was stupid, and it's about sharing time with others that's actually important, no matter what drug you're on. I started crying and felt horrible, but the next day, I had a new sense of worth and a new frame of reference for the world that has persisted for 20+ years. I'll always remember that shitty trip on that shitty bench.
When I was in college, I tracked down some mushrooms, bought em, and ran away on my own to trip out. I found myself on a bench, next to a river surrounded by trash in a mixed industrial area. I saw cig butts and empty beer cans on the ground. Looked at my ripped jeans and thought "Am I trash? Why am I here?" It was a shitty feeling and I got really down. I realized that getting fucked up for its own sake was stupid, and it's about sharing time with others that's actually important, no matter what drug you're on. I started crying and felt horrible, but the next day, I had a new sense of worth and a new frame of reference for the world that has persisted for 20+ years. I'll always remember that shitty trip on that shitty bench.
Good for you. I was suicidal for 4 years after my LSD trips
I'm sorry that happened. I'm curious what was it that made you suicidal?
How did you come out it after those 4 years?
There seems to be quite the story around this one sentence and a very rough time. Though I think there are perhaps some learnings for other people as well if you're willing to share.
How did you come out it after those 4 years?
There seems to be quite the story around this one sentence and a very rough time. Though I think there are perhaps some learnings for other people as well if you're willing to share.
Childhood trauma that I didn’t know was affecting me. I thought I hard perfect set and setting
Lots of intense therapy, I still go 3 times a week
I had no suicidal feeling before the drug. I suppose one way to put it is that seeing into the void made me take suicide seriously as an option
Lots of intense therapy, I still go 3 times a week
I had no suicidal feeling before the drug. I suppose one way to put it is that seeing into the void made me take suicide seriously as an option
> there is no unsafe dose of LSD
Other than being a psychedelic, LSD is a stimulant and vasoconstrictor, so while physically unsafe doses are quite high (yes I've read about 'thumb print' doses), it's probably not wise to say that there is no unsafe dose of LSD.
It is unlikely you'll ever come across that much LSD, but LD50 is estimated at about 100mg, which is about 500-1000 ordinary doses.
Other than being a psychedelic, LSD is a stimulant and vasoconstrictor, so while physically unsafe doses are quite high (yes I've read about 'thumb print' doses), it's probably not wise to say that there is no unsafe dose of LSD.
It is unlikely you'll ever come across that much LSD, but LD50 is estimated at about 100mg, which is about 500-1000 ordinary doses.
I know a guy who had something of an LSD overdose. Went psychotic and fully changed his personality. Total space cadet after. Ended up attacking an old man in a parking lot that he thought was a demon some months later.
And the dude that discovered LSD took it in the order of miligrams and recovered fine.
What I'm saying is that it's not the same as insuline for instance. If anyone takes too much insuline it'll kill him, universally. It's not the same with LSD.
If LSD is dangerous then it's situational which sets it apart from other drugs.
What I'm saying is that it's not the same as insuline for instance. If anyone takes too much insuline it'll kill him, universally. It's not the same with LSD.
If LSD is dangerous then it's situational which sets it apart from other drugs.
I think this is too dismissive of the transformative power of psychedelic drugs. They absolutely can alter your life permanently. They certainly altered mine. I think, in a positive way. But that power cuts both ways. I also know people who had harrowing, traumatic experiences and developed PTSD.
My advice to people who haven't tried it tends to be that if you're scared, you should abstain. Your presuppositions of what the experience will be, will in themselves shape the experience. If you expect a bad time, you're likely to get one.
There's also a group of people who are curious about using psychedelics to treat mental disorder. My advice to those people is to find a way to do it in a clinical setting. Psychedelics have enormous potential for effectively curing anxiety disorders, but it's not just a matter of taking the drugs. The experience must be guided by a psychologist who knows what the goal is. And then integrated and processed afterwards, also with expert help. Psychedelucs are not a treatment in and of themselves, more like an accelerant of psychotherapy. The therapy is still necessary, it's just that psychedelics allow you to do in a handful of sessions what could take years in a sober patient. As a case in point, I have a severe anxiety disorder myself, and my many self-initiated experiments with psychedelics haven't magically cured it. If combined with therapy, it might have. I'm still waiting for clinical practice to catch up, so I can have psychedelic therapy.
My advice to people who haven't tried it tends to be that if you're scared, you should abstain. Your presuppositions of what the experience will be, will in themselves shape the experience. If you expect a bad time, you're likely to get one.
There's also a group of people who are curious about using psychedelics to treat mental disorder. My advice to those people is to find a way to do it in a clinical setting. Psychedelics have enormous potential for effectively curing anxiety disorders, but it's not just a matter of taking the drugs. The experience must be guided by a psychologist who knows what the goal is. And then integrated and processed afterwards, also with expert help. Psychedelucs are not a treatment in and of themselves, more like an accelerant of psychotherapy. The therapy is still necessary, it's just that psychedelics allow you to do in a handful of sessions what could take years in a sober patient. As a case in point, I have a severe anxiety disorder myself, and my many self-initiated experiments with psychedelics haven't magically cured it. If combined with therapy, it might have. I'm still waiting for clinical practice to catch up, so I can have psychedelic therapy.
While most people are fine after taking psychedelics, some people experience lasting visuals after a trip: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_percep...
There are some interesting videos on YouTube from people experiencing this.
There are some interesting videos on YouTube from people experiencing this.
Are you referring specifically and exclusively to LSD? Or to hallucinogens in general?
A friend of my brother was doing shrooms with a couple other guys, had a bad trip and actually offed himself as part of the trip.
Please don't try to convince people that all of this is completely safe.
A friend of my brother was doing shrooms with a couple other guys, had a bad trip and actually offed himself as part of the trip.
Please don't try to convince people that all of this is completely safe.
This is demonstrably false and dangerous to repeat.
Just because everyone in your sample size has been fine doesn't mean everyone will be or even that your group will continue to be. Contrary to simplistic thinking, the law does exist for a reason and these substances are also scheduled for reasons other than conspiracies around free thinking.
Please spend some time reading about drug induced psychosis and educate yourself of the risks.
Just because everyone in your sample size has been fine doesn't mean everyone will be or even that your group will continue to be. Contrary to simplistic thinking, the law does exist for a reason and these substances are also scheduled for reasons other than conspiracies around free thinking.
Please spend some time reading about drug induced psychosis and educate yourself of the risks.
The truth is fully accessible through reason, you don’t need to take drugs to know things
No, but LSD helped me see things that couldn't be learned from outside. For some reason, it helps me recall childhood memories better. Sure maybe there's some guided therapy session that could have done that, but LSD gives it to me for free, along with a whole lot of other stuff.
All knowledge that can be gained through LSD is contingent and experiential, not universal and certain
I’m well aware through my own testing
EDIT: I’m not saying it is useless information for your life but it is particular to your life, not truths of the universe like the person I replied to claimed
I’m well aware through my own testing
EDIT: I’m not saying it is useless information for your life but it is particular to your life, not truths of the universe like the person I replied to claimed
Oh, of course, nothing about LSD can give me access to things that my brain just doesn't have access to. It can help with the things that already are in my brain though.
Your brain does have access to all rational truth
My brain has the ability to claim anything it wants as truth. I prefer for my truth to either be consistent with an objective or empirical truth, or be measurably opposed to truths I disagree with (and to a known degree). I don't always achieve this and I'm not always the best at being open-minded but it is the goal, I would think.
Empirical truth is a lesser form of truth, look for necessary truth, purely rational
Wha? Empirical truth is a lesser form of truth? What are you getting at there?
Empirical observation is contingent, so cannot be the basis of certain knowledge.
Everything is contingent on empirical observation. Our rational brains are the product of pattern matching algorithms trained on empirical reality. There is no basis for rational thought that is not downstream of empiricism.
Did it let you recall childhood memories, or invent new ones? How would you know the difference?
Historic events can be corroborated.
This. There are certain events that we already know happened. We have approximate dates, and we have talked about the events with others, who have given us their impressions of how we acted at the time. But sometimes we don't remember what our internal thought processes were at the time, or we simply held some certain belief about what had occurred (e.g. "I just decided I didn't want to go to school some day", or "I wanted to go to school but ADHD wouldn't let me!"). Sure LSD can give us some creative visualizations, but sometimes it also gives us ideas that just make more sense than what we had before. Instead of some spooky brain disorder just randomly Stopping me from going to school that day, randomly, maybe it was actually a fight between alters (yay for dissociative identity disorder!). And the more I thought about it (especially being - apparently !! but clearly - able to see what was me and what was the other during those fights), the more true it seemed, especially given all the more instances of this I've discovered over time, and that it's part of a longstanding pattern, but I digress. More and more has come out over the months and years that builds a progressively clearer picture of why we act the way we do and why we've done certain things we've done; why I feel certain things I do, why I remember certain things I do and why I don't remember certain things I don't. I'm not seeing any universal truth; I am discovering our own truth, and we are discovering our own truths, and this has done a lot of good for us, especially where we gain a better understanding of our past behavior in friendships (and elsewhere), and where we can still improve, etc.
Even if everything we've learned through LSD were false, I wouldn't even really care because we've still uncovered and figured out so much through this (much of it we've discussed with various others who were there during past events) that we are incredibly grateful to now know. So overall I think the experience for us has been positive, that we have gained much from it, and that we may stand to gain more over time since we are a regular user.
Even if everything we've learned through LSD were false, I wouldn't even really care because we've still uncovered and figured out so much through this (much of it we've discussed with various others who were there during past events) that we are incredibly grateful to now know. So overall I think the experience for us has been positive, that we have gained much from it, and that we may stand to gain more over time since we are a regular user.
None of that new information you provided is something that can be corroborated against the historical record. The claim is that LSD gave you access to long-locked up memories that happened to corroborate with what you are going through now.
The vastly simpler explanation is that your brain did what brains do best and filled in the gaps in your memory be inventing a story constrained to corroborate with the bare facts you remember, but because LSD it feels so real and vividly detailed that it “must be correct.”
The vastly simpler explanation is that your brain did what brains do best and filled in the gaps in your memory be inventing a story constrained to corroborate with the bare facts you remember, but because LSD it feels so real and vividly detailed that it “must be correct.”
> None of that new information you provided is something that can be corroborated against the historical record.
> The claim is that LSD gave you access to long-locked up memories that happened to corroborate with what you are going through now.
I think it's more like it gave us different perspectives on the same memories. We've had those memories but we couldn't see them that way before.
Also, uncovering this stuff randomly is what starts these paths of discovery for us. It's not that we're working through something and conveniently happen to find apparently useful things in past memories, it's that something (anything) triggers a flashback to a past memory that upon closer inspection reveals something that turns out to have had real apparent effects because it resulted in obvious behavioral patterns that multiple other friends have confirmed to us and are only now being placed in proper context with what feels like a proper explanation. This isn't somewhere the proper explanation could be just anything and this isn't schizophrenia where completely unconnected ideas are considered together. The stuff we find in flashbacks can completely surprise us and often has nothing to do with what we think we're looking for or think we're going to get out of it. It sometimes just somehow alludes to something far bigger that we really can corroborate with multiple external sources. Our brain and the others in it play so many tricks on us and on me, I know not to trust any single experience as a source of truth, but it can show me where to look.
> The vastly simpler explanation is that your brain did what brains do best and filled in the gaps in your memory be inventing a story constrained to corroborate with the bare facts you remember, but because LSD it feels so real and vividly detailed that it “must be correct.”
I don't really know how to properly articulate that I've verified anything because it's hard for me to even verify to myself that I know any of the things I've discovered for quite sure, and not just trusting something that very well could have been made up. I know the specific experience of recall is very fabricated, I know that what I see and what I think I identify as different parts while recalling those memories could be completely made up, but I'm not deriving everything from that experience. I use it as a suggestion to guide actual research that is not grounded in flashbacks and feelings and we have discovered actual patterns that are consistent with our theories and that couldn't possibly just be convenient explanations. Past a certain point all of Dissociative Identity Disorder is technically made up in some way (neuroplasticity!) and it's damn near impossible to know with certainty how things work or have worked, but I am taking the same approach that I have always taken and that is using the best explanations and the best theories that I currently have at my disposal and constantly testing and looking for improvements I can make to our understanding of ourselves.
But like I said, I wouldn't even care if it was merely a convenient filling of the gaps, because it has resulted in material good for us, it has resulted in material advancement of our understanding of our own past actions and in discussing them with those who we have hurt in the past, and it has also given us direction on how to better ourselves for the future. It really doesn't seem like that'd be the case unless the gap filling was so good that it correctly accounted for everything we hadn't even figured out yet, everything that we hadn't even heard of from others yet, and basically all of the ways we've been testing and testing the theories and the explanations that we have now.
Even if whatever it gave us access to was not something already stored in our brain, whatever it did was sufficient to allow us to figure things out that could otherwise have taken us months to years or even longer, and we know that they are material things that impact others because they have helped us work through emotions with others who formed those emotions independently of any LSD, based on those past actions of ours which we now better understand.
So I choose to believe we have gained valuable insight as a result of these experiences, not based on the experiences themselves which I know take great creative liberties, but based on everything we've done informed by the experiences to figure things out the old-fashioned way, too.
> The claim is that LSD gave you access to long-locked up memories that happened to corroborate with what you are going through now.
I think it's more like it gave us different perspectives on the same memories. We've had those memories but we couldn't see them that way before.
Also, uncovering this stuff randomly is what starts these paths of discovery for us. It's not that we're working through something and conveniently happen to find apparently useful things in past memories, it's that something (anything) triggers a flashback to a past memory that upon closer inspection reveals something that turns out to have had real apparent effects because it resulted in obvious behavioral patterns that multiple other friends have confirmed to us and are only now being placed in proper context with what feels like a proper explanation. This isn't somewhere the proper explanation could be just anything and this isn't schizophrenia where completely unconnected ideas are considered together. The stuff we find in flashbacks can completely surprise us and often has nothing to do with what we think we're looking for or think we're going to get out of it. It sometimes just somehow alludes to something far bigger that we really can corroborate with multiple external sources. Our brain and the others in it play so many tricks on us and on me, I know not to trust any single experience as a source of truth, but it can show me where to look.
> The vastly simpler explanation is that your brain did what brains do best and filled in the gaps in your memory be inventing a story constrained to corroborate with the bare facts you remember, but because LSD it feels so real and vividly detailed that it “must be correct.”
I don't really know how to properly articulate that I've verified anything because it's hard for me to even verify to myself that I know any of the things I've discovered for quite sure, and not just trusting something that very well could have been made up. I know the specific experience of recall is very fabricated, I know that what I see and what I think I identify as different parts while recalling those memories could be completely made up, but I'm not deriving everything from that experience. I use it as a suggestion to guide actual research that is not grounded in flashbacks and feelings and we have discovered actual patterns that are consistent with our theories and that couldn't possibly just be convenient explanations. Past a certain point all of Dissociative Identity Disorder is technically made up in some way (neuroplasticity!) and it's damn near impossible to know with certainty how things work or have worked, but I am taking the same approach that I have always taken and that is using the best explanations and the best theories that I currently have at my disposal and constantly testing and looking for improvements I can make to our understanding of ourselves.
But like I said, I wouldn't even care if it was merely a convenient filling of the gaps, because it has resulted in material good for us, it has resulted in material advancement of our understanding of our own past actions and in discussing them with those who we have hurt in the past, and it has also given us direction on how to better ourselves for the future. It really doesn't seem like that'd be the case unless the gap filling was so good that it correctly accounted for everything we hadn't even figured out yet, everything that we hadn't even heard of from others yet, and basically all of the ways we've been testing and testing the theories and the explanations that we have now.
Even if whatever it gave us access to was not something already stored in our brain, whatever it did was sufficient to allow us to figure things out that could otherwise have taken us months to years or even longer, and we know that they are material things that impact others because they have helped us work through emotions with others who formed those emotions independently of any LSD, based on those past actions of ours which we now better understand.
So I choose to believe we have gained valuable insight as a result of these experiences, not based on the experiences themselves which I know take great creative liberties, but based on everything we've done informed by the experiences to figure things out the old-fashioned way, too.
Reason is overrated. Knowing that smoking is unhealthy is not sufficient to stop oneself from smoking.
It’s not overrated if you want to know the universal truths of reality, which is what the person I replied to spoke of. The truth is fully reasonable
> The truth is fully reasonable
Doesn’t this effectively hand wave away the hard problem of consciousness?
i.e. even a purely reason-based understanding of truth must acknowledge that the only thing we can be certain actually exists is the mind. With no true understanding of how the mind functions, and giant gaps in our understanding of existence, the idea that universal truth can even be comprehended — much less mapped wholly onto humans capacity for reason - is just a belief. An article of faith.
It seems to me that a purely reason-based worldview must by definition acknowledge that a statement like “the truth is fully reasonable” is untenable at worst and at best just a prediction.
Doesn’t this effectively hand wave away the hard problem of consciousness?
i.e. even a purely reason-based understanding of truth must acknowledge that the only thing we can be certain actually exists is the mind. With no true understanding of how the mind functions, and giant gaps in our understanding of existence, the idea that universal truth can even be comprehended — much less mapped wholly onto humans capacity for reason - is just a belief. An article of faith.
It seems to me that a purely reason-based worldview must by definition acknowledge that a statement like “the truth is fully reasonable” is untenable at worst and at best just a prediction.
We don’t need to understand how the mind works to derive the necessary metaphysical categories. That’s something Kant got wrong
I'm not sure upon what basis you think such a claim can be definitively made. Nor does declaring "Kant got this wrong" help the argument.
For sake of argument, let's say the simulation hypothesis is true. Would you acknowledge that the implications of such a thing being true would have vastly different metaphysical properties than other hypotheses, e.g. "consciousness is a fundamental property of existence and all matter is conscious"?
The mind is literally the only thing we can be certain exists. We've made so much progress scientifically mapping the territory available for us to explore, that I think many people have lost sight of the vastness of the gap between what we actually know and what we have yet to understand.
For sake of argument, let's say the simulation hypothesis is true. Would you acknowledge that the implications of such a thing being true would have vastly different metaphysical properties than other hypotheses, e.g. "consciousness is a fundamental property of existence and all matter is conscious"?
The mind is literally the only thing we can be certain exists. We've made so much progress scientifically mapping the territory available for us to explore, that I think many people have lost sight of the vastness of the gap between what we actually know and what we have yet to understand.
Forget about all that. Start with no presuppositions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_Logic
Then you’ll find out the truth
Then you’ll find out the truth
This doesn't pass the smell test for me.
It seems like you've taken a system of reasoning that was built through careful consideration (Kantianism), called the conclusions it meticulously built 'presuppositions' and hand-waved it without making substantive counterpoints.
The problem then, of course, is that burning down previous philosophy and starting 'without presuppositions' will lead inevitably to conclusions again, which you can once again call presuppositions and hand-wave.
It seems like you've taken a system of reasoning that was built through careful consideration (Kantianism), called the conclusions it meticulously built 'presuppositions' and hand-waved it without making substantive counterpoints.
The problem then, of course, is that burning down previous philosophy and starting 'without presuppositions' will lead inevitably to conclusions again, which you can once again call presuppositions and hand-wave.
If you have no external assumptions you can’t be wrong
This statement is self-refuting in multiple ways.
It is itself an assumption. It is assuming that it’s possible to have no external assumptions, that being wrong requires external assumptions, and that this principle is true. You’ve already violated your own standard.
Even basic logical reasoning requires assumptions. Like the principle of non-contradiction, or that our cognitive faculties can distinguish between valid and invalid inferences. Hegel’s work doesn’t actually proceed without assumptions either; it starts with the concept of “being” and builds from there using logical principles.
If you truly had no assumptions, you couldn’t even begin to reason or make any truth claims. You’d have no framework for distinguishing truth from falsehood, valid from invalid reasoning, or meaningful from meaningless statements.
You might avoid being wrong about empirical facts, but you’d also avoid being right about anything.
The real philosophical task isn’t to eliminate all assumptions (which is impossible), but to identify foundational commitments, examine them critically, and build carefully from the most defensible starting points we can find.
But those starting points are still assumptions, and at least for the time being, there’s no reason to believe we’ve sufficiently closed the knowledge gaps necessary to operate on anything but a base set of assumptions.
It is itself an assumption. It is assuming that it’s possible to have no external assumptions, that being wrong requires external assumptions, and that this principle is true. You’ve already violated your own standard.
Even basic logical reasoning requires assumptions. Like the principle of non-contradiction, or that our cognitive faculties can distinguish between valid and invalid inferences. Hegel’s work doesn’t actually proceed without assumptions either; it starts with the concept of “being” and builds from there using logical principles.
If you truly had no assumptions, you couldn’t even begin to reason or make any truth claims. You’d have no framework for distinguishing truth from falsehood, valid from invalid reasoning, or meaningful from meaningless statements.
You might avoid being wrong about empirical facts, but you’d also avoid being right about anything.
The real philosophical task isn’t to eliminate all assumptions (which is impossible), but to identify foundational commitments, examine them critically, and build carefully from the most defensible starting points we can find.
But those starting points are still assumptions, and at least for the time being, there’s no reason to believe we’ve sufficiently closed the knowledge gaps necessary to operate on anything but a base set of assumptions.
Those are all assumptions
> Forget about all that.
On what basis? The metaphysical substrate matters and can’t be simply hand waved away.
Your position here closely resembles religious faith, and that’s a bit of a problem if your goal is to convince other people of its correctness.
On what basis? The metaphysical substrate matters and can’t be simply hand waved away.
Your position here closely resembles religious faith, and that’s a bit of a problem if your goal is to convince other people of its correctness.
Religious faith is when you forget everything and do philosophy without assumptions? News to me
Yes it must be waved away, since the categories of metaphysics themselves must be discovered
Yes it must be waved away, since the categories of metaphysics themselves must be discovered
Religious faith is when you take the words and ideas of a man - ideas that are highly controversial and not widely accepted by philosophers or scientists - and then claim with certainty that they are the absolute truth. It’s one thing to find those ideas interesting, but another entirely to bring this kind of absolute certainty.
Hegel’s work could be described as a hypothesis at best, yet you’re treating it as gospel truth despite the fact that most philosophers find his conclusions untenable and most scientists conclude that he couldn’t have had a proper understanding of science to reach the conclusions that he reached.
Your arguments up to this point are indistinguishable from the claims made by the religious folks in my life who say they have the absolute truth because of their belief in the Bible and relationship with Jesus.
Your only defense of Hegel’s work to this point amounts to “I believe it’s true” and have been entirely circular.
Hegel’s work could be described as a hypothesis at best, yet you’re treating it as gospel truth despite the fact that most philosophers find his conclusions untenable and most scientists conclude that he couldn’t have had a proper understanding of science to reach the conclusions that he reached.
Your arguments up to this point are indistinguishable from the claims made by the religious folks in my life who say they have the absolute truth because of their belief in the Bible and relationship with Jesus.
Your only defense of Hegel’s work to this point amounts to “I believe it’s true” and have been entirely circular.
To me, it is just obviously wrong. Reality is not reasonable and it is actually unreasonable that we would even expect reality to be reasonable.
Our reason is a highly flawed instrument that we have pushed far past what it was designed for.
We have done an amazing job though as these social machines that live in various collective social delusions.
Seeing these collective delusions and the unreasonableness of reality is exactly the point of taking psychedelics.
Forget LSD, ask anyone who has taken salvia divinorum to describe how unreasonable reality can be lol.
Our reason is a highly flawed instrument that we have pushed far past what it was designed for.
We have done an amazing job though as these social machines that live in various collective social delusions.
Seeing these collective delusions and the unreasonableness of reality is exactly the point of taking psychedelics.
Forget LSD, ask anyone who has taken salvia divinorum to describe how unreasonable reality can be lol.
How can you conclude that reality is not reasonable? That’s a straight up contradiction. If it were unreasonable you’d be unable to conclude that
You don’t need to take drugs to know things, but reason only covers a portion of what can be known. Reason doesn’t really help one understand the nature of experience itself. That’s a whole different kind of meta-factual knowing, an infinite subject that some people approach through meditation (and psychedelics too).
Reason can know the entirety of all necessary truth. There are experiential contingent things such as what I ate for breakfast that it of course cannot know. But it can know all universal truth, such as all metaphysical and philosophical truth
I’m a Hegelian though so I’m biased
I’m a Hegelian though so I’m biased
I like this because it immediately accounts for truth not arrived at though reason and then just slaps on the word “universal” as the descriptor for the subset of truth reachable through reason. It is convincing because universal is a big word
Well the reasonable truth is not universal as in exhaustive but as in it always holds. I mean universal as in necessary, not contingent. Psychedelic and personal experience is merely contingent
At least for human affairs, there's more to it than that.
For example, we don't only care about humans having an understanding of, say, a moral choice. We also care about whether or not a given human can/will make a moral choice.
The latter happens in a different part of the brain. Sharpening one's teeth on the mere understanding of a moral truth is unlikely to improve one's ability to carry out even a well-understood moral act if that same person doesn't have experience doing it. On the other hand, personal experience-- say, with a mentor from a similar background, or even just grooming horses with a group of similarly cantankerous teens while talking about their feelings-- can sharpen a person's ability to make that moral choice, even on a consistent basis.
I'm not a fan of psychedelics, but people have told me they were instrumental in guiding them to make better choices-- sometimes choices that they knew were right but couldn't bring themselves to make.
It is of course totally reasonable to categorize all of this-- neurology, human self-knowledge, behavior, and socialization-- under the heading of reasonable truth. But for some reason, HN fans of reason of generally exclude it. So when you say, "The truth is fully accessible through reason," I agree in this larger sense. But the larger sense isn't the common usage, so it's often easier to just say you're wrong. :)
Edit: clarification
For example, we don't only care about humans having an understanding of, say, a moral choice. We also care about whether or not a given human can/will make a moral choice.
The latter happens in a different part of the brain. Sharpening one's teeth on the mere understanding of a moral truth is unlikely to improve one's ability to carry out even a well-understood moral act if that same person doesn't have experience doing it. On the other hand, personal experience-- say, with a mentor from a similar background, or even just grooming horses with a group of similarly cantankerous teens while talking about their feelings-- can sharpen a person's ability to make that moral choice, even on a consistent basis.
I'm not a fan of psychedelics, but people have told me they were instrumental in guiding them to make better choices-- sometimes choices that they knew were right but couldn't bring themselves to make.
It is of course totally reasonable to categorize all of this-- neurology, human self-knowledge, behavior, and socialization-- under the heading of reasonable truth. But for some reason, HN fans of reason of generally exclude it. So when you say, "The truth is fully accessible through reason," I agree in this larger sense. But the larger sense isn't the common usage, so it's often easier to just say you're wrong. :)
Edit: clarification
I think we're talking past each other (or maybe mysticism and Hegel don't mix!). These mystical experiences touch at something on a different level than reason, a little closer to base metal. I mean that no reason or representation can capture that most fundamental reality of being, the fundamental experiential truth. Reason can try to explain it, and reason can help guide some people to the experience of it (jnana yoga, getting a satori from reading Eckhart), but it cannot itself know it. Meditation, psychedelics, dance, or whatever else are the typical pathways to it. All reason, all facts, are subordinate to it and less true than it. Or can being be contained by reason?
Qualia. Black and white room.
This makes sense because experience doesn’t affect how a person reasons. This is why all truth is agreed upon
I know you’re being sarcastic but indeed if we reasoned properly we would all agree
A common fallacy is that if you and I are smart then we will agree. Conflicts of interest and personal value systems and world views provide easy inlets for various counter points.
Well it isn’t a fallacy because if you reason without presuppositions you do uncover the absolute truth
> if you reason without presuppositions
This cannot be accomplished, and the conclusion that such a feat leads to absolute truth is philosophically untenable.
This cannot be accomplished, and the conclusion that such a feat leads to absolute truth is philosophically untenable.
Yes it can. Hegel did it in the Science of Logic
Many people have made philosophical claims. That does not make them categorically true, and Hegel certainly has his critics.
I used to know a guy that read some Hegel and then claimed dominion over Knowing the Truth and I used to piss him off by saying shit like “dogmatic people are slaves to their fears” and “discourse is a form of oppression”
And what elevates Hegel over any other philosopher, prophet, god, or performance artist?
Hegel is extremely satisfying on an emotional level to some readers. The idea that you —yes you, the reader— not only stand at the precipice of unfettered genius by the mere fact of possessing any critical faculty, but you also already possess the requisite tools to seize and contemplate the infinite truths of the universe, is very seductive.
Like everybody loves being told that they are smart, and Hegel tells the reader that they can be superlatively intelligent. It’s a hella thrilling idea to entertain, and the best way to keep that feeling going is by believing that it’s true, and the best way to convince yourself of that is to write defenses of Hegel.
Like everybody loves being told that they are smart, and Hegel tells the reader that they can be superlatively intelligent. It’s a hella thrilling idea to entertain, and the best way to keep that feeling going is by believing that it’s true, and the best way to convince yourself of that is to write defenses of Hegel.
[deleted]
I've seen your post below about your bad trip. I fully respect your position, but that is not my experience. I realised I can't access things I find important through my reason. I'm just too dependent on my body for my mind to function, so I just followed what my body was telling me.
But I agree that you don't need to take drugs. That's why my advice wasn't a definitive one. It's an invitation for people to consider what they want in their lives.
Wish you all the best truthfully.
But I agree that you don't need to take drugs. That's why my advice wasn't a definitive one. It's an invitation for people to consider what they want in their lives.
Wish you all the best truthfully.
Would you say the following are (individually taken) red flags for trying it:
* being terrified of letting loose (even with something common in the local culture, for example alcohol)
* having zero belief in the mysticism
* being terrified of letting loose (even with something common in the local culture, for example alcohol)
* having zero belief in the mysticism
> being terrified of letting loose (even with something common in the local culture, for example alcohol)
In that case, I would suggest working a bit on that first. Meditation can help, but "terrified" sounds strong enough that trying out therapy if available may be worthwhile.
Regarding substances, I found mushrooms to be easier than LSD, with a kind of warmth that softens the psychedelic experience (without taking anything away from it). The effects also don't last as long. A non-psychedelic which can allow one to face difficult emotions is MDMA. In some countries you can find MDMA based therapy. This could prepare someone to become more open to what psychedelics have to offer. (Edit: Also, all of these substances have effects that are not comparable to alcohol at all. Trying to understand the effects of psychedelics/empathogens based on experiences with alcohol is a category error.)
Based on my limited experience, I would roughly categorize the relation of these substances to the idea of control like this:
LSD: you might feel like there's some control, but you're actually the playball of the substance
Mushrooms: the substance draws you in some direction, and it's best to just lean into it, but it'll support you in doing so
MDMA: there's no need for control, things are okay the way they are
> having zero belief in the mysticism
That depends on what exactly this means.
Have some knowledge of "mysticism" or some eastern worldviews / philosophy, without taking it too seriously, would be a good basis IMO.
Actively rejecting any ideas related to mysticism while clinging tightly to a specific world view / metaphysics (and related beliefs like "I can only allow something if I understand / can explain it") may lead someone to have a really bad time on psychedelics.
---
Note that this isn't advice about whether to consume anything or what to consume, and experiences can vary widely between individuals, settings, dosages etc. (For both assumptions above, is possible to construct higly positive outcomes, where the substance helped overcome problems, opens one up, etc. and negative ones, horror trip, lasting trauma from the trip, ...) Having someone experienced present when doing something like this for the first time is highly recommended.
In that case, I would suggest working a bit on that first. Meditation can help, but "terrified" sounds strong enough that trying out therapy if available may be worthwhile.
Regarding substances, I found mushrooms to be easier than LSD, with a kind of warmth that softens the psychedelic experience (without taking anything away from it). The effects also don't last as long. A non-psychedelic which can allow one to face difficult emotions is MDMA. In some countries you can find MDMA based therapy. This could prepare someone to become more open to what psychedelics have to offer. (Edit: Also, all of these substances have effects that are not comparable to alcohol at all. Trying to understand the effects of psychedelics/empathogens based on experiences with alcohol is a category error.)
Based on my limited experience, I would roughly categorize the relation of these substances to the idea of control like this:
LSD: you might feel like there's some control, but you're actually the playball of the substance
Mushrooms: the substance draws you in some direction, and it's best to just lean into it, but it'll support you in doing so
MDMA: there's no need for control, things are okay the way they are
> having zero belief in the mysticism
That depends on what exactly this means.
Have some knowledge of "mysticism" or some eastern worldviews / philosophy, without taking it too seriously, would be a good basis IMO.
Actively rejecting any ideas related to mysticism while clinging tightly to a specific world view / metaphysics (and related beliefs like "I can only allow something if I understand / can explain it") may lead someone to have a really bad time on psychedelics.
---
Note that this isn't advice about whether to consume anything or what to consume, and experiences can vary widely between individuals, settings, dosages etc. (For both assumptions above, is possible to construct higly positive outcomes, where the substance helped overcome problems, opens one up, etc. and negative ones, horror trip, lasting trauma from the trip, ...) Having someone experienced present when doing something like this for the first time is highly recommended.
1. yes, that can be an issue, up to the point that you willingly or unwillingly "go on the trip" so to speak. i kinda prefer take more than less (not a brag - never done more than 2 tabs of acid at once before) because of that - it's a lot easier to ride it out when your conscious brain isn't making you self-conscious and anxious.
2. i never have and probably never will be a spiritual person. doesn't lessen the enjoyment or impact. i literally just think of it as a "reset button" - it makes you forget some previous anxieties, reframe others, let go of stuff that's dragging you down. it's not therapy but sometimes just shaking things up a bit gives you enough of a new perspective to really benefit you. or... you know, sometimes you just watch tv with your roommates for 3 hours. whatever.
2. i never have and probably never will be a spiritual person. doesn't lessen the enjoyment or impact. i literally just think of it as a "reset button" - it makes you forget some previous anxieties, reframe others, let go of stuff that's dragging you down. it's not therapy but sometimes just shaking things up a bit gives you enough of a new perspective to really benefit you. or... you know, sometimes you just watch tv with your roommates for 3 hours. whatever.
> being terrified of letting loose (even with something common in the local culture, for example alcohol)
Do you have good reason for this fear, like fantasies of hurting yourself or others? If so, yeah, you probably shouldn't ingest substances that can lower your inhibitions.
Do you have good reason for this fear, like fantasies of hurting yourself or others? If so, yeah, you probably shouldn't ingest substances that can lower your inhibitions.
I am not terrified, rather scared of loosing control, hurting people I like, feeling ashamed forever afterward, the usual. I use to not give shit but I’m old now and I have a much bigger social net I care about.
But I do know people which I would categorise as really terrified of loosing control.
Maybe “letting loose” was the wrong expression here, I meant “loosing control” rather.
But I do know people which I would categorise as really terrified of loosing control.
Maybe “letting loose” was the wrong expression here, I meant “loosing control” rather.
Losing control is something that happens at higher doses. It’s hard to quantify this without prior experience, but most substances can be taken on a level of »three beer drunk« where you’re very clearly not sober, but you can still talk, and take care of the essentials of life like going to the toilet and walking home in public without attracting attention.
For example, the average person will feel altered mood states and mild visual hallucinations (patterns on surfaces, think very detailed mandalas or fractals), in the 50-75μg range of LSD. They will not see pink elephants, they will not try to call their dog on the phone, they will not strip naked, they will not make growling sounds at trees.
Now, I do voluntary work in drug education, and there’s one important thing to say, it’s that everyone’s different, and it’s fine not to do psychedelics, or any other substance.
For example, the average person will feel altered mood states and mild visual hallucinations (patterns on surfaces, think very detailed mandalas or fractals), in the 50-75μg range of LSD. They will not see pink elephants, they will not try to call their dog on the phone, they will not strip naked, they will not make growling sounds at trees.
Now, I do voluntary work in drug education, and there’s one important thing to say, it’s that everyone’s different, and it’s fine not to do psychedelics, or any other substance.
Thanks, that’s useful feedback.
You weren't always in control. You still mostly aren't.
Yeah, it’s not binary, let me rephrase: “relinquish more control than when having 2-3 beers”.
There are things I can’t control even when sober, that’s clear, but I’m used to it. Giving up the control over things I usually control is a different thing (for me).
There are things I can’t control even when sober, that’s clear, but I’m used to it. Giving up the control over things I usually control is a different thing (for me).
[deleted]
> having zero belief in the mysticism
Good, belief has nothing to do with mysticism. It's about experiencing the ineffable, something beyond yourself, which is often terrifying.
Good, belief has nothing to do with mysticism. It's about experiencing the ineffable, something beyond yourself, which is often terrifying.
I'm terrified of letting loose with alcohol because alcohol is a terrible drug. I've tried lots of different drugs and alcohol is in my opinion one of the worst. Culture pushes me to drink more (people buying drinks for me etc), and the more I drink the less concerned I am about moderation.
When I wake up the next day after taking it too far I'm riddled with anxiety and usually feeling sick, the whole day and maybe even the next day is ruined. And yes of course it's my responsibility to moderate my intake, it's just hard for me. The solution I've come up with is I try to never have more than 4-6 drinks in an evening.
I have experienced both myself and others saying and doing things while drunk that we never would have done or said sober. I have experienced myself and others being seriously injured solely due to alcohol.
There are other drugs that scare me the same way, particularly pills like benzos and such but I have never had a bad time with MDMA or LSD. It's much more of a "I love you man", "Everything is awesome" vibe. At least at the doses I use I'm completely lucid and in control, I'm just also having an amazing time.
Alcohol just makes me forget stuff, LSD and MDMA have given me some of the best memories of my life. I can't remember the last time I drank alcohol and woke up the next day thinking "last night was awesome". I've definitely had some good times with alcohol but the amount of bad times completely dwarfs them.
And again maybe this is all on me, maybe I just can't handle alcohol. But I'm definitely not alone.
If it wasn't for the social stigma and the fact that I generally don't want to associate with the people who supply drugs, I'd never drink alcohol again. I'd smoke weed and for special nights like festivals etc I'd use MDMA and maybe LSD.
The main thing to keep in mind if you want to try LSD is it lasts a long time. 8-12 hours, there is no off switch. Start with low doses, do half a tab or even a quarter tab. You don't need much, it's really powerful. A small dose will completely change your state of mind. If you like it, do more next time. Personally I don't really experience hallucinations, I'm completely aware, present and in control. Maybe patterns like wallpaper and leaves will seem to move and stuff like that, but aside from the dilated pupils you can't really tell I'm high. To me it's like seeing the world with new eyes, mundane things you pass by every day are suddenly interesting. Look at that beautiful tree. Look at your friends and loved ones, they're amazing. It makes me think differently, see things from a different perspective and be thankful for the things I take for granted in my daily life. It's awesome, I've done it maybe 20 times and I hope I get to experience it many more times. Just wish I could get it without buying from criminals.
When I wake up the next day after taking it too far I'm riddled with anxiety and usually feeling sick, the whole day and maybe even the next day is ruined. And yes of course it's my responsibility to moderate my intake, it's just hard for me. The solution I've come up with is I try to never have more than 4-6 drinks in an evening.
I have experienced both myself and others saying and doing things while drunk that we never would have done or said sober. I have experienced myself and others being seriously injured solely due to alcohol.
There are other drugs that scare me the same way, particularly pills like benzos and such but I have never had a bad time with MDMA or LSD. It's much more of a "I love you man", "Everything is awesome" vibe. At least at the doses I use I'm completely lucid and in control, I'm just also having an amazing time.
Alcohol just makes me forget stuff, LSD and MDMA have given me some of the best memories of my life. I can't remember the last time I drank alcohol and woke up the next day thinking "last night was awesome". I've definitely had some good times with alcohol but the amount of bad times completely dwarfs them.
And again maybe this is all on me, maybe I just can't handle alcohol. But I'm definitely not alone.
If it wasn't for the social stigma and the fact that I generally don't want to associate with the people who supply drugs, I'd never drink alcohol again. I'd smoke weed and for special nights like festivals etc I'd use MDMA and maybe LSD.
The main thing to keep in mind if you want to try LSD is it lasts a long time. 8-12 hours, there is no off switch. Start with low doses, do half a tab or even a quarter tab. You don't need much, it's really powerful. A small dose will completely change your state of mind. If you like it, do more next time. Personally I don't really experience hallucinations, I'm completely aware, present and in control. Maybe patterns like wallpaper and leaves will seem to move and stuff like that, but aside from the dilated pupils you can't really tell I'm high. To me it's like seeing the world with new eyes, mundane things you pass by every day are suddenly interesting. Look at that beautiful tree. Look at your friends and loved ones, they're amazing. It makes me think differently, see things from a different perspective and be thankful for the things I take for granted in my daily life. It's awesome, I've done it maybe 20 times and I hope I get to experience it many more times. Just wish I could get it without buying from criminals.
I think this notion that one must engage in philosophical study or appreciate "the goddess" to survive, enjoy and appreciate psychedelics is ridiculous.
There is no special 'truth' in LSD, certainly no truths outside the self - while you can learn some things about your internal experience from it, it also repeatedly provokes in its users a false sense of the profound. People experience 'realisations' which are pure nonsense when recalled or examined later.
It makes your brain go haywire in all sorts of fun and interesting ways. But if you're looking for the meaning of life in there you're doing it wrong, and I dread to think what you might find.
There is no special 'truth' in LSD, certainly no truths outside the self - while you can learn some things about your internal experience from it, it also repeatedly provokes in its users a false sense of the profound. People experience 'realisations' which are pure nonsense when recalled or examined later.
It makes your brain go haywire in all sorts of fun and interesting ways. But if you're looking for the meaning of life in there you're doing it wrong, and I dread to think what you might find.
Joscha Bach summed this up in a very succint way in an interview once. Paraphrasing him, psychedelics tend to result in overfitting. Suddenly, everything is about them. Leary and McKenna are actually good publicly known examples. And the phenomenon of "I have found the soltuion" without being able to actually name it, is also pretty common.
Found what I think is probably the video if anyone else is interested:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pif-1bTmQZc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pif-1bTmQZc
Yup, thanks for digging that up, that is the soundbite I was refering to.
[deleted]
> I think this notion that one must engage in philosophical study or appreciate "the goddess" to survive, enjoy and appreciate psychedelics is ridiculous.
Cool. I think it's very important. I'll think really hard about philosophy when on drugs, you go do your thing ;)
> There is no special 'truth' in LSD, certainly no truths outside the self
What is the "outside of the self"? Isn't that smuggling in the assumption that there is an essential separation of the self and the rest of the world? What if everything is world? And what if everything is self? Does it make any difference?
> while you can learn some things about your internal experience from it, it also repeatedly provokes in its users a false sense of the profound
What is the correct sense of the profound and who is going to be the gatekeepers of the profound?
> People experience 'realisations' which are pure nonsense when recalled or examined later.
I have all my notes and they still make a lot of sense to me so I don't think this argument hold by experience.
> But if you're looking for the meaning of life in there you're doing it wrong, and I dread to think what you might find.
Is there a meaning to life to be found? I always thought the meaning of life is something you never stop pursuing, every day all the time. So please, tell me the right ways so I don't dread you. I'm being sarcastic in the same proportion you are being arrogant.
Ah and thanks for proving my point about the necessity of philosophy.
Cool. I think it's very important. I'll think really hard about philosophy when on drugs, you go do your thing ;)
> There is no special 'truth' in LSD, certainly no truths outside the self
What is the "outside of the self"? Isn't that smuggling in the assumption that there is an essential separation of the self and the rest of the world? What if everything is world? And what if everything is self? Does it make any difference?
> while you can learn some things about your internal experience from it, it also repeatedly provokes in its users a false sense of the profound
What is the correct sense of the profound and who is going to be the gatekeepers of the profound?
> People experience 'realisations' which are pure nonsense when recalled or examined later.
I have all my notes and they still make a lot of sense to me so I don't think this argument hold by experience.
> But if you're looking for the meaning of life in there you're doing it wrong, and I dread to think what you might find.
Is there a meaning to life to be found? I always thought the meaning of life is something you never stop pursuing, every day all the time. So please, tell me the right ways so I don't dread you. I'm being sarcastic in the same proportion you are being arrogant.
Ah and thanks for proving my point about the necessity of philosophy.
> I'll think really hard about philosophy when on drugs, you go do your thing ;)
Yeah sounds great. It's the imputation that it's the only way that got my back up. I don't imagine 5% of people who've taken and enjoyed LSD have taken the time to understand the basics of existentialism or done "the required work to understand yourself, your circumstances, stand on the shoulder of giants..." and all that guff.
And we still had an absolute blast.
> Isn't that smuggling in the assumption that there is an essential separation of the self and the rest of the world?
There is, it's called your body and other humans generally recognise yours as distinct from themselves and from other objects.
> And what if everything is self? Does it make any difference?
Acid-like thinking detected.
> What is the correct sense of the profound and who is going to be the gatekeepers of the profound?
Well, given the nature of the 'profound' realisations people on acid tend to have, I think "a modicum of common sense" would suffice.
That fascinating plastic lemonade bottle you're contemplating so hard probably isn't going to have much impact on space travel, no. Or on a larger scale, many of the proclamations that LSD will fundamentally change society when people 'realise' one thing or another that they 'learned' while under the influence turn out to be hopelessly naive - see the various late-60s to early 70s hippie communes in the US that generally fell into disarray and outright collapse when it turns out optimism and LSD weren't going to solve everything and someone still has to do the dishes eventually.
> I have all my notes and they still make a lot of sense to me so I don't think this argument hold by experience.
Your experience is certainly a data point, I would be surprised if this is as widespread as "I wrote it down and now realise it's all nonsense, it felt so meaningful at the time", but I don't imagine anyone's done a study.
> Is there a meaning to life to be found?
That's an interesting question, but looking for it in psychedelic experience seems to me a path that could lead to all sorts of odd places, mostly concerned with weird echoes of your own mind.
> Ah and thanks for proving my point about the necessity of philosophy.
The necessity of philosophy to an internet argument is one thing. Its necessity to a fulfilling life is arguable, given so much of it is navel-gazing bollocks, and the necessity of deeply studying philiosophical principles before dropping acid even less clear.
You do you, but your original post was full of pretty arrogant assertions about how everyone else should do them. I agree, I shot back with some of the same.
Yeah sounds great. It's the imputation that it's the only way that got my back up. I don't imagine 5% of people who've taken and enjoyed LSD have taken the time to understand the basics of existentialism or done "the required work to understand yourself, your circumstances, stand on the shoulder of giants..." and all that guff.
And we still had an absolute blast.
> Isn't that smuggling in the assumption that there is an essential separation of the self and the rest of the world?
There is, it's called your body and other humans generally recognise yours as distinct from themselves and from other objects.
> And what if everything is self? Does it make any difference?
Acid-like thinking detected.
> What is the correct sense of the profound and who is going to be the gatekeepers of the profound?
Well, given the nature of the 'profound' realisations people on acid tend to have, I think "a modicum of common sense" would suffice.
That fascinating plastic lemonade bottle you're contemplating so hard probably isn't going to have much impact on space travel, no. Or on a larger scale, many of the proclamations that LSD will fundamentally change society when people 'realise' one thing or another that they 'learned' while under the influence turn out to be hopelessly naive - see the various late-60s to early 70s hippie communes in the US that generally fell into disarray and outright collapse when it turns out optimism and LSD weren't going to solve everything and someone still has to do the dishes eventually.
> I have all my notes and they still make a lot of sense to me so I don't think this argument hold by experience.
Your experience is certainly a data point, I would be surprised if this is as widespread as "I wrote it down and now realise it's all nonsense, it felt so meaningful at the time", but I don't imagine anyone's done a study.
> Is there a meaning to life to be found?
That's an interesting question, but looking for it in psychedelic experience seems to me a path that could lead to all sorts of odd places, mostly concerned with weird echoes of your own mind.
> Ah and thanks for proving my point about the necessity of philosophy.
The necessity of philosophy to an internet argument is one thing. Its necessity to a fulfilling life is arguable, given so much of it is navel-gazing bollocks, and the necessity of deeply studying philiosophical principles before dropping acid even less clear.
You do you, but your original post was full of pretty arrogant assertions about how everyone else should do them. I agree, I shot back with some of the same.
Thanks for the thought out response, I think I can let my guard down. We were both arrogant and there's nothing wrong with it.
I'm coming from a personal point. I don't care about space travel or these enormous projects. I'm a simple guy with simple needs, and I like people and serving people. I am grateful there are people out there like you that spend time on this so I can focus on alienating myself with things I find interesting, like drawing and philosophy of consciousness.
It's just that not everything has to be a data point or a general abstraction on a larger scale. You can meet people in their own grounds so you can find common ground without imposing yourself.
And about drugs, I reflected on what you said and I think I could have expressed myself better, because I don't actually think there's a universal imposition of having to learn philosophy to take drugs, even though I agree with Simone Weil when she says philosophy is the required work so we can become vessels of God (hope this doesn't trigger your acid-like thinking detector). I only think drugs are tools we have the option to use and have the control over how we are going to direct them.
I'm coming from a personal point. I don't care about space travel or these enormous projects. I'm a simple guy with simple needs, and I like people and serving people. I am grateful there are people out there like you that spend time on this so I can focus on alienating myself with things I find interesting, like drawing and philosophy of consciousness.
It's just that not everything has to be a data point or a general abstraction on a larger scale. You can meet people in their own grounds so you can find common ground without imposing yourself.
And about drugs, I reflected on what you said and I think I could have expressed myself better, because I don't actually think there's a universal imposition of having to learn philosophy to take drugs, even though I agree with Simone Weil when she says philosophy is the required work so we can become vessels of God (hope this doesn't trigger your acid-like thinking detector). I only think drugs are tools we have the option to use and have the control over how we are going to direct them.
For my part I probably could benefit from studying philosophy and contemplating inner life a little more. It’s also fair to say I’m disillusioned with psychedelics - not that I don’t think they’re pretty amazing, but that time in my life has passed and I’ve come to view them as maybe overhyped.
I find my contentment and meaning in digging and planting these days, managing trees and general manual labour surrounded by birdsong and small animals. And in my relationships with my partner and my friends.
In many ways this is as irrational as any other path :)
I find my contentment and meaning in digging and planting these days, managing trees and general manual labour surrounded by birdsong and small animals. And in my relationships with my partner and my friends.
In many ways this is as irrational as any other path :)
Oh I'm doing a similar movement. I'm a city boy and I'm trying to find a nice piece of land to buy in the countryside so I can plant stuff and raise chickens
> time in my life has passed and I’ve come to view them as maybe overhyped
It's overhyped for sure! But everything nowadays is overhyped. People treat technology as a panacea where it's just an extension of ourselves. If the self isn't balanced, nothing will be fulfilling (the meanings of a balanced self and a fulfilling experience I'm leaving intentionally open, because it varies from person to person).
> time in my life has passed and I’ve come to view them as maybe overhyped
It's overhyped for sure! But everything nowadays is overhyped. People treat technology as a panacea where it's just an extension of ourselves. If the self isn't balanced, nothing will be fulfilling (the meanings of a balanced self and a fulfilling experience I'm leaving intentionally open, because it varies from person to person).
It will strip the user of it's self obsessed focus on me, my wants & needs, and allow you to see life from a very far distance.
Therefore for some people it will show them their "truth", its not that lsd or mushrooms contain the truth.
This goes from very practical truths in where you see patterns of yourself that are not very useful but even more important you will see & feel the impermanence of your being & experience the world in it's totality making your impermanence a joyful feeling of being part of the world instead of being seperated from it. This is why in some studies people fear death less.
Therefore for some people it will show them their "truth", its not that lsd or mushrooms contain the truth.
This goes from very practical truths in where you see patterns of yourself that are not very useful but even more important you will see & feel the impermanence of your being & experience the world in it's totality making your impermanence a joyful feeling of being part of the world instead of being seperated from it. This is why in some studies people fear death less.
> I take very modest amounts of LSD (100 maybe 150 micrograms)
PSA: 100-150 micrograms of LSD is a medium to strong trip. For beginners its good to start low, perhaps 75 micrograms or lower.
Edit: Also testing your reaction psychedelics in more controlled and calmer settings is highly recommended before doing in it raves or other public places. But also note that the effects may vary significantly even in the same person at different times and settings.
PSA: 100-150 micrograms of LSD is a medium to strong trip. For beginners its good to start low, perhaps 75 micrograms or lower.
Edit: Also testing your reaction psychedelics in more controlled and calmer settings is highly recommended before doing in it raves or other public places. But also note that the effects may vary significantly even in the same person at different times and settings.
counterpoint: you only get your first time, one time.
Yes. And I wish I would have started with 75 microgram.
Less is more
First time is rarely especially good. This applies to more or less all substances.
Wat? Maybe my bubble is different, but in my surroundings and experience, the exact opposite is true.
Now, an important factor here is that a first time often comes with anxiety, insecurity, and even fear. With many substances these feelings get amplified so that makes the entire experience be mediocre or even bad. Especially for that, I think it's very important to experience this in a safe, loving, caring and depending on the type taken, controllable, silent, busy, energetic, dark, light etc environment.
Now, an important factor here is that a first time often comes with anxiety, insecurity, and even fear. With many substances these feelings get amplified so that makes the entire experience be mediocre or even bad. Especially for that, I think it's very important to experience this in a safe, loving, caring and depending on the type taken, controllable, silent, busy, energetic, dark, light etc environment.
That's... not true, lol. That can be true, especially for psychedelics, but that's absolutely not true of other drugs.
MDMA comes to mind. I've also heard (though not tried, nor will I) the harder narcotics such as heroine and meth are almost never as good as the first time.
The first time being the best time is often exactly why people become addicts.
MDMA comes to mind. I've also heard (though not tried, nor will I) the harder narcotics such as heroine and meth are almost never as good as the first time.
The first time being the best time is often exactly why people become addicts.
Know then that what you've heard is incorrect. Heroin especially tends to cause nausea and vomitting on first time use, as the body reacts to something as unexpected. Meth may be great the first time round, and still be nowhere near as good as it can be - the drug has a steep learning curve and requires rigorous discipline for it's effect to be exploited fully - a mindset rarely present in first time users. With practically any drug, initial effects are very much subject to the intention of the person taking it, just as much as physical attributes (fitness, body-type, metabolism, etc).
Not to downplay all obvious and less obvious hazards of these 'harder' narcotics, just saying the whole 'first time being the best time' as an explanation of why exactly people become addicts relies very much on hearsay. It's the sort of language that came with the whole war-on-drugs-thing, and does not reflect reality.
Not to downplay all obvious and less obvious hazards of these 'harder' narcotics, just saying the whole 'first time being the best time' as an explanation of why exactly people become addicts relies very much on hearsay. It's the sort of language that came with the whole war-on-drugs-thing, and does not reflect reality.
That's more like the first time having sex can be special. The novelty gives it a lot of extra. But like in sex, you'll learn to be better at using drugs and the experiences become richer and more pleasurable.
Agree! Go into it with great preparation — be sure to read the manual closely.
Counter counter point: if you mess up your first time, it's likely you'll never be able to enjoy the experience.
Continuation the counter points: most traditional uses, guided by shamans or priests use heavy doses.
I had expiremented with moderate/recomended doses of lsd and psilocybin before participating in an auahuasca retreat... and the doses were shocking.
This was a relatively tame centre in western Europe that had trained psych nurses in attendance. Still, the Shaman handed out monster doses... and offered a second one a couple of hours in... and again the following day.
Many traditional practices conceive of "levels" corresponding to doses, and the lower levels are not the ones associated with transformative spiritual experience.
I had expiremented with moderate/recomended doses of lsd and psilocybin before participating in an auahuasca retreat... and the doses were shocking.
This was a relatively tame centre in western Europe that had trained psych nurses in attendance. Still, the Shaman handed out monster doses... and offered a second one a couple of hours in... and again the following day.
Many traditional practices conceive of "levels" corresponding to doses, and the lower levels are not the ones associated with transformative spiritual experience.
I know there are higher levels out there, but I’ve found even moderate doses of psychedelics to be more than enough to be transformative. You just need to focus the energy right.
valid point, just adding context.
I have no recomendations of my own.
I have no recomendations of my own.
Counter counter counter point: That's a good outcome.
> Counter counter point: if you mess up your first time, it's likely you'll never be able to enjoy the experience.
That's what drug prohibitionists would love to happen, so they should encourage such a "wrong" experiment instead of prosecuting it. :-)
That's what drug prohibitionists would love to happen, so they should encourage such a "wrong" experiment instead of prosecuting it. :-)
Might be true for some, but I had a long series of bad experiences when I was a teenager (tension and paranoia), was convinced that it wasn't for me, and only in my 30s I started having very profound and positive experiences. Now I only experiment alone, in a non-distracted, aware, self-reflective manner, as if it were a meditation aide.
And it's a very bad practice. No experiment ever should be taken without an assistant (sitter in this case).
Bad advice. Yes there should be at least one other person who knows what you're doing, but if you're experienced in the matter, solitude is the best practice. The emergency contact person could be a phone call away, just in case.
"I know what I'm doing" said the victim before they died.
problem is that when you are really in deep, you are not able to make that phone call.
It is good advice to always take someone with you. It is like saying: more experienced bikers don't need to wear helmet. Yes, 99.99% of the time things will be fine, but it's still good advice to always wear one. Because that 0.01% can lead to severe consequences.
Exactly.
Unexpected things happen, mental states swing, and now you're in a mentally compromised state in-between reality.
Unexpected things happen, mental states swing, and now you're in a mentally compromised state in-between reality.
Why do you say that? I generally just sit there alone, listening to music and observing inner processes.
There are some other commenters on here that seem to implicitly be talking about what I'd consider hero doses. I don't need high doses to experience notable differences in my ability to sense and self-reflect.
There are some other commenters on here that seem to implicitly be talking about what I'd consider hero doses. I don't need high doses to experience notable differences in my ability to sense and self-reflect.
Ehh, I would qualify that with it mattering how much you are going to take. Like if someone was going to down an entire bottle of vodka and get raging drunk they should probably have someone around to watch them too, but if someone drinks a single beer it would be a huge over reaction to consider it too dangerous to do alone.
In my experience, first times with drugs like MDMA are very important just because the tolerance builds up basically forever. First time with LSD however... Better safe than sorry. My first time wasn't that impressive, but it was safe and didn't involve any negative emotions. I've had many other times since, much more impressive and important.
Drugs' build up and tolerance varies wildly between the drugs, the person and the experience one seeks.
Chemically and physically, LSD for example is gone in a few days and certainly weeks. But taking two days in a row needs "insane" amounts to get you the same (physical, chemical) effect. MDMA is almost entirely gone in months, after which a normal dose will get the same (physical, chemical) effect. Good documentation with even calculators for this can be found online (be aware that it may not be allowed to even visit such sites in some countries!)
I deliberately emphasis the "physical and chemical" because the experience itself may be something you get used to. First time MDMA is wildly different from any time thereafter for many people. For many this is even stronger with LSD or Psilocybin. Many people report that the (first) experience opened up their mind and being profoundly and lasting. The more one gets used to the feeling the more this feeling itself becomes routine.
The intense love and euphoria from e.g. MDMA may be the same on an objective level, after letting the chemicals disappear over months, so technically one can achieve this level a few times a year. But the feeling itself is something one could get "used to" and "become bored by". Similar to how experiencing a rave sober for decades, or even how after decades of traveling it could get boring and a routine.
My point is: indeed first times are important. Even if the textbooks say that tolerance is gone after X time.
Chemically and physically, LSD for example is gone in a few days and certainly weeks. But taking two days in a row needs "insane" amounts to get you the same (physical, chemical) effect. MDMA is almost entirely gone in months, after which a normal dose will get the same (physical, chemical) effect. Good documentation with even calculators for this can be found online (be aware that it may not be allowed to even visit such sites in some countries!)
I deliberately emphasis the "physical and chemical" because the experience itself may be something you get used to. First time MDMA is wildly different from any time thereafter for many people. For many this is even stronger with LSD or Psilocybin. Many people report that the (first) experience opened up their mind and being profoundly and lasting. The more one gets used to the feeling the more this feeling itself becomes routine.
The intense love and euphoria from e.g. MDMA may be the same on an objective level, after letting the chemicals disappear over months, so technically one can achieve this level a few times a year. But the feeling itself is something one could get "used to" and "become bored by". Similar to how experiencing a rave sober for decades, or even how after decades of traveling it could get boring and a routine.
My point is: indeed first times are important. Even if the textbooks say that tolerance is gone after X time.
Imo not true for psychodelics
You just open the door for many more first times to come
You just open the door for many more first times to come
It’s also worth noting that there isn’t exactly strong quality control on the product. There is a good chance what is labelled 150 micrograms is actually closer to 50 micrograms. Or it could really be 150…
But that's true for any criminalized substance. It's not like the FDA or EFSA or so is going to do lab tests on, say, XTC and fine producers that lie on their ads or ingredient-list.
Though biological products like psilocybin (or weed etc) are harder to measure and control by producers, in strength than purely chemical products like LSD or MDMA. It's hard to trace what mother nature did exactly when producing this particular mushroom cap, but it could be possible to trace what the chemist did when producing this particular blot. If only it were legalized and we could have actual control, tracability, and prosecution of malpractice...
Though biological products like psilocybin (or weed etc) are harder to measure and control by producers, in strength than purely chemical products like LSD or MDMA. It's hard to trace what mother nature did exactly when producing this particular mushroom cap, but it could be possible to trace what the chemist did when producing this particular blot. If only it were legalized and we could have actual control, tracability, and prosecution of malpractice...
Fwiw at least xtc and coke can be legally tested in the Netherlands. https://www.drugs-test.nl/en/testlocations/
Ah funny! You were 3 hours before me. It's not just xtc and coke. It's much more than that. Most things are simply going to be sent to the lab.
The only thing they don't test are things you can somehow get legally, if I recall correctly (so whatever you can get for any psychological condition).
The only thing they don't test are things you can somehow get legally, if I recall correctly (so whatever you can get for any psychological condition).
They can be in more countries than just the Netherlands IIRC. And simple test-kits are available too - these aren't as good obviously, but can e.g. prove the absence or presence of certain (by)products.
Also, these tests are set up in a way that they are anonymous in a way that e.g. even if prosecutors could subpoena a test-location or lab to hand over administration, this administration won't contain any PII or even pseudonymous information.
Also, these tests are set up in a way that they are anonymous in a way that e.g. even if prosecutors could subpoena a test-location or lab to hand over administration, this administration won't contain any PII or even pseudonymous information.
I was under the impression that it's impossible to reliably test, e.g., cocaine for fentanyl, without destroying the drug and it doesn't take much of the latter narcotic to kill you.
The amount that has to be destroyed is miniscule.
my point is that powders don't mix evenly. part of a baggie testing negative for fentanyl doesn't mean the remainder is clean.
Lsd can be tested as well in the Netherlands. You can get a quantative analysis, but you lose the sample.
With MDMA if you have 150 mg of powder, you have 150mg of powder, i.e. this is the upper bound on how much substance you will take (be it MDMA or not), i.e. there can't be MORE than 150 mg.
With LSD it's always a solution (either in paper or in liquid), so you can only trust the producer.
With LSD it's always a solution (either in paper or in liquid), so you can only trust the producer.
Well, also it degrades over a couple of years (unlike M) so the producer usually makes the dose strong to start
Depends on how it’s stored. There’s still LSD from the 70s in circulation in solution. It degrades in light, otherwise it’s very stable.
Sure it can’t be more than 150mg of MDMA, but that doesn’t tell you how much meth / fentanyl / whatever is in there, so it’s not like you’re somehow in a safer boat with it. At least it’s easier to test LSD for adulteration due to it being such a different chemical than what it could be adulterated with.
That's why I don't vape nicotine. Small molecule, sold in concentrate, mixed by who knows who. A high school chemistry experiment. If a butcher offers you a 4-ton pork chop by mistake at least it's obvious you shouldn't stand underneath it. Cigs are cigs but nicotine in solution is an assassination weapon. Ask the CIA.
People who long for the old days must realize there were serious mental issues in society. It wasn't a simple case of the dids and the didn'ts. People were batsh*it insane, and I don't mean hallucinogens, especially not LSD that is not directly toxic at all. People were literally driven to hysteria by the ~thought~ of LSD.
The juggernaut opposing LSD and set the stage for the endless war on drugs. It was the boogeyman that could justify any legal atrocity. Lives could be destroyed, tripping teenagers were treated as if it was a life threatening medical emergency, which is trauma and sadism. The monkey brain slides that implied chromosome damage was deliberately not replicated after the mistake in handling was found, and the study was cited for a decade after author retracted it. Just too convenient to repeat the lie.
It is not surprising that G. Gordon Liddy a toady in Nixon's cabinet, spoke up at a meeting briefly to suggest putting LSD on opposition journalist Jack Anderson's steering wheel. As if it's presence would cause an instant accident that flipped the car 5 stories into the air. He was showing off his ignorance and trying to boost his reputation as a 'fixer'.
But far more dangerous than LSD, a few impaired people here and there was the mass hysteria to the 'plot' and 'scandal' that wouldn't work anyway and 3/4 of the country was consumed by it. That was in 1972.
Then along comes fentanyl that is really scary and not much serious pushback, until 'recently'.
People who long for the old days must realize there were serious mental issues in society. It wasn't a simple case of the dids and the didn'ts. People were batsh*it insane, and I don't mean hallucinogens, especially not LSD that is not directly toxic at all. People were literally driven to hysteria by the ~thought~ of LSD.
The juggernaut opposing LSD and set the stage for the endless war on drugs. It was the boogeyman that could justify any legal atrocity. Lives could be destroyed, tripping teenagers were treated as if it was a life threatening medical emergency, which is trauma and sadism. The monkey brain slides that implied chromosome damage was deliberately not replicated after the mistake in handling was found, and the study was cited for a decade after author retracted it. Just too convenient to repeat the lie.
It is not surprising that G. Gordon Liddy a toady in Nixon's cabinet, spoke up at a meeting briefly to suggest putting LSD on opposition journalist Jack Anderson's steering wheel. As if it's presence would cause an instant accident that flipped the car 5 stories into the air. He was showing off his ignorance and trying to boost his reputation as a 'fixer'.
But far more dangerous than LSD, a few impaired people here and there was the mass hysteria to the 'plot' and 'scandal' that wouldn't work anyway and 3/4 of the country was consumed by it. That was in 1972.
Then along comes fentanyl that is really scary and not much serious pushback, until 'recently'.
> If a butcher offers you a 4-ton pork chop by mistake at least it's obvious you shouldn't stand underneath it
brilliantly put
brilliantly put
You're not wrong, but the biggest confounding factor for LSD is that a 100ug dose comes embedded in 10000ug of blotter paper. Scales are useless for determining how much you're taking.
This is true of every illegal drug to some extent. You do not know how it is mixed.
Though sure, your 100mg of "MDMA" is unlikely to contain more than 100mg of MDMA
My point is that the potency at small doses creates novel hazards which, when avoided (and rightly so) interfere with the ability to know what you have.
One dose would be tricky, but you could process twenty doses of "MDMA" via column chromatography and end up with a sample of MDMA which your scale can actually measure. There's nothing scary about twenty doses of MDMA except that maybe you'll get caught with it. If you dropped it, nobody would get hurt.
If you tried the same with LSD you'd have to process tens of thousands of doses before your scale would be of any use. That much LSD in solution is an accident waiting to happen. I wouldn't go anywhere near it.
One dose would be tricky, but you could process twenty doses of "MDMA" via column chromatography and end up with a sample of MDMA which your scale can actually measure. There's nothing scary about twenty doses of MDMA except that maybe you'll get caught with it. If you dropped it, nobody would get hurt.
If you tried the same with LSD you'd have to process tens of thousands of doses before your scale would be of any use. That much LSD in solution is an accident waiting to happen. I wouldn't go anywhere near it.
That is not true and dangerous. 20 doses is deadly. It's less than the LD50 for most people, but since MDMA disregulates your body temperature you can easily overheat
[deleted]
Well yeah, if you consume it. I'm worried about it splashing out and touching your hand. That's how LSD was discovered, Hoffman accidentally touched it and got a massive dose. I'm just saying that its much more dangerous to be near several grams of LSD than it is to be near several grams of MDMA, which means that the only person who can tell you the potency is likely the person who was crazy enough to make it in the first place.
Some countries (Germany, Holland) have (or had ~5 years ago when I was interested in this) legal analogues of LSD that are produced and sold in a fully regulated, safe, precise manner.
Well, cocaine and heroin are still used for certain medical applications, too, ain't they?
Cocaine is still legal for medical use, but in twenty years of anesthesia I've never seen it used (though we are not an ENT-heavy practice). Too much concern about diversion. It's a great drug for ENT use but the way little bits of excess disappear means that most hospital pharmacies don't want to touch it (and surgery centers that don't have 24/7-staffed pharmacies want it even less due to risk of break-ins and theft).
Heroin is not legal in the US, although it is in the UK at least as a hospice med (under the generic name diamorphine).
Heroin is not legal in the US, although it is in the UK at least as a hospice med (under the generic name diamorphine).
Being significantly older than you (I retired from the practice of anesthesiology at age 67 in 2015) I am able to recount my experience with cocaine use to prepare patients for nasal intubation.
When I began my residency at the UCLA Department of Anesthesiology in the fall of 1977, I was instructed on how to use cocaine.
First, one requested a 2cc glass vial of cocaine hydrochloride solution (4-10% strength, prepared from cocaine powder).
The patient in the O.R. was then sedated heavily to both eliminate fear and anxiety and decrease the stinging and discomfort resulting from the imminent application of the cocaine solution against the nasal mucosa.
Cotton pledgets on thin wooden sticks about 6 inches long were submerged in the cocaine solution until saturated, then very slowly and delicately introduced into both nostrils simultaneously and rotated while being advanced deep into the nasal cavity: usually they went in about half their length.
A nice aid to successful intubation: As a rule, we chose to intubate via the nostril which most easily and deeply accommodated the pledget.
We then waited for 15-20 minutes for maximum local anesthesia and vasoconstriction, then removed the pledgets and proceeded with nasal intubation.
I continued to use cocaine for nasal intubation until I moved to the University of Virginia in 1983; for whatever reasons, the drug wasn't part of our therapeutic armamentarium there, rather lidocaine with epinephrine was employed in the same manner as cocaine solution and produced equivalent results.
When I began my residency at the UCLA Department of Anesthesiology in the fall of 1977, I was instructed on how to use cocaine.
First, one requested a 2cc glass vial of cocaine hydrochloride solution (4-10% strength, prepared from cocaine powder).
The patient in the O.R. was then sedated heavily to both eliminate fear and anxiety and decrease the stinging and discomfort resulting from the imminent application of the cocaine solution against the nasal mucosa.
Cotton pledgets on thin wooden sticks about 6 inches long were submerged in the cocaine solution until saturated, then very slowly and delicately introduced into both nostrils simultaneously and rotated while being advanced deep into the nasal cavity: usually they went in about half their length.
A nice aid to successful intubation: As a rule, we chose to intubate via the nostril which most easily and deeply accommodated the pledget.
We then waited for 15-20 minutes for maximum local anesthesia and vasoconstriction, then removed the pledgets and proceeded with nasal intubation.
I continued to use cocaine for nasal intubation until I moved to the University of Virginia in 1983; for whatever reasons, the drug wasn't part of our therapeutic armamentarium there, rather lidocaine with epinephrine was employed in the same manner as cocaine solution and produced equivalent results.
I suspected you might have useful insight :)
It's not just used in palliative care (though it is certainly used widely for that). As I understand it, in the UK diamorphine is prescribed for lots of types of acute, severe pain, including pain from surgery, heart attack and childbirth.
Good to know. I read that many, many years ago (it was printed on paper!), but obviously things change. Still Schedule I (no accepted medical use, i.e., totally illegal) in the US.
My wife, a PhD student at the time, was tasked with delivering cocaine to another university's research lab. I believe they were administering it to mice, I don't know much else. Anyway, my wife agrees and proceeds to take a public bus with an illicit substance and no accompanying permit or documentation. Wild.
Like what? What was a legal analogue 5 years ago?
There were multiple, I think they were called 1p-LSD, 1cp-LSD, 1d-LSD, 1v-LSD and currently you can still legally buy 1S-LSD. Its a bit of whack-a-mole with the lawmakers because there isnt a blanket ban, only ever the specific chemical gets banned. Although stuff got quite a lot more expensive with every iteration.
Not quite the specific chemicals anymore. As I understood it, when they outlawed 1v, the legislation was changed to also consider the weight of the molecule. Ok fine, still whack-a-mole, it just took the clandestine chemists slightly longer to figure out what mostly inert structures they could add to the LSD (though not actually add, since that would mean they were at some point making LSD, which is illegal) that would be cleaved off metabolically so you end up with LSD in your system
Prior to those there were LSZ (lysergic acid dimethylazetidide) and AL-LAD doing the rounds in the UK. Very briefly PARGY-LAD too.
1P-LSD was something of a breakthrough IIRC (never tried it but I was still following the scene at that point) because unlike the others it is a pro-drug for LSD, being quickly metabolised to the parent compound, rather than a different but closely related compound as the others were.
Never heard of the rest of those though! I stopped paying attention sometime around then.
1P-LSD was something of a breakthrough IIRC (never tried it but I was still following the scene at that point) because unlike the others it is a pro-drug for LSD, being quickly metabolised to the parent compound, rather than a different but closely related compound as the others were.
Never heard of the rest of those though! I stopped paying attention sometime around then.
There is in the Netherlands. You can test it there [1].
Ah, I see someone else already mentioned it. I'll still keep this here for increased visibility. Drugs testing in NL is solid.
Source: trust me bro ;-)
Second source: go see for yourself! It's anonymous.
[1] https://www.drugs-test.nl/ (use google translate)
Ah, I see someone else already mentioned it. I'll still keep this here for increased visibility. Drugs testing in NL is solid.
Source: trust me bro ;-)
Second source: go see for yourself! It's anonymous.
[1] https://www.drugs-test.nl/ (use google translate)
[deleted]
>100-150 micrograms of LSD is a medium to strong trip
Did you get that from a government "risk prevention" website? 100 micrograms is a base, standard dose; There's a reason that that is the most common amount to a piece of blotter paper.
A medium trip would be something like 220(also a common dose), and "strong" can go anywhere from what, 500 to 1000?(1000 and above being commonly referred to as "heroic dose" and fairly rarely taken)
I do agree that a beginner might want to try sub-100 micrograms, but you rub up against the lower border of real perceptible effects around 50.
Did you get that from a government "risk prevention" website? 100 micrograms is a base, standard dose; There's a reason that that is the most common amount to a piece of blotter paper.
A medium trip would be something like 220(also a common dose), and "strong" can go anywhere from what, 500 to 1000?(1000 and above being commonly referred to as "heroic dose" and fairly rarely taken)
I do agree that a beginner might want to try sub-100 micrograms, but you rub up against the lower border of real perceptible effects around 50.
A friend in IT (and sharp as a tack to this day) gave me empirical evidence that LSD's toxicity is nil. He used to hang around in a subculture that were not 'street users' eating blotters by any means, they had plenty of concentrate and had plenty liquid solution to pour.
It was a Birthday Party, and almost a dozen people had the idea to 'dose him' without knowledge of the others. After the party it was obvious this was an extended journey and those who had done it came clean to the others. The dosage was off the charts. They cared for him in shifts and the ordeal lasted almost three days. But he was fine after, apparently only some people experience flashbacks.
It was a Birthday Party, and almost a dozen people had the idea to 'dose him' without knowledge of the others. After the party it was obvious this was an extended journey and those who had done it came clean to the others. The dosage was off the charts. They cared for him in shifts and the ordeal lasted almost three days. But he was fine after, apparently only some people experience flashbacks.
No human deaths have ever been attributed to LSD overdose. Atleast in one case some people got close and were hospitalized, having snorted a line of powder they though was cocaine but was actually pure crystalline LSD, which probably represented tens of thousands of standard doses at a minimum, and likely significantly more than that. LSD probably has one of if not the highest known spread beyween theuraputic dosage and dangerous over dosage. It was once considered the safest drug anyone could get because there was almost nothing else that it could be adultered with effectively because blotter paper and single liquid drops can hold such little of any other drug.
These days there are other drugs that are effective in such small doses, but are not common to encounter unless you specifically look for them and are usually significantly more expensive than LSD to start with.
These days there are other drugs that are effective in such small doses, but are not common to encounter unless you specifically look for them and are usually significantly more expensive than LSD to start with.
With medium trip I mean a base standard dose. You may mean something else with a "trip" or "medium". I'm just referring to one usage setting.
Also glorifying large doses especially when discussing first times in a forum with inexperienced audience is rather stupid. Too large doses for beginners is a recipe for unpleasant experiences and subsequent negativity about drugs in general.
Also glorifying large doses especially when discussing first times in a forum with inexperienced audience is rather stupid. Too large doses for beginners is a recipe for unpleasant experiences and subsequent negativity about drugs in general.
I wasn't trying to glorify, only to more accurately reflect the actual "levels" according to my experience. Calling what is essentially the lowest end "medium" is confusing.
>discussing first times in a forum with inexperienced audience
This is HN, not Club Penguin. We don't have to baby our fellow users. They are fully able to make choices based on their own risk profile/tolerance without needing to be misled into being inappropiately cautious. Making such a big fuss about it has as much of a chance of negatively affecting peoples' experience by making them anxious.
>discussing first times in a forum with inexperienced audience
This is HN, not Club Penguin. We don't have to baby our fellow users. They are fully able to make choices based on their own risk profile/tolerance without needing to be misled into being inappropiately cautious. Making such a big fuss about it has as much of a chance of negatively affecting peoples' experience by making them anxious.
"We are the ones we have been waiting for" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-qw0Ud8Yx8
> I go to raves, I take very modest amounts of LSD (100 maybe 150 micrograms), and the whole experience turns into very spiritual session where I dance with my entire being and let myself disolve into the Great Void.
Cool. And good for you, but this has honestly ruined 'raves' for me.
I'm a huge fan of different types of electronic music and really, really enjoy it. The music itself is a spiritual experience and allows me to 'disolve into the Great Void'. But these days when I go to a festival or something, I'm surrounded by people I can't share this feeling/experience with, since everyone seems to be on some type of drug and either in their own world (X, LSD, etc) or think the world is in them (coke).
I recently prematurely left an artist I was really looking forward to because of exactly this. It was incredibly disappointing, though not surprising.
Cool. And good for you, but this has honestly ruined 'raves' for me.
I'm a huge fan of different types of electronic music and really, really enjoy it. The music itself is a spiritual experience and allows me to 'disolve into the Great Void'. But these days when I go to a festival or something, I'm surrounded by people I can't share this feeling/experience with, since everyone seems to be on some type of drug and either in their own world (X, LSD, etc) or think the world is in them (coke).
I recently prematurely left an artist I was really looking forward to because of exactly this. It was incredibly disappointing, though not surprising.
Totally get your point. And I feel the same way.
It's really hard to maintain a healthy state of mind when there is a dude overdosing with several paramedics trying to stabilise him. I still remember that time and it hurts me every time I think about it.
But there are smaller raves, with 50-500 people, where I think this feeling is maintained.
I'd maybe recommend avoiding what we call here "commercial raves" and go to "pvt's", private raves, which are not private, just with more modest economic goals.
It's really hard to maintain a healthy state of mind when there is a dude overdosing with several paramedics trying to stabilise him. I still remember that time and it hurts me every time I think about it.
But there are smaller raves, with 50-500 people, where I think this feeling is maintained.
I'd maybe recommend avoiding what we call here "commercial raves" and go to "pvt's", private raves, which are not private, just with more modest economic goals.
> I wasn't actually naked, it just felt like that and that everyone was eventually going to merge with me and that I should feel ashamed of it
This reminded of Deep Space Nine’s Great Link. The drop becomes the ocean, and the ocean becomes a drop.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Great_Link
This reminded of Deep Space Nine’s Great Link. The drop becomes the ocean, and the ocean becomes a drop.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Great_Link
I read in a forum about psychedelics about a guy who had been carving up his whole arm while tripping on LSD. The response befuddled me and wasn't what I expected: "Classic newbie mistake", "Your own fault for tripping alone", and "You should put knifes and weapons away when you trip." It made me realize these people are like adopters of niche programming languages. To outsiders they tell everyone how great their language is and how you'll become 10x more productive switching to it. Only on bug trackers will you find out about lack of tooling support, stochastic compiler bugs, and bad api designs.
I would have said that was both horrific and unusual, rather than ‘classic’.
Let’s not pretend it’s perfectly safe (what is?) but this is hardly ‘normal’.
Let’s not pretend it’s perfectly safe (what is?) but this is hardly ‘normal’.
While it might not be normal, that type of thing is not unknown and alone is enough to mean everyone should avoid those drugs.
I disagree, I think it is effectively unknown, vanishingly rare considering how many millions of doses have been consumed over decades.
Let’s not pretend it’s 100% safe and foolproof, but that’s very far out of the ordinary.
Let’s not pretend it’s 100% safe and foolproof, but that’s very far out of the ordinary.
By your own logic you are fine with all alcohol being avoided, right? Psychedelics kill infinitely fewer people than alcohol, after all.
That kind of thing occurs far more often when someone has not used drugs.
Logically, drug use should be mandatory to reduce the prevalence of such self-harm.
Logically, drug use should be mandatory to reduce the prevalence of such self-harm.
This should've been horrifying I guess, but I found it rather amusing. And as a niche-programming-language-enthusiast: well done with the analogy!
These are not normal reactions to being under the influence of psychedelics but latent mental illness being activated.
That they can activate latent mental illnesses that wouldn't be activated otherwise is the main risk of psychedelics, and is absolutely a real problem
It happened with someone I know. He tried psychedelics in a weekend at the beach house scenario for the first time as a middle aged man. He liked the experience and then started reading about LSD microdosing, so he decided to try that.
Over the course of a few weeks he began to slide into what was clearly schizophrenic delusions. He became obsessed with what he presumed was a vast conspiracy to murder him and take his money, interpreting ordinary events like someone cutting him off on the highway as being part of this.
Thankfully he's got a good partner and support network, got into therapy, and now is doing fine.
I have a pretty live and let live attitude over psychedelics, but I do hate when aficionados pretend there aren't risks or downsides.
On a less dramatic scale I know people who've tried it and hated it, and that's very much a possible outcome as well. It's crappy when aficionados flip that around into somehow being a square or whatever.
Over the course of a few weeks he began to slide into what was clearly schizophrenic delusions. He became obsessed with what he presumed was a vast conspiracy to murder him and take his money, interpreting ordinary events like someone cutting him off on the highway as being part of this.
Thankfully he's got a good partner and support network, got into therapy, and now is doing fine.
I have a pretty live and let live attitude over psychedelics, but I do hate when aficionados pretend there aren't risks or downsides.
On a less dramatic scale I know people who've tried it and hated it, and that's very much a possible outcome as well. It's crappy when aficionados flip that around into somehow being a square or whatever.
It is quite irresponsible to take a psychedelic drug and then drive a car.
So called microdosing of psychedelics is generally rubbish, the way they're distributed means you have no idea whatsoever what dose you're actually taking and if you want to live with a 5-HT2a tolerance, just go on a trip dose and you're good for a few months.
Edit: And with some of these substances one should expect cardiac toxicity if dosing every day, due to serotonin receptors in the heart.
So called microdosing of psychedelics is generally rubbish, the way they're distributed means you have no idea whatsoever what dose you're actually taking and if you want to live with a 5-HT2a tolerance, just go on a trip dose and you're good for a few months.
Edit: And with some of these substances one should expect cardiac toxicity if dosing every day, due to serotonin receptors in the heart.
Activating latent mental illness is a risk of psychedelics, and yet they are still safer in that regard than alcohol and cannabis. There is a lower rate of psychosis being triggered with LSD and psilocybin. This is an education problem: we are (at least sort of) taught in school the risks of drinking too much, and in younger generations, smoking too much weed, but we are taught nothing about when it's appropriate to take psychedelics.
Some recent studies suggest that there is no increase in risk of psychosis from psychedelic use, and at worst, it causes symptoms which would have surfaced anyways to surface sooner. This isn't a reason to take psychedelics of course, it's better that one goes as long as they can without experiencing some sort of schizo-affective disorder.
My point is that people are misunderstanding the risks when they look at psychedelics and go "No way I'm taking that, I don't want to make myself schizophrenic", and then don't bat an eye when they drink a glass (or two) of wine or smoke a joint.
Some recent studies suggest that there is no increase in risk of psychosis from psychedelic use, and at worst, it causes symptoms which would have surfaced anyways to surface sooner. This isn't a reason to take psychedelics of course, it's better that one goes as long as they can without experiencing some sort of schizo-affective disorder.
My point is that people are misunderstanding the risks when they look at psychedelics and go "No way I'm taking that, I don't want to make myself schizophrenic", and then don't bat an eye when they drink a glass (or two) of wine or smoke a joint.
The longer I live, the more I find most things in life are just delaying something, and ultimately just death. My teeth are shit, I fix them a little at a time and just pray they don't break down too much before I'm dead. Some of my muscles/tendons bones are getting weaker, I just baby them enough that hopefully I can keep their use to old age.
We hope to push most the bad stuff beyond or as far towards death as possible, and death as far away as possible so long as not too much bad stuff is already happening. The question then becomes at what rate we slow the delay of schizo-affective disorder or some other mental illness. It's coming for all of us, given enough time.
We hope to push most the bad stuff beyond or as far towards death as possible, and death as far away as possible so long as not too much bad stuff is already happening. The question then becomes at what rate we slow the delay of schizo-affective disorder or some other mental illness. It's coming for all of us, given enough time.
I see this differently. Your worldview is “normal” but not “healthy”
> they are still safer in that regard than alcohol and cannabis. There is a lower rate of psychosis being triggered with LSD and psilocybin.
Is this adjusted by amount of use? As in, is it possible that it's more likely to trigger latent mental illness with alcohol and cannabis not because they trigger it more effectively, but because they are significantly more widely available, significantly more widely used, and people who consume them consume them in significantly greater amounts?
If you get drunk once, I get high once, and our friend trips on psilocybin once, what is the comparative risk of activating latent mental illness for these events alone?
Is this adjusted by amount of use? As in, is it possible that it's more likely to trigger latent mental illness with alcohol and cannabis not because they trigger it more effectively, but because they are significantly more widely available, significantly more widely used, and people who consume them consume them in significantly greater amounts?
If you get drunk once, I get high once, and our friend trips on psilocybin once, what is the comparative risk of activating latent mental illness for these events alone?
The thing is, the use patterns are not really the same.
I had to quit drinking, because I couldn't moderate my intake. I struggle with cannabis craving and use.
I have taken a number of psychedelic drugs, but never due to craving, and not more than a handful of times. I have had profound and life changing experiences (for the better), it's not always fun.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure regular use of psychedelics is not a great idea. These substances can be hard on the body and brain. Respectful and intentional use can have benefits far beyond the risk. Indeed, I may be alive today as a result of my use.
I had to quit drinking, because I couldn't moderate my intake. I struggle with cannabis craving and use.
I have taken a number of psychedelic drugs, but never due to craving, and not more than a handful of times. I have had profound and life changing experiences (for the better), it's not always fun.
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure regular use of psychedelics is not a great idea. These substances can be hard on the body and brain. Respectful and intentional use can have benefits far beyond the risk. Indeed, I may be alive today as a result of my use.
With 5-HT2a psychedelic substances you get an immediate, extreme tolerance so unlike ethanol or other common GABA:ergics you won't get that kind of every day abuse and related self harm.
Single dose use is more likely to be harmful with ethanol at a comparable degree of intoxication, it is strongly disinhibitory in comparison, but a particular person might be more sensitive one way or the other.
Single dose use is more likely to be harmful with ethanol at a comparable degree of intoxication, it is strongly disinhibitory in comparison, but a particular person might be more sensitive one way or the other.
My one experience with psilocybin was the only time in my life I've ever confronted the fragility of my mental and emotional wellbeing in such a sudden way. Drastically different from other psychedelics I've experienced. MDMA is pure bliss - psilocybin is something I won't go near without professional guidance.
MDMA is extremely mild on the psychedelic side compared to psilocybin, lsd, dmt, etc.. not to mention it floods you with "happy/safe" feelings which makes for a generally easy experience.
The others can really get you..
I've experienced what I thought was being at the gates of hell on all of them at least once.. The gratitude I felt at the conclusion of those trips lasted for months =p
The others can really get you..
I've experienced what I thought was being at the gates of hell on all of them at least once.. The gratitude I felt at the conclusion of those trips lasted for months =p
It's also a marked risk of "social media", "being in a crowd", "being alone" ... you don't understand mental illness, don't use it as a crutch for your ill informed prohibitionist memespreading.
Consuming any substance really comes down to one thing:
Do you want to "feel" yourself more, or do you want to feel yourself less?
Many people are not interested (or ready) to feel themselves more. And when they do, they might not like what they find.
Do you want to "feel" yourself more, or do you want to feel yourself less?
Many people are not interested (or ready) to feel themselves more. And when they do, they might not like what they find.
That's pretty simplistic, and doesn't come close to explaining the complex interactions of drugs. Caffeine, Zoloft, LSD, Meth, Heroin, and PCP all have wildly different effects that can't be boiled down to "feeling yourself".
They are 'classic newbie mistakes', but they are not normal? The drug messing with your neural pathways, messing with those particular neural pathways, is not normal, but rather just activates 'latent' messed-with-ness? This sounds like words without meaning.
Or just someone who is mentally ill taking psychedelics.
> I read in a forum about...
...something that likely never happened (and if it did, it wasn't the LSD)
...something that likely never happened (and if it did, it wasn't the LSD)
People jump out of windows/off roofs all the time on psychedelics.
The AI overlords call bullshit on that.
The nutshell quote: "Jumping from heights under psychedelics is possible but statistically extraordinary—orders of magnitude rarer than popular mythology suggests."
The nutshell quote: "Jumping from heights under psychedelics is possible but statistically extraordinary—orders of magnitude rarer than popular mythology suggests."
The chances of being struck by lightning are exceedingly slim. But if you're venturing out on a mountain top in early summer your odds skyrocket. So shouldn't we widely inform people who are doing so of the dangers and what to be aware of?
https://www.cdc.gov/lightning/data-research/index.html
https://www.cdc.gov/lightning/data-research/index.html
Maybe heights specifically, but hang out at the medical tent at any decent size music festival and tell me psychedelics are as harm-free as people suggest.
No they do not, the instances of this are incredibly small, and every one of them involved the use of alcohol or other drugs.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21256914/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21256914/
I don't buy it, personally. I used to be a big psych guy until I had multiple friends get in dangerous police situations because of them. And I've heard a lot more individual stories. Pretty much every psychedelic festival has people ending up in the security/medical tent. It's not as risk free as people will have you believe.
Don’t buy it however you like, actual data does not support your claim. How do you know those people ending up in the med tent only took LSD or psilocybin?
Med tent is mostly people overheating because it's a summer dance festival and water is often scarce.
I'm talking about the people experiencing hypomanic/psychotic episodes, not heat exhaustion.
Studies that look at mushrooms in a controlled therapy session are not the same as unreported/unstudied crises at high intensity parties.
Then go read the study I linked, because it analyzes coroners data and tox reports from deaths linked to substance use. Guess what? None of the deaths where people were jumping out of windows, jumping into lakes, etc "from mushrooms" were psilocybin use.
You're doing everybody a disservice by spreading FUD that is contradicted by real world studies and data. It's no better than what Nancy Regan tried (and for the most part succeeded) to do.
You're doing everybody a disservice by spreading FUD that is contradicted by real world studies and data. It's no better than what Nancy Regan tried (and for the most part succeeded) to do.
I'm not here to argue the stats, I'm just sharing my personal anecdotes from doing psychs 100s of times and going to dozens of psych festivals. My username is mushroom brain. I'm just sharing that it's not all enlightenment and these drugs come with risks. The odds may be low statistically but the consequences can be very high.
The pendulum has swung so far left from the Reagan propaganda to the point that people attempt to downplay any cautionary perspectives and act like these things are purely harmless spiritual panaceas.
The pendulum has swung so far left from the Reagan propaganda to the point that people attempt to downplay any cautionary perspectives and act like these things are purely harmless spiritual panaceas.
How many of them get there from intentionally jumping of a roof or carving up their arm? I suspect most are simple dumb accidents, like people have with alcohol, but of a different variety.
Have you been around someone experiencing psychedelic induced psychosis? They are often quite a danger to themselves and others. Usually requiring sedative/chemical restraint & police intervention by EMS. Ask any EMT about this.
Yes, I have seen several, including one that had to be forcibly sedated in the dirt. I have also seen many drunks fighting others and police.
Over 15 years at burning man, I have seen many people injured and maimed doing stupid things while high.
That said, the type of intentional self harm described above is basically unheard of. Mostly dumb accidents and some suicides.
To the extent there is any unique risk, it is more about long term psychiatric issues
Over 15 years at burning man, I have seen many people injured and maimed doing stupid things while high.
That said, the type of intentional self harm described above is basically unheard of. Mostly dumb accidents and some suicides.
To the extent there is any unique risk, it is more about long term psychiatric issues
Bath Salts. If rabies was a medicine. LSD lets you keep your marbles, they just become more colorful and roll around for awhile. It is disassociative though in a way that pain can be experienced differently. Solitary is okay, but don't go into it alone with self-harm in your history.
Ask your doctor if placebo is right for you.
Ask your doctor if placebo is right for you.
Sounds like AI should guide us. (maybe an uncensored version)
I see it as an unfortunate byproduct of the war on drugs forcing advocates to become boosters beyond what they otherwise would as a means to counteract the many years of bad-faith negative press. It was especially prevalent (still is to a certain extent) for weed, though I think that's dying down a bit now that it's been decriminalized in a lot of places.
Just be careful with metaphors. It's useful for conveying ideas, but it's easy to mistake the original idea by the substitution. Psychedelics are not programming languages. It doesn't matter if you or I write the same piece of code in gleam, they will work the same if the environment is the same. The same cannot be said by psychedelics.
If you're up for it, the next time you're trying out LSD at a venue see if you can watch the GUNSHIP video "Ghost" on your phone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUJuwNxNUWQ
Kind of suspect it'll make for a extra trippy trip. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUJuwNxNUWQ
Kind of suspect it'll make for a extra trippy trip. ;)
Opinions may vary of course, but I think LSD is best enjoyed without a phone at all.
At first I read graves instead of raves. Now that would also be an interesting session with some deep dissolutions & insights, although maybe disrespectful.
Muscimol and Mescaline likewise; unless you're on big pharama med, I'd say most hallucinogenics are worth trying.
In more secular terms, you are here to do the required work to understand yourself, your circumstances, stand on the shoulder of giants and study the great minds that came before you
Is that what kids who are born into starvation and poverty think ? Or just white guys with money ?
Is that what kids who are born into starvation and poverty think ? Or just white guys with money ?
In the extremes of the human experience everything is meaningless. I remember I last time I sat down on my sofa after a rave and I just cried thinking about the kids in Gaza and how much life is unfair.
I don't deserve so much, not more than these people that are starving, and yet I'm here. And I know that if I renounce everything I'll just be another starving person, albeit white.
So I enjoy my life and you won't be able to make me feel any worse than I already feel about it. But I dedicate myself to charity and to serving people whenever I can. It's important to use your privileges to care and serve. There is always someone that your abilities can help and renouncing them, renouncing your condition is a disservice to society.
Now answer me. How many people did your comment feed now? Which revolution did it fuel that will feed the masses?
I don't deserve so much, not more than these people that are starving, and yet I'm here. And I know that if I renounce everything I'll just be another starving person, albeit white.
So I enjoy my life and you won't be able to make me feel any worse than I already feel about it. But I dedicate myself to charity and to serving people whenever I can. It's important to use your privileges to care and serve. There is always someone that your abilities can help and renouncing them, renouncing your condition is a disservice to society.
Now answer me. How many people did your comment feed now? Which revolution did it fuel that will feed the masses?
Why is Gaza such a focus for your tears ? What about all the starving North Korean kids, dead Ukrainians etc?
The point of my comment is to point out while that's your opinion on what the meaning of life is to sit around high, on couches contemplating philosophy (and good on you), it's very very far from a universally shared view, especially if you're born into starvation somewhere in Africa...
The point of my comment is to point out while that's your opinion on what the meaning of life is to sit around high, on couches contemplating philosophy (and good on you), it's very very far from a universally shared view, especially if you're born into starvation somewhere in Africa...
How do you know your experience is not a placebo effect?
I don't know and honsetly I really don't care. What matters is what I do with it. It's really fun, I get a ton of physical exercise, I meet and talk to a lot of people, I help the organization with taking care of the garbage (I can't enjoy a rave fully if the land looks like a garbage dump).
I then get all my insights, because my mind never stops thinking about philosophy, and I write them down. Rinse and repeat.
It has profound effects in my life. Full disclaimer, I also exercise a lot, I have a fulfilling job in tech, I go to therapy, I dedicate myself to arts, I dedicate myself to my partner and my pets (which are almost like familiars for me).
Is it placebo? Is it my lifestyle? Is it the drugs?
I just apply non-interpretation to all these things that happen in my life and I go with it.
I then get all my insights, because my mind never stops thinking about philosophy, and I write them down. Rinse and repeat.
It has profound effects in my life. Full disclaimer, I also exercise a lot, I have a fulfilling job in tech, I go to therapy, I dedicate myself to arts, I dedicate myself to my partner and my pets (which are almost like familiars for me).
Is it placebo? Is it my lifestyle? Is it the drugs?
I just apply non-interpretation to all these things that happen in my life and I go with it.
I sometimes wonder - if the sensation of a "spiritual state" can be defined as a quantitative amount of some neurotransmitter in some circuit. That might be a sad day, though, for something that sounds so profound, to be reduced to numbers and probability....
The "out of body experience" ppl describe in near death always seemed to me to be a glitch of the brain's 3D perceptual space, i.e. a forced linear transform of 3D coordinates or something.
The "out of body experience" ppl describe in near death always seemed to me to be a glitch of the brain's 3D perceptual space, i.e. a forced linear transform of 3D coordinates or something.
Just be careful when applying reductionism, it's always a tradeoff and you are leaving qualia behind to make these simplifications
All you touch
And all you see
Is all your life
Will ever be
And all you see
Is all your life
Will ever be
Ram Dass said that back in the 1960's when they were doing study of LSD they would try to randomize/double blind these tests but it was very funny to see. There were one where they had clergy involved and it basically went, one person would be like "I think it is doing something" and another would be wandering around going "I SEE GOD! I SEE GOD!". It was obvious who had what.
That's about the time Catholics stopped having their Mass in Latin . . .
Cartoon about that which made me laugh.
https://www.altaonline.com/culture/cartoons/a42179654/weekly...
so hard to track these things down with google nowadays. Treats every word you add as an "or" like yahoo used to when google took their search market. The move from search engine to suggestion engine has been a disaster from my point of view. Hard to see how it would be more profitable.
edit: better link
https://www.altaonline.com/culture/cartoons/a42179654/weekly...
so hard to track these things down with google nowadays. Treats every word you add as an "or" like yahoo used to when google took their search market. The move from search engine to suggestion engine has been a disaster from my point of view. Hard to see how it would be more profitable.
edit: better link
The cartoon is a 10 out of 10!
>Hard to see how it would be more profitable
Queries use less compute time to complete, saving money. Why provide quality if there's no competitor for users to escape to?
Queries use less compute time to complete, saving money. Why provide quality if there's no competitor for users to escape to?
it's even worse. revenue per query is up if they can search more keywords for advertisements to display. their lists aren't as comprehensive as before.
This was part of this difficulty in clinical trials for mdma iirc. Both researchers and participants were fairly reliably able to discern placebo, among some other issues
> “I took five people and we locked ourselves in a building for three weeks and we took 400 micrograms of LSD every four hours. That is 2400 micrograms of LSD a day.… We finally were just drinking out of the bottle.… We were very high. What happened in those three weeks in that house, no one would ever believe, including us. And at the end of the three weeks, we walked out of the house and within a few days, we came down! It was a very frustrating experience, as if you came into the kingdom of heaven and you saw how it all was…and then you got cast out again.”
Ram Dass and his retelling of this experience contributed to my shift from psychedelics to established spiritual traditions. They had the territory mapped out thousands of years ago. Ram Dass ultimately settled as a Hindu where as I find myself drawn to Buddhism. Anatta maps nicely to experiences of ego death and I find that I can see all drugs as part of the conditioned world. If you rely on a physical substance of the conditioned world for access to the divine then you're not free yet.
Ram Dass and his retelling of this experience contributed to my shift from psychedelics to established spiritual traditions. They had the territory mapped out thousands of years ago. Ram Dass ultimately settled as a Hindu where as I find myself drawn to Buddhism. Anatta maps nicely to experiences of ego death and I find that I can see all drugs as part of the conditioned world. If you rely on a physical substance of the conditioned world for access to the divine then you're not free yet.
If the goal is death, what's the point of living? shouldn't we be doing something completely different here than trying to find a way back? if we're going to end up back there no matter what, it seems a waste of life to spend it on that.
> the goal is death
?
?
I presume they are referring to “ego death”.
What's the difference between ego death and physical death?
Doesn't physical death include ego death?
If so, why bother trying to kill it before then.
Is it something we must kill before physical death?
If so, why?
If we don't kill it before physical death, then what?
If we already have "connected to everything" at home, shouldn't we take advantage of the situation while we're out?
Because home sounds kind of boring.
> What's the difference between ego death and physical death?
When the body dies, the lights go out (as far as we know). When the ego "dies" (I agree with your sibling comment that maybe the word "death" is not the right word), you can go on living your life with a fundamentally shifted perspective.
> Doesn't physical death include ego death? If so, why bother trying to kill it before then.
This line of questioning doesn't make much sense to me. Why learn language, study philosophy, form relationships, have kids, and otherwise gain life experience if we're just going to die eventually?
For the same reasons "death" is potentially a misnomer, so too is framing this as "killing" it. The ego does not "die" because it was killed. It "dies" because we realize it was never what we thought it was to begin with. Ego is an idea. A concept. A formulation of thoughts and feelings that is so pervasive in our psyche that we form beliefs about its nature despite those beliefs not withstanding rational scrutiny.
The "death" of ego is the felt sense of this truth.
Clearly there is a difference between physical death and adjusting one's beliefs based on new evidence/experience.
> If we already have "connected to everything" at home, shouldn't we take advantage of the situation while we're out?
This is a misconception about the experience of no-self. Many people hear about this concept, and draw conclusions about what such an experience means about the rest of life that are unfounded (I was one of them).
It reminds me a bit of the arguments some of my religious friends make. "Well if we all just evolved, and are the result of random chance, what's the point of living life?" as if gaining a deeper understanding of existence will somehow suddenly change what it means to be human and to have a human experience. To me, this is a nonsensical line of reasoning. Learning more about the fundamental aspects of the universe doesn't de-value life for most people. If anything, it makes it all the more fantastical.
> Because home sounds kind of boring.
I'm right there with you. Experiencing ego "death" didn't make me suddenly decide to just rot at home because I have everything I need. It didn't remove the things I'm passionate about in life or make me less likely to engage with the world and do interesting things. It didn't even remove that internal collections of thoughts and feelings that I had previously identified with as synonymous with "me".
It just changed how I understand myself, relate to those feelings, and how I relate to the world around me. In a practical sense, it helped me reframe the more distressing aspects of life and deal with my anxiety and depression in new ways.
Your questions seem to reveal a belief that experiencing no-self somehow devalues or reduces the richness of experience. In my experience, the opposite is true. It makes life richer, fuller, and more amazing. It's anything but boring.
When the body dies, the lights go out (as far as we know). When the ego "dies" (I agree with your sibling comment that maybe the word "death" is not the right word), you can go on living your life with a fundamentally shifted perspective.
> Doesn't physical death include ego death? If so, why bother trying to kill it before then.
This line of questioning doesn't make much sense to me. Why learn language, study philosophy, form relationships, have kids, and otherwise gain life experience if we're just going to die eventually?
For the same reasons "death" is potentially a misnomer, so too is framing this as "killing" it. The ego does not "die" because it was killed. It "dies" because we realize it was never what we thought it was to begin with. Ego is an idea. A concept. A formulation of thoughts and feelings that is so pervasive in our psyche that we form beliefs about its nature despite those beliefs not withstanding rational scrutiny.
The "death" of ego is the felt sense of this truth.
Clearly there is a difference between physical death and adjusting one's beliefs based on new evidence/experience.
> If we already have "connected to everything" at home, shouldn't we take advantage of the situation while we're out?
This is a misconception about the experience of no-self. Many people hear about this concept, and draw conclusions about what such an experience means about the rest of life that are unfounded (I was one of them).
It reminds me a bit of the arguments some of my religious friends make. "Well if we all just evolved, and are the result of random chance, what's the point of living life?" as if gaining a deeper understanding of existence will somehow suddenly change what it means to be human and to have a human experience. To me, this is a nonsensical line of reasoning. Learning more about the fundamental aspects of the universe doesn't de-value life for most people. If anything, it makes it all the more fantastical.
> Because home sounds kind of boring.
I'm right there with you. Experiencing ego "death" didn't make me suddenly decide to just rot at home because I have everything I need. It didn't remove the things I'm passionate about in life or make me less likely to engage with the world and do interesting things. It didn't even remove that internal collections of thoughts and feelings that I had previously identified with as synonymous with "me".
It just changed how I understand myself, relate to those feelings, and how I relate to the world around me. In a practical sense, it helped me reframe the more distressing aspects of life and deal with my anxiety and depression in new ways.
Your questions seem to reveal a belief that experiencing no-self somehow devalues or reduces the richness of experience. In my experience, the opposite is true. It makes life richer, fuller, and more amazing. It's anything but boring.
The goal is not death. The comment mentioned ego death which is something else entirely.
At the risk of trivializing something that must be experienced not explained, the realization of no-self (ego death) is one of the most liberating things one can experience.
It’s the realization that the feeling of “I” is just another feeling that arises in the same space as all other feelings, and that this feeling is ultimately greatly constraining/limiting. It’s the realization that what we are is far more expansive than most people realize without such exploration of self and no-self. It’s liberation from the illusion that is our default state.
> what's the point of living?
For me, experiencing it is what makes life worth living.
The best way I can describe this is that it was the gradual dissolution of certain ideas I had about what it means to be me. This dissolution wasn’t just experiential - it was also the result of rational interrogation of various beliefs I had about myself.
To put this another way, it was the sum total of a series of realizations about what it can’t mean to be me.
- It feels like “I” is at the “center” of me, but biologically and neurologically, there is no discernible center
- It feels like “I” am my thoughts and feelings, but who then is aware of these thoughts and feelings?
- It feels like “I” am looking out at the world through the windows of my eyes, “I” am in the inside, and the world is on the outside. Except this relies on the unexamined belief that there’s some kind of homunculus inside my head doing the seeing. Instead, there’s just seeing.
And a list of related realizations too long to enumerate without making this comment longer than it already is.
The end result that people often refer to as ego death is the opposite of a waste in my experience. A life without breaking down these illusions is a life of servitude to our evolutionary defaults. A life lost in thought is a life that hasn’t experienced some of the most awe inspiring states of consciousness on offer.
As a skeptic, I spent the first 35 years of my life lost in my thoughts and feelings, and unaware that I could experience life any other way, and frankly uninterested in such ideas.
Life circumstances gave me a taste of what ego death entails, at which point I realized how completely oblivious I’d been and how deep my misconceptions about people who talked about such things were.
This comment is a stream of thought and not sufficient to communicate what ego death entails, but it is certainly not the scary/bad thing I had once believed, and is one of the most meaningful/helpful experiences of my life and has made life much richer.
Anything but a waste.
At the risk of trivializing something that must be experienced not explained, the realization of no-self (ego death) is one of the most liberating things one can experience.
It’s the realization that the feeling of “I” is just another feeling that arises in the same space as all other feelings, and that this feeling is ultimately greatly constraining/limiting. It’s the realization that what we are is far more expansive than most people realize without such exploration of self and no-self. It’s liberation from the illusion that is our default state.
> what's the point of living?
For me, experiencing it is what makes life worth living.
The best way I can describe this is that it was the gradual dissolution of certain ideas I had about what it means to be me. This dissolution wasn’t just experiential - it was also the result of rational interrogation of various beliefs I had about myself.
To put this another way, it was the sum total of a series of realizations about what it can’t mean to be me.
- It feels like “I” is at the “center” of me, but biologically and neurologically, there is no discernible center
- It feels like “I” am my thoughts and feelings, but who then is aware of these thoughts and feelings?
- It feels like “I” am looking out at the world through the windows of my eyes, “I” am in the inside, and the world is on the outside. Except this relies on the unexamined belief that there’s some kind of homunculus inside my head doing the seeing. Instead, there’s just seeing.
And a list of related realizations too long to enumerate without making this comment longer than it already is.
The end result that people often refer to as ego death is the opposite of a waste in my experience. A life without breaking down these illusions is a life of servitude to our evolutionary defaults. A life lost in thought is a life that hasn’t experienced some of the most awe inspiring states of consciousness on offer.
As a skeptic, I spent the first 35 years of my life lost in my thoughts and feelings, and unaware that I could experience life any other way, and frankly uninterested in such ideas.
Life circumstances gave me a taste of what ego death entails, at which point I realized how completely oblivious I’d been and how deep my misconceptions about people who talked about such things were.
This comment is a stream of thought and not sufficient to communicate what ego death entails, but it is certainly not the scary/bad thing I had once believed, and is one of the most meaningful/helpful experiences of my life and has made life much richer.
Anything but a waste.
Well put. Thanks for clarifying a bit more for those unfamiliar with these concepts.
Death means dead. If it comes back, it didn't die. So either everyone saying they've experienced it, has no ego (what are "they" then?), or they're using the wrong word.
I've experienced all those realizations myself, but "I" am back for now. So what's a better word for it? Maybe if we didn't call it "death", it wouldn't sound so scary, or mysterious, or interesting, or even useful. Guess it'd be kind of hard to build religions around that though.
I've experienced all those realizations myself, but "I" am back for now. So what's a better word for it? Maybe if we didn't call it "death", it wouldn't sound so scary, or mysterious, or interesting, or even useful. Guess it'd be kind of hard to build religions around that though.
"Ego death" is really not the death of ego, but the death of the belief that ego is is at the center of all things, and is somehow a thing that actually exists in the way we tend to believe it exists before examining it more closely.
> Maybe if we didn't call it "death", it wouldn't sound so scary, or mysterious, or interesting, or even useful.
I tend to agree. I think there's a strong stigma and association people hold when they hear these words, that are unrelated to the actual phenomena itself.
> Guess it'd be kind of hard to build religions around that though.
This reveals some of the associations you seem to have with the concept. I'm not religious, have taken on no metaphysical beliefs, and consider myself somewhere between agnostic and atheist.
There is nothing at all religious about ego death, even if many religions and people who talk about such things are doing so from a clearly religious context. It's this religious association that kept me away from exploring the ideas for many years.
It wasn't until I had directly experienced a taste of what that phrase means that I took it seriously. My worldview remains as irreligious as ever.
In retrospect, avoiding it because of this association seems as ill-advised as avoiding science because of its origins and associations with the Catholic Church.
> Maybe if we didn't call it "death", it wouldn't sound so scary, or mysterious, or interesting, or even useful.
I tend to agree. I think there's a strong stigma and association people hold when they hear these words, that are unrelated to the actual phenomena itself.
> Guess it'd be kind of hard to build religions around that though.
This reveals some of the associations you seem to have with the concept. I'm not religious, have taken on no metaphysical beliefs, and consider myself somewhere between agnostic and atheist.
There is nothing at all religious about ego death, even if many religions and people who talk about such things are doing so from a clearly religious context. It's this religious association that kept me away from exploring the ideas for many years.
It wasn't until I had directly experienced a taste of what that phrase means that I took it seriously. My worldview remains as irreligious as ever.
In retrospect, avoiding it because of this association seems as ill-advised as avoiding science because of its origins and associations with the Catholic Church.
The goal is ego death, to let your day-to-day machine mind die and be reborn as yourself without having to physically die. Keeping your soul, subconsciousness and your experience, while shedding the crust and rust that we accumulate over the years.
Now you know what born again Christians are all about.
Now you know what born again Christians are all about.
> What happened in those three weeks in that house, no one would ever believe, including us.
I've often wondered what happened here
I've often wondered what happened here
he also reported giving a guru heroic doses of LSD (1200+ μg) on two occasions and observing practically no effect. presumably because the state produced by the drug is a fleeting taste of the state the guru had achieved through more traditional means.
https://www.ramdass.org/ram-dass-gives-maharaji-the-yogi-med...
https://www.ramdass.org/ram-dass-gives-maharaji-the-yogi-med...
> Almost a decade ago, a Baptist Biblical scholar, a Catholic priest, several rabbis, an Islamic leader, a Zen Buddhist roshi, and more than a dozen other religious leaders walked into a lab—and took high doses of magic mushrooms.
Wild. Maybe what the world needs.
Wild. Maybe what the world needs.
Quite frankly, that quote sounds like the premise of some new Netflix original series.
>Maybe what the world needs.
One line that's been recurring between my wife and I for the past half-decade or so is that the whole planet needs a good hotboxing.
One line that's been recurring between my wife and I for the past half-decade or so is that the whole planet needs a good hotboxing.
That's the scattergun controlled approach of seeing like a state - give everyone medication even though it's only some that need it.
There's a small percentage ruining it for most: a few defectors when most are cooperators.
How do we identify the defectors?
What do you do if you identify defectors?
There's a small percentage ruining it for most: a few defectors when most are cooperators.
How do we identify the defectors?
What do you do if you identify defectors?
It's maybe inefficient to hotbox everyone but I think I would rather that than give my government the green light to define and identify defectors.
If humanity has proven one thing over and over and over again to itself it's that we're terrible at witch hunts.
If humanity has proven one thing over and over and over again to itself it's that we're terrible at witch hunts.
>There's a small percentage ruining it for most: a few defectors when most are cooperators.
>What do you do if you identify defectors?
Simple: you put them in charge of the government. That's what we do now, after all.
>What do you do if you identify defectors?
Simple: you put them in charge of the government. That's what we do now, after all.
So we just need to hotbox the people running gov :)
you're being too fixated on individuals. everyone's doing the same thing: avoiding pain, uncertainty, and the limitation of their future choices; seeking pleasure, security, and to increase their future choices. the very few people who aren't doing that don't matter: history unfolds because people do what makes sense for them, not because some don't.
I think you're being too fixated on your own perspective. History is nothing but the individual having a large blast radius.
History ABSOLUTELY unfolds the way it does because they were tired of being 'taking the reasonable/way that makes sense path'.
You can argue that every invention from the wheel forward has had this approach.
History ABSOLUTELY unfolds the way it does because they were tired of being 'taking the reasonable/way that makes sense path'.
You can argue that every invention from the wheel forward has had this approach.
> History ABSOLUTELY unfolds the way it does because they were tired of being 'taking the reasonable/way that makes sense path'.
i think we're talking at cross purposes. quoting myself:
>> ...everyone's doing the same thing: avoiding pain, uncertainty, and the limitation of their future choices; seeking pleasure, security, and to increase their future choices.
do you think that doesn't characterize the motivating factors that lead to invention?
i think we're talking at cross purposes. quoting myself:
>> ...everyone's doing the same thing: avoiding pain, uncertainty, and the limitation of their future choices; seeking pleasure, security, and to increase their future choices.
do you think that doesn't characterize the motivating factors that lead to invention?
Re-reading what was said, I believe we might be cross talking.
The 'reasonable way' that most people believe is to 'do it as its always been done'.
> do you think that doesn't characterize the motivating factors that lead to invention?
We as humans tend to to believe that this is the easiest path. Inventors and innovators are not a majority in the population, often popularized as outcasts or outliers in society through popular story tale.
Only in the last few decades has this narrative changed, but I can agree that indirectly yes, these avoid pain, uncertainty and limitation of their future choices.
The 'reasonable way' that most people believe is to 'do it as its always been done'.
> do you think that doesn't characterize the motivating factors that lead to invention?
We as humans tend to to believe that this is the easiest path. Inventors and innovators are not a majority in the population, often popularized as outcasts or outliers in society through popular story tale.
Only in the last few decades has this narrative changed, but I can agree that indirectly yes, these avoid pain, uncertainty and limitation of their future choices.
My friend Andy smoked weed with us once.
He disappeared about an hour after.
We found him a day later at his house.
He let us know he was okay, and everything was "cool and stuff", because the ice dogs didn't manage to catch him. He was able to run away into the woods to hide all night and eventually found his way back home in the morning. He was then curious why the ice dogs didn't chase us at all.
We didn't smoke Andy up anymore.
He disappeared about an hour after.
We found him a day later at his house.
He let us know he was okay, and everything was "cool and stuff", because the ice dogs didn't manage to catch him. He was able to run away into the woods to hide all night and eventually found his way back home in the morning. He was then curious why the ice dogs didn't chase us at all.
We didn't smoke Andy up anymore.
> We didn't smoke Andy up anymore.
I got open eye visuals from smoking some dubious hashish, 2 other people smoking the same stuff had no issues. I really enjoyed the experience, except for a small incident where I woke up in the middle of the night and started slapping my snoring friend -- I hallucinated he was in fact chocking on his own vomit and was going to die and in my mind I was saving his life.
I also got mild HPPD that got better in a few years -- mainly I could not look at certain grid patterns because bright flashes of light would come from the intersection -- this mostly happened from vent iron grids and some shirts of mine.
I got open eye visuals from smoking some dubious hashish, 2 other people smoking the same stuff had no issues. I really enjoyed the experience, except for a small incident where I woke up in the middle of the night and started slapping my snoring friend -- I hallucinated he was in fact chocking on his own vomit and was going to die and in my mind I was saving his life.
I also got mild HPPD that got better in a few years -- mainly I could not look at certain grid patterns because bright flashes of light would come from the intersection -- this mostly happened from vent iron grids and some shirts of mine.
Nicholas Sand wanted to turn on the entire planet but was unsuccessful.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Exactly.
Maybe. I'd be scare of what happens to conservative members of religions that can go off the deep end pretty badly, primarily islam, but various cults like scientology also comes to mind.
Just a little PSA for anybody getting curious about psychedellics from this post. If you have a family history of psychosis/scizophrenia etc., don't fuck around with it.
Especially if you've tried before and you've felt paranoid (or same with weed) then really, it's just not for you.
On the other hand, if you have some psychosis in the family tree, or felt paranoid from LSD/MDMA/THC, then try out meditation, cause you might find the divine is already close to your sober mind.
Especially if you've tried before and you've felt paranoid (or same with weed) then really, it's just not for you.
On the other hand, if you have some psychosis in the family tree, or felt paranoid from LSD/MDMA/THC, then try out meditation, cause you might find the divine is already close to your sober mind.
I don't know if I should share it here, but once travelling, I shared a smoke with a fellow traveller and I thought I could handle anything because I thought it was weed. It was something more than I know. I felt paranoid and felt everyone was watching me. I don't know how I was sane, but I decided to go and sleep and never will I dare touch anything so called weed.
It was probably K2/Spice. The same thing happened to me as well as a panic attack and borderline disassociation. I never touched weed, real or otherwise after that.
100%, tried my best not to recommend it universally. Hope I haven't failed at that.
Having said that, I used to have lots of panic attacks and dissociation episodes but with cannabis. These effects went away over time and now it just gives me the sense of relaxation. Full disclaimer I have a medical prescription for cannabis use and I do regular damage reduction routines. I also don't use opioids, cocaine, tobacco or alcohol (not anymore). I used to enjoy MDMA, but I grew disinterested in it because it makes it very difficult to rest after the sessions.
So hypothesis: maybe cannabis can be used to help mitigate and treat these psychotic effects by safely exposing the user to them.
Having said that, I used to have lots of panic attacks and dissociation episodes but with cannabis. These effects went away over time and now it just gives me the sense of relaxation. Full disclaimer I have a medical prescription for cannabis use and I do regular damage reduction routines. I also don't use opioids, cocaine, tobacco or alcohol (not anymore). I used to enjoy MDMA, but I grew disinterested in it because it makes it very difficult to rest after the sessions.
So hypothesis: maybe cannabis can be used to help mitigate and treat these psychotic effects by safely exposing the user to them.
I highly recommend the whole book "Sacred Knowledge" by William Richards (one of the author of the studies).
“To most people who are even moderately experienced with entheogens, concepts such as awe, sacredness, eternity, grace, agape, transcendence, transfiguration, dark night of the soul, born-again, heaven and hell are more than theological ideas; they are experiences.” - Thomas Roberts
This phrase is quoted in "Sacred Knowledge" by Richards, yet I find it the most suitable summary of this overview of scientific research on psychedelics and religion.
We hear about mystical visions from LSD ("acid"), psilocybin ("shrooms"), and DMT from many "spiritual but not religious" people and self-proclaimed shamans. But how does it relate to vision by ordinary people (ones who never tired, and wouldn't try if it weren't for legal, scientific research)?
And how does it relate to prayer, mediation, and mystical visions by Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus? How do monks and priests compare their psychedelic experience with their regular practice? Do they all turn to Zen Buddhism, or entrench in their religious background?
Regardless if you are deeply religious, or a non-spiritual atheist, I believe you will reconsider a few things after reading this book.
“To most people who are even moderately experienced with entheogens, concepts such as awe, sacredness, eternity, grace, agape, transcendence, transfiguration, dark night of the soul, born-again, heaven and hell are more than theological ideas; they are experiences.” - Thomas Roberts
This phrase is quoted in "Sacred Knowledge" by Richards, yet I find it the most suitable summary of this overview of scientific research on psychedelics and religion.
We hear about mystical visions from LSD ("acid"), psilocybin ("shrooms"), and DMT from many "spiritual but not religious" people and self-proclaimed shamans. But how does it relate to vision by ordinary people (ones who never tired, and wouldn't try if it weren't for legal, scientific research)?
And how does it relate to prayer, mediation, and mystical visions by Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus? How do monks and priests compare their psychedelic experience with their regular practice? Do they all turn to Zen Buddhism, or entrench in their religious background?
Regardless if you are deeply religious, or a non-spiritual atheist, I believe you will reconsider a few things after reading this book.
I have taken LSD and mushrooms about a dozen times each. They’re just drugs. Drugs that mess with the way you perceive things, there’s nothing spiritual or profound about any of it. I very much enjoy hallucinogens but any ‘meaning’ or ‘spirituality’ about the experience is nonsense. I still think the experience itself has positive effects overall.
Meaning and spirituality are personal experiences, seems close minded to deny what others avowedly profess as their true first person experience.
It might be close minded, but it doesn’t mean I am incorrect. I’ve done enough varieties of drugs (multiple types of every class of recreational drugs) to know it’s just altering your brain chemistry to make you perceive things differently. There’s no higher meaning or purpose to tripping. Other people may believe there is, but I think they’re wrong and misinterpreting their experience due to what they’ve read and heard about hallucinogens.
Staying grounded when you’re doing powerful psychedelics is a good idea.
As an experiment, next time you trip, write down your ‘profound’ thoughts and then examine them after the trip is over.
Staying grounded when you’re doing powerful psychedelics is a good idea.
As an experiment, next time you trip, write down your ‘profound’ thoughts and then examine them after the trip is over.
My thoughts were that relationships and love are the true key to happiness and fulfillment in life. Those thoughts were integrated for sure.
Seems like you’re lost in the thought that scientific rationalism and spiritualism can’t co-exist. Look at definitions of the words meaning and spirituality and ponder why they’re universal across all “wrong” religions in your view.
I think It’s because those are true human experiences, regardless of their detachment from established religion or tropes. I don’t believe any religion but I do believe people have genuine awe and wonder and label it spirituality.
And to just go deny other people, sounds like a bummer to be around while tripping.
Seems like you’re lost in the thought that scientific rationalism and spiritualism can’t co-exist. Look at definitions of the words meaning and spirituality and ponder why they’re universal across all “wrong” religions in your view.
I think It’s because those are true human experiences, regardless of their detachment from established religion or tropes. I don’t believe any religion but I do believe people have genuine awe and wonder and label it spirituality.
And to just go deny other people, sounds like a bummer to be around while tripping.
First, your experience is your experience.
Second, how do you define `meaning’ or `spirituality’?
Second, how do you define `meaning’ or `spirituality’?
AS Christians we don't expect to receive mystical and transcendent visions, although they can happen it's exceedingly rare and not something the majority of people will see in their life.
Satan is far more likely to give you a mystical vision that leads you away from the faith than for you to receive a Divine vision.
Satan is far more likely to give you a mystical vision that leads you away from the faith than for you to receive a Divine vision.
I recommend reading "Sacred knowledge" even more (the author is Christian, if it makes a difference). When it comes to mystic experiences, while technically it can me "less than 50%", it is still a lot (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/12/07/spiritual-ex...). Not everyone is happy to talk about it, both is it might be very personal and as many are afraid to be considered crazy.
I cannot say much about relative Bayesian probability of getting a vision from God or Satan, though.
I cannot say much about relative Bayesian probability of getting a vision from God or Satan, though.
If we're talking about a generic "experience", sure anyone can have that. I was talking about seeing supernatural things directly.
Will do, but I can't help but being sceptical of the scepticism of those that study the world from a safe distance. Maybe I'm just too sceptically trusting in my experiences and the world as I see it.
Pretty much nothing of substance in the writeup. All about studying and flaws.
Yeah I was honestly taken aback with how devoid of content this was. No personal stories or research.
The New Yorker version looks more interesting.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/05/26/this-is-your-p...
The New Yorker version looks more interesting.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/05/26/this-is-your-p...
heh, didn't expect this line:
Finding willing rabbis, however, was easy—the challenge was finding ones who were “psychedelically naïve.”
Finding willing rabbis, however, was easy—the challenge was finding ones who were “psychedelically naïve.”
There are videos of such religious devotees riding around cities in a van, blasting psychedelic trance, and stopping at lights to dance around the intersection, offering acid to onlookers.
this should probably be OP - much better original story, not a reblog, and it's written by Michael Pollan.
Much better, thank you!
I had to scroll up and down for a while, looking for the rest of the article. There wasn't any.
Here you go: https://archive.ph/2Za2J
Yea I was wondering if there was some UI issue on mobile bc I kept scrolling down expecting more.
I stopped and read the whole thing to be disappointed.
A blurb about [thing i am interested in].
I now feel like yelling at some clouds.
I stopped and read the whole thing to be disappointed.
A blurb about [thing i am interested in].
I now feel like yelling at some clouds.
I feel badly that I didn't warn you sufficiently.
Yeah, total clickbait
It also makes some mistakes:
> Many of those who chose to participate were also considering leaving the profession at the outset and so could have been seeking a way to reconnect with the divine
From the study:
> 8% endorsing that they were currently considering leaving their vocation
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/psymed.2023.0044#sec-...
24 completed the study, so that's 2 people.
> Many of those who chose to participate were also considering leaving the profession at the outset and so could have been seeking a way to reconnect with the divine
From the study:
> 8% endorsing that they were currently considering leaving their vocation
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/psymed.2023.0044#sec-...
24 completed the study, so that's 2 people.
I don't know if my brain is just wired up differently, but I've taken both LSD and Psilocybin many times and I did not find the experiences spiritual at all. I don't even know what people are talking about when they talk about spiritual experiences.
I know people personally that psilocybin, LSD, and other substances do nothing for. All of them also have existing mental health disorders (extreme generalized anxiety, depression, bipolar, etc.).
Nothing as in there is no outside noticeable change in behavior and they report no change in speaking, or nothing as it relates to the topic of this thread, in that they have no profound or spiritual experiences?
They might get a slight body high even on what would otherwise be considered heroic doses for their weight.
Things like lemon-tek to make the psilocybin more bioavailable were also not impactful to them, while being apparently extremely impactful for others.
Things like lemon-tek to make the psilocybin more bioavailable were also not impactful to them, while being apparently extremely impactful for others.
It may be worth noting that antidepressant medication has a strong suppressing effect on psychedelics.
Depends on the type! Generally might be true for SSRIs but not always for TCAs or lithium which can have the opposite effect. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8788508/ (just one example)
Well aware and accounted for.
If they’re doing high doses of psychedelics and only experiencing a body high, then they’re either on a drug blocking its effects, or they’re not taking a 5HT2-A agonist. They simply do not just produce a body high at high doses, you will know when you’re tripping.
This isn't completely true. Tolerance to psychedelics is a thing, and can often ve extremely long lasting. I have a friend that when given heroic doses of 2C-B(50mg or more, orally), hardly experienced more than threshold level effects. This was 2C-B tested and confirmed to have 95% purity, and it affected me exactly as expected. He was not on any drugs except hash, which is typically synergistic.
In his case, according to him he yad used 2C-B very heavily many years previously, and it seems he developed an extremely high level of tolerance which remained unchanged for many years of non-use.
In the cases discussed in the thread, it's possible that something similar was happening. Indeed, many antidepressants also alter serotonin receptor expression over time, and it's plausible that in some people, these effects could linger for a long time.
In his case, according to him he yad used 2C-B very heavily many years previously, and it seems he developed an extremely high level of tolerance which remained unchanged for many years of non-use.
In the cases discussed in the thread, it's possible that something similar was happening. Indeed, many antidepressants also alter serotonin receptor expression over time, and it's plausible that in some people, these effects could linger for a long time.
I agree in that case, long-term SSRI and psychedelic use complicates things. But in general, I would not say the literature points to tolerance being long lasting. Tolerance is built up quickly, and then quickly lost. There have been many (reproduced) studies on the effects of psychedelics and tolerance build up, and they show it doesn't last for more than a few weeks (psilocybin / LSD).
I'd be interested to see those studies. I think there could be a couple different types of tolerance, one of which only occurs with rather heavy use. It's something I've seen reported anecdotally from a number of people who've used psychedelics very heavily. It might not show up in human studies because of ethical concerns. There could be some interesting pharmacological differences too, where this only occurs with specific drugs. The psychedelics are quite varied in terms of pharmacodynamics beyond just the 5-HT-2 receptor subfamily.
Here's the OG tolerance study done on psilocybin and LSD: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00407974
We need more studies on the long term effects of heavy psilocybin use. We know how chronic use of alcohol and cannabis affect people fairly well at this point. We also know a lot about regular psilocybin use, but not a whole lot about what happens to people if they take it for 20 years.
We need more studies on the long term effects of heavy psilocybin use. We know how chronic use of alcohol and cannabis affect people fairly well at this point. We also know a lot about regular psilocybin use, but not a whole lot about what happens to people if they take it for 20 years.
Imagine being on a med for 30-50 years.
I'd call that a case of the drug(s) they were on blocking the effect due to an apparently permanent change to their brain chemistry.
Some of them were younger, in their 20s with long lasting depression and no history of medication in the last ~2y.
This wasn't some like, "weekend experience" but more multi-decade "experiments" with some extremely well educated friends, coworkers, etc.
Group size of around 30.
This wasn't some like, "weekend experience" but more multi-decade "experiments" with some extremely well educated friends, coworkers, etc.
Group size of around 30.
Many psych meds diminish/block psychedelic effects.
Fwiw I find that, due to my antidepressants, i need 3x the dose to have the equivalent experience as my friends.
I find mushrooms in particular delightful, just not deep.
Higher dose.
EXACTLY! The same to most of the posters with “meh-effects”: up the dose! LSD and psilocybin can be very psychedelic and hallucinogenic
Agreed. I really enjoy both acid and shrooms, but beyond appreciating the fractal beauty of trees and the patterns in carpets a bit more I wouldn't describe them as anything life-changing, let alone some kind of spiritual awakening. MDMA is similarly hyped up, but no, I never felt "connected to the mass of humanity" or whatever people talk about, I just got high and danced while gritting my teeth and rubbing on my head.
Decades ago I had the same type of what are people talking about?!, it's certainly not happening to me! surprise, regarding MDMA and the supposed wonders of dancing the night away. I felt the effects of the substance, but to me, nightclub dancing on MDMA still felt about as awkwardly-conscious, performative and unnecessary as it did without!
I suspect it's similar with the spiritual stuff, in principle. That is, if you're typically not a personality who tends towards that stuff - spiritual connections and revelations and such - then perhaps no substance will necessary make you so.
I suspect it's similar with the spiritual stuff, in principle. That is, if you're typically not a personality who tends towards that stuff - spiritual connections and revelations and such - then perhaps no substance will necessary make you so.
Set and setting. None of these drugs are like alcohol that just dulls the brain and lowers your IQ by 30 points. In a way you get what you're prepared to get.
It sounds like the nightclubs you were going to weren't a good setting either. A club should never feel self-conscious or performative. You should be able to get lost in there with the music. The dancing shouldn't feel unnecessary but more of an obligation because the music is so good. If you feel its unnecessary and awkward sober then no drug will fix that except maybe alcohol. I to to clubs and dance 100% sober these days.
It sounds like the nightclubs you were going to weren't a good setting either. A club should never feel self-conscious or performative. You should be able to get lost in there with the music. The dancing shouldn't feel unnecessary but more of an obligation because the music is so good. If you feel its unnecessary and awkward sober then no drug will fix that except maybe alcohol. I to to clubs and dance 100% sober these days.
> you get what you're prepared to get
For the folks who aren't sure what the rest of us are talking about, this is the important bit.
For the folks who aren't sure what the rest of us are talking about, this is the important bit.
[deleted]
Yes I think you're exactly right. In my case, the set wasn't there, because my heart was never in nightclubbing or its style of music, in general. Getting persuaded by friends to have enjoyable MDMA experiences with them in that setting didn't change those preferences, or magically turn on some Dance switch.
And in that sense, "MDMA is amazing to dance on" is as much of a general misconception as "Psychedelics give great spiritual experiences". They tend to apply to people who already pursue those particular ends.
And in that sense, "MDMA is amazing to dance on" is as much of a general misconception as "Psychedelics give great spiritual experiences". They tend to apply to people who already pursue those particular ends.
Might be you're just different than me, or might be that it's the type of nightclub. For me it needs to be something more ravey, like psytrance, DNB or hard techno. If I went to some lame commercial house nightclub, I'd have a bad time as well. But either way, no reason not to retry, life is an adventure.
It beats sitting around and <doing the regular evening passtime stuff>.
From my experience, nor MDMA nor shrums do the work for you. They only help you get there. So if you just pop the pill sit back and wait for things to happen, then it's not going to work. These things amplify your inner state (emotions, feelings, thoughts) thats why set and setting is of most importance. And here is where a good trip sitter also can come in handy.
Dosage might play a factor, I presume.
Impurities as well.
I've taken enough to melt into the furniture.
are you otherwise spiritual? I think that might be a prerequisite. Outside of spirituality did you have any experiences that were "profound" or "thought provoking"?
From my point of view all experiences are more or less equally strange and profound. I would describe the experience as interesting, moderately thought provoking, but not informative about any deep human question.
From my point of view most people's "spiritual" musings are like putting a clown mask on the world.
From my point of view most people's "spiritual" musings are like putting a clown mask on the world.
Same. The hallucinations are fun and the laughter and joy but at the same time I can tell, even though I'm tripping, that it's just my brain mixing up its wiring and nothing to do with god.
it is there. in a former life ive only felt it under the spell of either of those substances mixed with others popular with today's party goers, but it is. very fleeting and hard to describe but I have the sparse memories of the feelings during the experiences and once you get there you will know and definitely remember
Lsd did it for me. Psilocybin was not spiritual at all.
For me the "spiritual exlerience" was just a profound sense of gratefulness. And then the idea that god and objective truth are one and the same. Whatever that means
For me the "spiritual exlerience" was just a profound sense of gratefulness. And then the idea that god and objective truth are one and the same. Whatever that means
I recently talked about LSD to a spiritual person (the western esotericism kind).
He accidentally took a very high dose in his 20s and also read a bunch of books on the subject for a while, by Leary and so on. He equated it to a trip to the mirror maze, but nothing more. He doesn’t find it worth it and warns against it since for some people it lingers for too long. He is puzzled about people calling the experience „spiritual“ too.
He accidentally took a very high dose in his 20s and also read a bunch of books on the subject for a while, by Leary and so on. He equated it to a trip to the mirror maze, but nothing more. He doesn’t find it worth it and warns against it since for some people it lingers for too long. He is puzzled about people calling the experience „spiritual“ too.
Set and setting can make or break the experience. Alone and -> introspection or in the crowd who will drag you along them? Looking around at patterns emerging or resting with eyes firmly closed letting your mind wander far and high? What kind of soothing music is in the background? And so on.
For me and my several mushroom trips in the past (cca 1 standard dose, nothing over that but mixed with lemon which should shorten the trip while making it way more intense) all above made it extremely pleasant, very powerful with lasting effects, and also at the end of each very spiritual (while not changing me being agnostic, rather just confirming it).
Once took a milder dose without lemon, and just sat in one of Amsterdam's parcs looking around - felt almost nothing compared to other trips, and dealing with reality, traffic, cyclists etc made it less than pleasant.
For me and my several mushroom trips in the past (cca 1 standard dose, nothing over that but mixed with lemon which should shorten the trip while making it way more intense) all above made it extremely pleasant, very powerful with lasting effects, and also at the end of each very spiritual (while not changing me being agnostic, rather just confirming it).
Once took a milder dose without lemon, and just sat in one of Amsterdam's parcs looking around - felt almost nothing compared to other trips, and dealing with reality, traffic, cyclists etc made it less than pleasant.
I've enjoyed my experiences and find them very interesting, but I just don't feel any like they've revealed anything deep about life or the universe to me.
Like from my point of view each moment of consciousness is bizarre, interesting, impossible to describe already. The experience of taking mushrooms or LSD doesn't really enhance or even change that fact.
Like from my point of view each moment of consciousness is bizarre, interesting, impossible to describe already. The experience of taking mushrooms or LSD doesn't really enhance or even change that fact.
Take twice the dose in a safe environment with only your best friend
Try it alone, without a phone or a tv or anything particularly distracting.
I think it's a mix of set and setting combined with people who have probably never taken any kind of drug aside from alcohol and maybe infrequent cannabis usage. People who take LSD "many times" usually come to it after already being able to handle themselves on some psychedelic substance, so the experience is less all-encompassing and more mundane. Some priest who's never even been contact high, sitting in a room with religious iconography and being prepped to experience something spiritual, seems likely to have a very different experience.
[deleted]
There’s also this guy who you might have heard of, who created a little thing called Alcoholics Anonymous:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_W.#Psychedelic_therapy
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-5922.13027
Apparently he was so serious about the potential for LSD to help alcoholics, that he almost got thrown out of Alcoholics Anonymous, the recovery group he helped create. He had written to a Catholic friend about this.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/23/lsd-help-alc...
> LSD, by mimicking insanity, could help alcoholics achieve a central tenet of the Twelve Step programme proposed by AA, he believed. It was a matter of finding "a power greater than ourselves" that "could restore us to sanity". He warned: "I don't believe [LSD] has any miraculous property of transforming spiritually and emotionally sick people into healthy ones overnight. It can set up a shining goal on the positive side, after all it is only a temporary ego-reducer."
> But Wilson added: "The vision and insights given by LSD could create a large incentive – at least in a considerable number of people."
> His words were found in a late 50s letter to Father Ed Dowling, a Catholic priest and member of an experimental group he had formed in New York to explore the spiritual potential of LSD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_W.#Psychedelic_therapy
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-5922.13027
Apparently he was so serious about the potential for LSD to help alcoholics, that he almost got thrown out of Alcoholics Anonymous, the recovery group he helped create. He had written to a Catholic friend about this.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/23/lsd-help-alc...
> LSD, by mimicking insanity, could help alcoholics achieve a central tenet of the Twelve Step programme proposed by AA, he believed. It was a matter of finding "a power greater than ourselves" that "could restore us to sanity". He warned: "I don't believe [LSD] has any miraculous property of transforming spiritually and emotionally sick people into healthy ones overnight. It can set up a shining goal on the positive side, after all it is only a temporary ego-reducer."
> But Wilson added: "The vision and insights given by LSD could create a large incentive – at least in a considerable number of people."
> His words were found in a late 50s letter to Father Ed Dowling, a Catholic priest and member of an experimental group he had formed in New York to explore the spiritual potential of LSD.
"William James, considered the father of American psychology ...., is said to have to come to many of his own most central ideas at least in part through hallucinatory experiences with nitrous oxide"
That's a pretty good explainer for psychology. We have a Coke addled Freud who is the father of it all and another drug abuser shepherding the USA.
I wonder how many people have tried to replicate their experiments and succeeded?
That's a pretty good explainer for psychology. We have a Coke addled Freud who is the father of it all and another drug abuser shepherding the USA.
I wonder how many people have tried to replicate their experiments and succeeded?
Yeah, keep in mind that significant abuse of the drugs mentioned are, uh, let's say, prone to inflating the ego rather than killing it and showing a different path.
Kinda fills in some unspoken gaps about the 'discipline' of psychology...
Kinda fills in some unspoken gaps about the 'discipline' of psychology...
Can you explain this for those of us with minimal background in psychology? Is there a substantial amount of pseudoscience in modern psychology, or just historically?
This is a little blunt, but I knew a lot of people who went into psychology and got degrees. They were not very gifted academically (C students in highschool) and went into psych as it was an easy major that let them coast and party for four years. I'm sure this isn't the case for all psychology majors of course, but it was very different on average than what I was used to in engineering or the hard sciences where you generally had 4 years of excruciating math classes including calculus and differential equations that weeded out most.
Psychology is very dependent on statistics and experiments. That can be complicated and after going through those classes I simply don't trust the majority of students (or their professors) to get any of that right. It's why I roll my eyes every time the radio guy talks about the results of another pop psych study. I knew some psych majors big into new age crystal stuff and legitimately believed it all as well as a bunch of additional pseudoscience garbage. That kind of thing is a lot more rare in say physics where it's really hard to get through the program without a rational brain.
Again, there are probably some brilliant folks drawn to that field who knows how to do solid research, but my experiences suggest that the signal to noise ratio may be suspect.
Psychology is very dependent on statistics and experiments. That can be complicated and after going through those classes I simply don't trust the majority of students (or their professors) to get any of that right. It's why I roll my eyes every time the radio guy talks about the results of another pop psych study. I knew some psych majors big into new age crystal stuff and legitimately believed it all as well as a bunch of additional pseudoscience garbage. That kind of thing is a lot more rare in say physics where it's really hard to get through the program without a rational brain.
Again, there are probably some brilliant folks drawn to that field who knows how to do solid research, but my experiences suggest that the signal to noise ratio may be suspect.
I appreciate your honesty, blunt or not that’s an interesting perspective.
Psych majors with just a BS degree - totally agree with you.
PhDs, though - some more rigor is involved. Definitely not C-grade level folks (or if they were, they've rectified that problem). But still, we do have a replication crisis...
PhDs, though - some more rigor is involved. Definitely not C-grade level folks (or if they were, they've rectified that problem). But still, we do have a replication crisis...
Psychology has a pretty significant reproducibility crisis.
From what I've seen as an outsider, a lot of studies are taken as fact without any confirmation with attempts to reproduce the results. And many results suffer from questionable methodology.
A big part of the problem is that doing psychology well is really, really hard. You are dealing with human subjects, which means there are a lot of ethical and regulatory constraints. A lot of experiments that might give you important insights are unethical and/or illegal. Getting people to participate in studies is difficult and expensive, which means sample sizes are often much smaller than they should be. And there are often significant biases in the population sampled (I believe most psychology studies are done on college students... often psychology students). And then there is the inherent complexity of the subject. Every person's brain is different, and finding general rules that apply to the incredible diversity of human minds is very, very difficult. And finally, I suspect that a lot of psychologists are not trained in statistics and experimental methodology to the same degree as scientists in "harder" sciences.
From what I've seen as an outsider, a lot of studies are taken as fact without any confirmation with attempts to reproduce the results. And many results suffer from questionable methodology.
A big part of the problem is that doing psychology well is really, really hard. You are dealing with human subjects, which means there are a lot of ethical and regulatory constraints. A lot of experiments that might give you important insights are unethical and/or illegal. Getting people to participate in studies is difficult and expensive, which means sample sizes are often much smaller than they should be. And there are often significant biases in the population sampled (I believe most psychology studies are done on college students... often psychology students). And then there is the inherent complexity of the subject. Every person's brain is different, and finding general rules that apply to the incredible diversity of human minds is very, very difficult. And finally, I suspect that a lot of psychologists are not trained in statistics and experimental methodology to the same degree as scientists in "harder" sciences.
I can't really speak for psychology as a field other than a spectator, but I find it to be quite subjective. What I really meant was related to cocaine and nitrous oxide -- two very different substances that both result in wild egos, wild ideas, hard-to-sustain invincibility and a host of other effects, unlike psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, DMT, etc) which are arguably closer to (and provide) positive psychological responses / breakthroughs / perspectives.
For a current-times look into nitrous, observe Kanye West. The rumor mill (plus believable evidence) suggests he is out of his MIND on large amounts of N2O frequently, and his erratic and grandiose behavior reinforces the idea. That's probably not ideal for American psychology if "the father" of it is similarly whacked lol.
For a historical look into cocaine, observe Sigmund Freud. There was a great book called Cocaine: An Unauthorized Biography [0] by Dominic Streatfeild, the second-third of which covers Freud's discovery and promotion of cocaine as a cure-all.
TL;DR Freud was searching for a drug, any drug, that hadn't been claimed yet by a scientific promoter to then market as his own for fame and fortune, stumbled upon cocaine (hydrochloride, not freebase), started doing a lot of it, proselytizing it (it could cure your heroin addiction!) etc, before the whole thing kind of collapsed around him.
While arguably fun, it's a substance that is the polar opposite of "introspection" and drives a lot of behavior that honestly a person might seek a therapist or psychologist to resolve LOL, so for a psychologist to promote it early in his career who eventually progresses into more or less defining psychology as a field, well ... I just find it curious and would wonder what theories Freud would have put forth had he come to be in a time with psychedelics available instead. That's all!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine:_An_Unauthorized_Biogr...
For a current-times look into nitrous, observe Kanye West. The rumor mill (plus believable evidence) suggests he is out of his MIND on large amounts of N2O frequently, and his erratic and grandiose behavior reinforces the idea. That's probably not ideal for American psychology if "the father" of it is similarly whacked lol.
For a historical look into cocaine, observe Sigmund Freud. There was a great book called Cocaine: An Unauthorized Biography [0] by Dominic Streatfeild, the second-third of which covers Freud's discovery and promotion of cocaine as a cure-all.
TL;DR Freud was searching for a drug, any drug, that hadn't been claimed yet by a scientific promoter to then market as his own for fame and fortune, stumbled upon cocaine (hydrochloride, not freebase), started doing a lot of it, proselytizing it (it could cure your heroin addiction!) etc, before the whole thing kind of collapsed around him.
While arguably fun, it's a substance that is the polar opposite of "introspection" and drives a lot of behavior that honestly a person might seek a therapist or psychologist to resolve LOL, so for a psychologist to promote it early in his career who eventually progresses into more or less defining psychology as a field, well ... I just find it curious and would wonder what theories Freud would have put forth had he come to be in a time with psychedelics available instead. That's all!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine:_An_Unauthorized_Biogr...
Psychology isn't a science and never has been. It fails to meet the basic criteria. Reproducibility in particular has been a very big deal in recent years (google search term: "replication crisis").
> That's a pretty good explainer for psychology. We have a Coke addled Freud who is the father of it all and another drug abuser shepherding the USA.
Now do tech CEOs
Now do tech CEOs
The Hebrew writings include some instances of God appearing from fire or smoke. Exactly what was burning? I've read what I consider rumors that there are DMT-containing shrubs in that part of the world.
I come from a Muslim family but aren’t deeply religious myself. My first LSD trip felt deeply spiritual and echoed themes from the paper on psychedelics and religion. Here’s what I took away, which might interest anyone curious about this topic:
- Prophetic Sensation: It was so profound that, 5,000 years ago, I could’ve thought it was a prophetic vision. I didn’t feel like I was speaking to God, but I got how prophets might’ve felt something divine.
- Inner Peace & Clarity: LSD brought pure joy, warmth, and peace. It stripped away mental filters, showing me the world as it is, not just how I see it.
- Accepting Death: I felt at peace with death, seeing it as a natural part of life. I’d never really thought about it before, but there was no fear—just acceptance.
- Divine Music: Music felt heavenly, amplifying the moment’s emotional and spiritual depth. It was like it carried the experience.
- Spiritual Connection: I didn’t think about whether religions are “true,” but it felt spiritual, like touching something bigger—hard to explain, but so meaningful.
- Right & Wrong Philosophy: I realized “right” and “wrong” are labels we create. Right feels like harmony, wrong like harm, but they’re fluid, shaped by context. Things just are, and we use these ideas to navigate life.
- Prophetic Sensation: It was so profound that, 5,000 years ago, I could’ve thought it was a prophetic vision. I didn’t feel like I was speaking to God, but I got how prophets might’ve felt something divine.
- Inner Peace & Clarity: LSD brought pure joy, warmth, and peace. It stripped away mental filters, showing me the world as it is, not just how I see it.
- Accepting Death: I felt at peace with death, seeing it as a natural part of life. I’d never really thought about it before, but there was no fear—just acceptance.
- Divine Music: Music felt heavenly, amplifying the moment’s emotional and spiritual depth. It was like it carried the experience.
- Spiritual Connection: I didn’t think about whether religions are “true,” but it felt spiritual, like touching something bigger—hard to explain, but so meaningful.
- Right & Wrong Philosophy: I realized “right” and “wrong” are labels we create. Right feels like harmony, wrong like harm, but they’re fluid, shaped by context. Things just are, and we use these ideas to navigate life.
Dude, I needed to double check to make sure this is not my comment, all the way to being born in a Muslim family. The prophetic part is spot on, I stop right here ;)
It was done at Harvard Divinity School in 1962
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment
The Marsh Chapel Experiment, also called the "Good Friday Experiment", was an experiment conducted on Good Friday, April 20, 1962 at Boston University's Marsh Chapel. Walter N. Pahnke, a graduate student in theology at Harvard Divinity School, designed the experiment under the supervision of Timothy Leary, Richard Alpert, and the Harvard Psilocybin Project.[1] Pahnke's experiment investigated whether psilocybin would act as a reliable entheogen in religiously predisposed subjects.[2]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment
The Marsh Chapel Experiment, also called the "Good Friday Experiment", was an experiment conducted on Good Friday, April 20, 1962 at Boston University's Marsh Chapel. Walter N. Pahnke, a graduate student in theology at Harvard Divinity School, designed the experiment under the supervision of Timothy Leary, Richard Alpert, and the Harvard Psilocybin Project.[1] Pahnke's experiment investigated whether psilocybin would act as a reliable entheogen in religiously predisposed subjects.[2]
Promising title, but the article felt hollow... all surface, no depth. Skimmed anecdotes without probing them, offered no real insight or new perspective, and left me with absolutely nothing I couldn't have guessed from the headline alone :(
[deleted]
Better to stay sane...Have seen a lot of these kinds of articles, surely funding comes from somewhere...
I've noticed a pattern in which "type" of outlets push this content the most
Are you saying you are sane but you also believe secret orgs are funding to push psychedelics to people to make them insane? I have bad news then.
[deleted]
This magazine (nautil.us) is funded by the John Templeton Foundation, which seeks to promote "the intersection of religion and science".
(Noone talked about "secret" orgs, the GP poster which you imply is not sane actually made a correct guess based on common sense)
(Noone talked about "secret" orgs, the GP poster which you imply is not sane actually made a correct guess based on common sense)
The article opening sounds like a bar joke.
Also, I think this point is salient:
> He pointed to the risk of selection bias: those who volunteer are likely to be “spiritually hungering for a mystical experience,”...
I would go further and suppose that any Christian elder or leader who volunteered to do this had already demonstrated their unsuitability to speak on the matter of psychedelics and God.
Also, I think this point is salient:
> He pointed to the risk of selection bias: those who volunteer are likely to be “spiritually hungering for a mystical experience,”...
I would go further and suppose that any Christian elder or leader who volunteered to do this had already demonstrated their unsuitability to speak on the matter of psychedelics and God.
> I would go further and suppose that any Christian elder or leader who volunteered to do this had already demonstrated their unsuitability to speak on the matter of psychedelics and God.
I have honest questions. Would you mind expanding? Is there a theological basis for your stance? What would a suitable Christian elder or leader say on the matter of psychedelics and God?
I have honest questions. Would you mind expanding? Is there a theological basis for your stance? What would a suitable Christian elder or leader say on the matter of psychedelics and God?
For example, it has been written in the letter to the Ephesians 5.15-21:
Therefore watch carefully how you walk, not as unwise, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Because of this don’t become foolish but understand what the will of the Lord is and don’t be drunken with wine, in which is dissipation, but be filled with the spirit, speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; singing and making melody in your heart to the lord; giving thanks always concerning all things to God, even the father, in the name of our lord Jesus Christ; subjecting yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ.
Therefore watch carefully how you walk, not as unwise, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Because of this don’t become foolish but understand what the will of the Lord is and don’t be drunken with wine, in which is dissipation, but be filled with the spirit, speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; singing and making melody in your heart to the lord; giving thanks always concerning all things to God, even the father, in the name of our lord Jesus Christ; subjecting yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ.
Would you say the issue is intoxication in general, or is there something categorically different about psychedelics compared to alcohol?
The letter to the Galatians (5.19-23) may distinguish between drunkenness and drug use depending on if you consider φαρμακεία (pharmaceia) to include the use of psychedelics:
Now the deeds of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, ... sorcery (φαρμακεία), ... drunkenness (μέθαι), ... and things like these; of which I forewarn you, even as I also forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s kingdom. But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Now the deeds of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, ... sorcery (φαρμακεία), ... drunkenness (μέθαι), ... and things like these; of which I forewarn you, even as I also forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s kingdom. But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
At the same time, monasteries have a long history of producing beer, wine, liqeur (think Chartreuse) and liqour (think Klosterfrau Melissengeist).
At the same time - having a glass of wine for stimulation while contemplating the divine might not be the same as drunkenness? And is the different the dose ("a glass of wine") or the purpose ("stimulation while contemplating the divine")?
At the same time - having a glass of wine for stimulation while contemplating the divine might not be the same as drunkenness? And is the different the dose ("a glass of wine") or the purpose ("stimulation while contemplating the divine")?
That’s a helpful reference. Thank you. But I understand pharmakeia to refer more to sorcery or deception, not to altered states or chemical use in general. Otherwise, wouldn’t every medication also fall under this condemnation?
If someone undergoes an experience that results in greater love, joy, peace, patience, etc., the very fruits listed in this same passage, then how do we weigh that against the method of arriving there?
If someone undergoes an experience that results in greater love, joy, peace, patience, etc., the very fruits listed in this same passage, then how do we weigh that against the method of arriving there?
The method of arrival is important because we can only be in one of two states. If in the spirit, we will be having the fruits of the spirit, if in the flesh, we will be having the fruits of the flesh. So while being drunken, we could for example be less fighty and murderous (two of the prohibited actions) but we will still end up hurting people in other ways.
A fuller quote from the Galatians letter reads: But I say, walk by spirit, and you will certainly not fulfill the desire of flesh. For flesh desires against spirit, and spirit against flesh; and these are contrary to one another, that you might not do the things that you desire. But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. Now the deeds of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, ...
While that only says that we might not do the things we desire (i.e. not hurting others) it's expanded in the letter to the Romans 8.1-9:
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, not according to flesh walking, but according to spirit. For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death. For what the law couldn’t do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did, sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh; that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to flesh, but according to spirit. For those being according to flesh mind the things of the flesh, but those according to spirit, the things of the spirit. For the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the spirit is life and peace; because the mind of the flesh is hostile toward God; for it is not subject to God’s law, neither indeed can it be. Those who are in the flesh can’t please God. But you are not in flesh but in spirit, if it is so that the spirit of God dwells in you. But if any man doesn’t have the spirit of Christ, he is not his.
Jesus also described this dichotomy in, for example, Matthew 7.15-20, 12.33 and 13.1-33. (This is not to say that a person can be perfect, nor are these passages saying this given technicalities of their Greek verbs.)
A fuller quote from the Galatians letter reads: But I say, walk by spirit, and you will certainly not fulfill the desire of flesh. For flesh desires against spirit, and spirit against flesh; and these are contrary to one another, that you might not do the things that you desire. But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. Now the deeds of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, ...
While that only says that we might not do the things we desire (i.e. not hurting others) it's expanded in the letter to the Romans 8.1-9:
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, not according to flesh walking, but according to spirit. For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death. For what the law couldn’t do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did, sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh; that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to flesh, but according to spirit. For those being according to flesh mind the things of the flesh, but those according to spirit, the things of the spirit. For the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the spirit is life and peace; because the mind of the flesh is hostile toward God; for it is not subject to God’s law, neither indeed can it be. Those who are in the flesh can’t please God. But you are not in flesh but in spirit, if it is so that the spirit of God dwells in you. But if any man doesn’t have the spirit of Christ, he is not his.
Jesus also described this dichotomy in, for example, Matthew 7.15-20, 12.33 and 13.1-33. (This is not to say that a person can be perfect, nor are these passages saying this given technicalities of their Greek verbs.)
If a psychedelic experience leads to humility, repentance, and love, how do you know it was “of the flesh”? Could it not be a moment when the Spirit spoke through the weakness of flesh, as God does often in scripture?
If God can use a burning bush, a talking donkey, and a dream given to Pharaoh (a pagan king), is it really theologically sound to say that God cannot or will not speak through a psilocybin vision?
Is it possible that your framework is set up to reject any experience you disapprove of, no matter the outcome?
If God can use a burning bush, a talking donkey, and a dream given to Pharaoh (a pagan king), is it really theologically sound to say that God cannot or will not speak through a psilocybin vision?
Is it possible that your framework is set up to reject any experience you disapprove of, no matter the outcome?
Yes, the account of Balaam's talking donkey is a great illustration that God can and does speak to us when we are going against him. That's also been my experience, and I'm thankful for his patience.
All spiritual experiences are nevertheless an appearance in consciousness.
So consciousness can generate an infinity of experiences.
So no reason to think one experience is somehow more special than any other experience since all experiences passes and go no matter how profound you feel.
Even profound feelings are just appearance in consciousness.
Even if you die and go to heaven that's still appearance in consciousness.
Even time is an appearance in consciousness.
So given all that, is there anything to chase?
Are we stuck here forever?
Nothing to gain or loose.
So consciousness can generate an infinity of experiences.
So no reason to think one experience is somehow more special than any other experience since all experiences passes and go no matter how profound you feel.
Even profound feelings are just appearance in consciousness.
Even if you die and go to heaven that's still appearance in consciousness.
Even time is an appearance in consciousness.
So given all that, is there anything to chase?
Are we stuck here forever?
Nothing to gain or loose.
Nihilism, not even once. It's a hell of a drug that'll wipe out all meaning and purpose from life leaving you cold, detached and suicidal.
Meaning is emergent and constructed from our experience of being physical beings in the real world. Just because that's mediated through our thoughts and senses doesn't suddenly strip it of existence or relevance.
Even reflecting on the nature of consciousness is contingent on so many other more fundamental lived experiences and mental abstractions. It's turtles all the way down and meaning is found/constructed in every layer.
Meaning is emergent and constructed from our experience of being physical beings in the real world. Just because that's mediated through our thoughts and senses doesn't suddenly strip it of existence or relevance.
Even reflecting on the nature of consciousness is contingent on so many other more fundamental lived experiences and mental abstractions. It's turtles all the way down and meaning is found/constructed in every layer.
No. I don't feel suicidal. Actually completely opposite. I have never been more freer. To try new things and experiences.
I was not talking about meaning. I think it's a false assumption that you need meaning to have a fulfilling life. Meaning just creates a feeling. So you are really focused on the feeling and not the act itself or implications.
Like you don't want to do an act which is logically meaningful and feel depressed after doing it. You want to feel good after doing meaningful act. So it's all about feeling. And not meaning.
I was not talking about meaning. I think it's a false assumption that you need meaning to have a fulfilling life. Meaning just creates a feeling. So you are really focused on the feeling and not the act itself or implications.
Like you don't want to do an act which is logically meaningful and feel depressed after doing it. You want to feel good after doing meaningful act. So it's all about feeling. And not meaning.
some people should never take psychedelics.
in the last few years' surge of popularity, I found that your typical psychedelic advocate* would never admit this category of people exists. they were committed to the idea that everyone can, should, and must take these drugs.
this attitude is currently on a downturn, which is a good thing. people now admit that these drugs are not for everyone.
however, there's little solid understanding of exactly who should avoid psychedelics. it would be good to have a more solid scientific understanding of this. i imagine psychedelic advocates (which includes many scientists working on the topic) would be wary of such research, because it seems to similar to the history of government-sponsored propaganda "science" finding exaggerated harms of various illegal drugs.
however, scientific knowledge about who most likely will have adverse effects would be useful. that way people at low risk could use psychedelic drugs with the confidence that they are very likely safe. people at high risk can avoid them. this would be a great outcome.
The only problem here would be that if someone chooses not to use psychedelics, this might mark them as having certain traits that most people judge negatively. For example, history of severe trauma, family or personal history of psychotic disorders, and so on.
Given this, I think anyone who wants to normalize psychedelic drug use in their local community, ought to really fight to destigmatize such traits (and most communities won't accept this), or else more practically, promote an extreme commitment to privacy and personal choice.
*: I don't just mean people who do drugs, I mean people who think that doing drugs is mandatory to fix various spiritual/mental problems that prevent you from being a fully ethical being.
in the last few years' surge of popularity, I found that your typical psychedelic advocate* would never admit this category of people exists. they were committed to the idea that everyone can, should, and must take these drugs.
this attitude is currently on a downturn, which is a good thing. people now admit that these drugs are not for everyone.
however, there's little solid understanding of exactly who should avoid psychedelics. it would be good to have a more solid scientific understanding of this. i imagine psychedelic advocates (which includes many scientists working on the topic) would be wary of such research, because it seems to similar to the history of government-sponsored propaganda "science" finding exaggerated harms of various illegal drugs.
however, scientific knowledge about who most likely will have adverse effects would be useful. that way people at low risk could use psychedelic drugs with the confidence that they are very likely safe. people at high risk can avoid them. this would be a great outcome.
The only problem here would be that if someone chooses not to use psychedelics, this might mark them as having certain traits that most people judge negatively. For example, history of severe trauma, family or personal history of psychotic disorders, and so on.
Given this, I think anyone who wants to normalize psychedelic drug use in their local community, ought to really fight to destigmatize such traits (and most communities won't accept this), or else more practically, promote an extreme commitment to privacy and personal choice.
*: I don't just mean people who do drugs, I mean people who think that doing drugs is mandatory to fix various spiritual/mental problems that prevent you from being a fully ethical being.
> people who think that doing drugs is mandatory to fix various spiritual/mental problems that prevent you from being a fully ethical being.
I don't doubt that these people exist, but this premise boggles the mind. Does that mean fully ethical beings didn't exist outside small geographic pockets where specific cacti and fungi grow before ~1960?
I don't doubt that these people exist, but this premise boggles the mind. Does that mean fully ethical beings didn't exist outside small geographic pockets where specific cacti and fungi grow before ~1960?
I think they would say (reasonably accurately, tends to be exaggerated though) that traditional cultures all around the world did have psychedelic practices of one kind or another. a lot of places on earth have some kind of psychedelic plant.
They are called mind altering drugs for a reason. Because you are actually somewhat aware of your mind being altered and loosening of the restrictions and rules that are created in mind for physical world.
This conscious or unconscious realisation during and after the trip leaves a profound impression on you that everything is about perception.
This conscious or unconscious realisation during and after the trip leaves a profound impression on you that everything is about perception.
So where's the follow up in which others evaluate the participants? The results all seem self-reported. But did the participants improve in some measurable way as seen from the outside? Without outside evaluation, it's just people who took drugs reporting they mostly liked the results.
There's not much information in this article.
These studies are all deeply flawed. They find willing participants, give them some drugs, then ask how they feel about it. Of course they say they feel spiritual and connected with the world and all of that, that's what the drugs do. But I know plenty of people who claim that mushrooms or lsd were spiritually awakening and connected them with the world, who wouldn't think twice about stealing from an old woman's purse, robbing people, or worse. I know alcoholics who claim they don't have a problem and think drinking is just good fun, but are also violent assholes when they drink.
I did not read the study so I don't know if you're referencing a specific claim in it, but I do not understand your comment. What does being immoral have to do with TFA?
This is making the claim that psychedelics are making people more spiritual, that these are spiritual awakenings. Morality and spiritually are intrinsically linked. There is also a flaw in the research when they only ask the participants how they feel and do no outside measurements.
I think you are making a very important point here, but unfortunately getting downvoted for stating it so cynically. A more productive way to phrase it would be that people's self-report on a drug's effect (beyond the pure subjective experience of the trip) can be very misleading about alleged positive effects, and can be very incomplete about any negative effects.
From the results paragraph in the top of the linked journal site:
> Furthermore, 42% rated one of their experiences to be the single most profound of their lifetime.
> Although no serious adverse events were reported, 46% rated a psilocybin experience as among the top five most psychologically challenging of their lives.
From skimming the paper, it looks like they don't do a correlation analysis between the various questionnaire responses, only between the groups and responses (perhaps correctly due to insufficient data), but I wonder: are you more likely to find the experience profound if it was challenging?
> Furthermore, 42% rated one of their experiences to be the single most profound of their lifetime.
> Although no serious adverse events were reported, 46% rated a psilocybin experience as among the top five most psychologically challenging of their lives.
From skimming the paper, it looks like they don't do a correlation analysis between the various questionnaire responses, only between the groups and responses (perhaps correctly due to insufficient data), but I wonder: are you more likely to find the experience profound if it was challenging?
Maybe related, a book Varieties of Spiritual Experience by David B. Yaden and Andrew Newberg - the title pays homage to William James, considered the father of American psychology and author of The Varieties of Religious Experience.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019066567X
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019066567X
@dang can we change the article link to the much more detailed New Yorker article? Several comments noting the current link is a pretty thin summary
https://www.newyorker.com/newsletter/the-daily/michael-polla...
https://www.newyorker.com/newsletter/the-daily/michael-polla...
Or the actual paper (open access):
Effects of Psilocybin on Religious and Spiritual Attitudes and Behaviors in Clergy from Various Major World Religions (2025) https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/psymed.2023.0044
Effects of Psilocybin on Religious and Spiritual Attitudes and Behaviors in Clergy from Various Major World Religions (2025) https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/psymed.2023.0044
No Islamic leader in their right mind would try taking magic mushrooms or any forms of intoxication. That is a red line. So I seriously doubt the experience of the person who went in and took it. Which means the question remains unanswered: how would a person of the Islamic faith describe the experience obtained from magic mushrooms?
By the words of the Quran, the response is
My protest to the context of HN, this study furthers the idea that God/religion/belief is a mystical hallucinated idea (and does not belong any greater in rational belief than does the experience of magic mushrooms). But such equivalencies being drawn here would be hasty and ignorant and a logical fallacy. First, if Person A believes in X and Person B believes in Y and goes through an experience causing Person B to also believe in X and calls Y a similarly relevant belief, does not make Person A and Person B similar, nor does it make X and Y similar. It just means the experience is mind altering. Second, these studies observe the outcomes, describes the outcomes, and hypothesizes the empirical causes, but in the case of this study it is observing hallucinations in believers of faith and finding similarities in reasoning to their preconcieved beliefs, causing it to claim that hallucination is equal to belief.
By the words of the Quran, the response is
They ask you about wine and gambling. Say, “In both there is great sin,
and some benefits for people. And their sin is greater than their benefit.”
And they ask you as to what they should spend. Say, “The surplus”. This is
how Allah makes His verses clear to you, so that you may ponder.
My protest to the context of HN, this study furthers the idea that God/religion/belief is a mystical hallucinated idea (and does not belong any greater in rational belief than does the experience of magic mushrooms). But such equivalencies being drawn here would be hasty and ignorant and a logical fallacy. First, if Person A believes in X and Person B believes in Y and goes through an experience causing Person B to also believe in X and calls Y a similarly relevant belief, does not make Person A and Person B similar, nor does it make X and Y similar. It just means the experience is mind altering. Second, these studies observe the outcomes, describes the outcomes, and hypothesizes the empirical causes, but in the case of this study it is observing hallucinations in believers of faith and finding similarities in reasoning to their preconcieved beliefs, causing it to claim that hallucination is equal to belief.
Lot of words and blind beliefs.
0 experiential knowledge.
0 experiential knowledge.
It’s worth clarifying a few points about Islamic teachings and history regarding intoxicants.
First, the Quran does not categorically declare all intoxicants haram (forbidden) in the legalistic sense often assumed. The verse commonly cited (2:219) does not prohibit wine or similar substances outright — it acknowledges both the harm and potential benefit:
> "They ask you about wine and gambling. Say, 'In them is great sin and [yet] some benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit...'"
This is moral guidance urging caution and reflection — not a blanket prohibition. The prohibition as we know it today comes from later jurisprudence built atop evolving interpretations, often informed by societal conditions, not an explicit Quranic ruling alone.
Second, many prominent Islamic thinkers in classical times engaged deeply with altered states and substances — sometimes even celebratory of them. Avicenna (Ibn Sina), arguably the greatest polymath of the Islamic Golden Age, wrote on the medical and philosophical effects of opium and other psychoactives. Other thinkers — like al-Ghazali, Suhrawardi, and Sufi poets such as Rumi and Hafiz — explored the boundaries between mystical experience, reason, and sensory perception. In some cases, this included symbolic or actual engagement with intoxicants to describe the ecstasy of divine union.
The idea that “no Islamic leader in their right mind” would ever touch such substances overlooks both historical nuance and the breadth of Islamic thought — from orthodox jurists to radical mystics. The same diversity of perspective exists today.
If you are interested in learning more about the topic there is a great book about it : "Tripping with Allah: Islam, Drugs, and Writing Book by Michael Muhammad Knight"
Finally, equating religious belief with hallucination because both may involve altered cognitive states is philosophically flimsy. That a mushroom trip can lead someone to perceive “God” doesn’t invalidate faith any more than a dream invalidates memory. Experiences can reinforce prior belief without reducing them to mere neurochemistry. Correlation is not causation — and even if it were, that would not necessarily diminish the meaning of the experience.
First, the Quran does not categorically declare all intoxicants haram (forbidden) in the legalistic sense often assumed. The verse commonly cited (2:219) does not prohibit wine or similar substances outright — it acknowledges both the harm and potential benefit:
> "They ask you about wine and gambling. Say, 'In them is great sin and [yet] some benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit...'"
This is moral guidance urging caution and reflection — not a blanket prohibition. The prohibition as we know it today comes from later jurisprudence built atop evolving interpretations, often informed by societal conditions, not an explicit Quranic ruling alone.
Second, many prominent Islamic thinkers in classical times engaged deeply with altered states and substances — sometimes even celebratory of them. Avicenna (Ibn Sina), arguably the greatest polymath of the Islamic Golden Age, wrote on the medical and philosophical effects of opium and other psychoactives. Other thinkers — like al-Ghazali, Suhrawardi, and Sufi poets such as Rumi and Hafiz — explored the boundaries between mystical experience, reason, and sensory perception. In some cases, this included symbolic or actual engagement with intoxicants to describe the ecstasy of divine union.
The idea that “no Islamic leader in their right mind” would ever touch such substances overlooks both historical nuance and the breadth of Islamic thought — from orthodox jurists to radical mystics. The same diversity of perspective exists today.
If you are interested in learning more about the topic there is a great book about it : "Tripping with Allah: Islam, Drugs, and Writing Book by Michael Muhammad Knight"
Finally, equating religious belief with hallucination because both may involve altered cognitive states is philosophically flimsy. That a mushroom trip can lead someone to perceive “God” doesn’t invalidate faith any more than a dream invalidates memory. Experiences can reinforce prior belief without reducing them to mere neurochemistry. Correlation is not causation — and even if it were, that would not necessarily diminish the meaning of the experience.
Yes, agreed on all fronts. I am familiar with Knight as well. The literal word is intoxicants, not wine. And different substances were interpreted as intoxicants later. But after being declared intoxicants, Islamic leaders would not go near it. Avicenna was a Muslim researcher and philosopher, and not religiously minded. Sufis experimented with various elements of mysticism and some experimented with substances even to this day. But there explorations were attempts to find God and perhaps understand intoxicants’ effects on the brain. I put them under the researchers’ category.
"But after being declared intoxicants, Islamic leaders would not go near it"
Absolutely false. Until today the Islamic ( Arabic) "elite" is very fond of fancy wines and alcohol.
The prohibition is only for the common street folk.
Absolutely false. Until today the Islamic ( Arabic) "elite" is very fond of fancy wines and alcohol.
The prohibition is only for the common street folk.
I believe you are talking about religious observances. The elites may or may not be observant. But they are also not clergy/“Islamic leaders”.
Mushrooms are not intoxicating.
I’m pretty sure a heroic dose of mushrooms made me lose 20 IQ points, so…”it’s definitely not for everyone” lol.
I wonder if a similar thing to the dwarfing high of heroin applies to these psychedelics. Would the amazing awakening experience I'd have with an LSD trip make all other mentally exciting moments and smaller awakenings I come across in day to day life more boring in comparison?
I don’t think so. I’ve done it probably 20 times and I feel like it bleeds out into the rest of your life. It forever altered my appreciation of clouds and postmodern fiction/philosophy
Right, that sounds reasonable enough. Maybe that's because it's more of a semi-permanent neuron rewiring and less of hitting a dopamine receptors rev limiter?
Have you been to a really long opera? It’s quite impressive. After hours of pretty intense performance and singing, can you not appreciate the street musician the day after? Do you have a strong desire to go to the opera again the following days?
Honestly, kind of.
I get the direction you're trying to go in, but I think this metaphor is flawed. If all I've seen in life are mediocre street musicians, and then one day I go to some concert and it's the best thing ever, sure that's going to change how I see the street musicians from before.
Replace with food and its even clearer. Going to some top of the line Micheline star restaurant _will_ alter how you look at food for the rest of your life.
Watching a movie in blue-ray full quality no compression _will_ alter how you appreciate streamed movies for the rest of your life.
You can still appreciate it for what it is, but it will forever have that relative smallness.
Replace with food and its even clearer. Going to some top of the line Micheline star restaurant _will_ alter how you look at food for the rest of your life.
Watching a movie in blue-ray full quality no compression _will_ alter how you appreciate streamed movies for the rest of your life.
You can still appreciate it for what it is, but it will forever have that relative smallness.
> Going to some top of the line Micheline star restaurant _will_ alter how you look at food for the rest of your life.
Interestingly I don’t agree with you and that’s what I would call elitism.
Food is a great example as I know I’m personally able to appreciate a great and complex meal at a high end restaurant and still enjoy some fast food.
It’s the same for art : does having a favorite book/movie/music/videogame/… makes you unable to enjoy other books/movies/music/videogames ?
Interestingly I don’t agree with you and that’s what I would call elitism.
Food is a great example as I know I’m personally able to appreciate a great and complex meal at a high end restaurant and still enjoy some fast food.
It’s the same for art : does having a favorite book/movie/music/videogame/… makes you unable to enjoy other books/movies/music/videogames ?
I mentioned Micheline just as a commonly recognized ranking for restaurant quality, but its irrelevant to the point. Based on whatever internal ranking of food that you have, if you suddenly experience something that goes off your internal chart, you will have to re-scale your ranking to make it fit. I.e your previously ranked experiences will be affected.
Maybe as a whole its a poor example though because enjoyment of food is a multi-dimensional problem. Whereas obliterating a dopamine receptor is one dimensional.
Maybe as a whole its a poor example though because enjoyment of food is a multi-dimensional problem. Whereas obliterating a dopamine receptor is one dimensional.
That’s like asking if getting a new pair of glasses makes looking at things more boring. Psychedelics are most interesting because of the medium and long term effects they have on the brain.
The second part of your comment seems reasonable, but your glasses analogy makes no sense. Glasses don't make things look exciting, they make things sharper and help you see better.
Furthermore, if you're trying to say that taking off my new glasses makes things less clear then yes, that's precisely the symptom that made me acquire them in the first place.
Furthermore, if you're trying to say that taking off my new glasses makes things less clear then yes, that's precisely the symptom that made me acquire them in the first place.
if you are interested in a rabbit hole, look up the appearance of the acacia shrub in the bible, a source of DMT, and how some people associate it with the burning bush. quite a trip.
I've said before that I think the geometric patterns in hallucinations resemble analog signal feedback, inside an analog signalling system (your brain) that has been impaired by a chemical. other dimensions and beings aren't necessary to the explanation. there are theraputic uses for breaking cycles of thought, but I'd argue a non-spiritual view of drugs based on signalling feedback and channel impairment is sufficient to describe their effects.
I've said before that I think the geometric patterns in hallucinations resemble analog signal feedback, inside an analog signalling system (your brain) that has been impaired by a chemical. other dimensions and beings aren't necessary to the explanation. there are theraputic uses for breaking cycles of thought, but I'd argue a non-spiritual view of drugs based on signalling feedback and channel impairment is sufficient to describe their effects.
I 100% agree with you on the "signal feedback inside an analog signalling system".
I've done a lot of tripping, and I've come to this same hypothesis independently. I believe this explains a great deal about the visual geometric and fractal patterns you can see on psychedelics and also that analogous things happen within the auditory processing system, memory, emotions, and so on when you trip.
So much of tripping comes down to turning up the gain on signalling in your brain, which causes feedback pathways to start resonating. This results in colour saturation, tracers, geometry, exaggerated patterns and edge detection, echoing, reverbs, increased impact of thoughts, and following thoughts down deep rabbit holes etc.
None of this is to reduce the experience, I love psychedelics and think they are super important. But that's whole other discussion.
I've done a lot of tripping, and I've come to this same hypothesis independently. I believe this explains a great deal about the visual geometric and fractal patterns you can see on psychedelics and also that analogous things happen within the auditory processing system, memory, emotions, and so on when you trip.
So much of tripping comes down to turning up the gain on signalling in your brain, which causes feedback pathways to start resonating. This results in colour saturation, tracers, geometry, exaggerated patterns and edge detection, echoing, reverbs, increased impact of thoughts, and following thoughts down deep rabbit holes etc.
None of this is to reduce the experience, I love psychedelics and think they are super important. But that's whole other discussion.
If this topic lights you up, you have to watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn0itlgBZAA.
It dives deep into the geometry of hallucinations, the mechanics of feedback loops in the brain, and how altered states might just be us tuning into the signal of ourselves. It bridges neuroscience, pattern recognition, and philosophy in a way that makes the whole psychedelic experience feel less like “woo” and more like elegant system dynamics.
Whether you’re team “signal feedback” or leaning toward the mystical—this video gives both sides something to chew on. I promise, it’s not just trippy visuals—it’s insightfully grounded.
It seems like you're thinking of acacia confusa but that bush is growing in south east Asia and not close to where the bible played out.
it was an internet rabbit hole and indeed it could be defused with some regional botany. there's some discussion about DMT content in other acacia species(?) and how it shows up in symbology.
i have the sense that one could construct a whole "ancient aliens" style ideology and paranormal theory of history around hallucinogens, but it would just be entertaining junk.
i have the sense that one could construct a whole "ancient aliens" style ideology and paranormal theory of history around hallucinogens, but it would just be entertaining junk.
I am no fan of Timothy Leary, I think he put the cause of Psychedelics back decades. He was also a very flawed researcher, which effected this study.
Nevertheless, it was ground breaking for 1962 and had a huge impact.
Not so significant in the twenty first century.
Nevertheless, it was ground breaking for 1962 and had a huge impact.
Not so significant in the twenty first century.
Yes. Came here to to say this has been done before. It was too much for the Establishment to stomach. Ram Dass, Tim Leary’s associate (Richard Alpert at the time) talks about it here - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ram-dass-here-and-now/...
I vaguely remember some televised British experiment in which a clergyman replaced his usual bread with poppy seed bread -- toast for breakfast, sandwich for lunch, etc. -- then at the end of a month or so tested positive for some opioid threshhold
a corollary is - can a clergy still practice if implanted with a neuromodulator device, i.e. deep brain stimulation, for epilepsy, or Parkinson's, or depression?
I don't see why not? If it alters the function of the brain towards the default, natural state, instead of away from it, then that doesn't distort clear perception of reality.
It's much like with glasses - the lenses alter the light in a way that helps the retinas receive the light more like the default, natural human perception does.
It's much like with glasses - the lenses alter the light in a way that helps the retinas receive the light more like the default, natural human perception does.
This is true assuming it is just a matter of abnormal vs default state. Sometimes I wonder, especially as people are doing more studies using these implants for conditions like major depressive disorder...there are also concerns re even for motor symptoms like Parkinson's, there may be subtle cognitive/psychiatric changes - we have accidentally induced noticeable mania in some patients at least temporarily, until we were able to correct the settings on the device...
Those studies should also include if the individuals taking substances become better or worse for the lives of the people around them in a sustainable way.
They did, if you read the study linked in the article. The individuals who took psilocybin mostly became more open, compassionate, and grounded in their spiritual roles. They reported feeling more deeply connected to their faith communities, more empathetic in their pastoral care, and more authentic in how they engaged with others. And the changes were still evident over a year later, long after the acute effects of the substance had passed. What shifted wasn’t just mood or perspective but the felt sense of purpose and interconnection. Many described themselves as more present, more patient, and more attuned to the emotional and spiritual needs of those they served. Their beliefs became less rigid, their egos softened, and their sense of service deepened. For the people around them the net result was almost universally positive. Not in a grandiose or abstract way, but in the quiet, daily patterns of being more available, less judgmental, and more aligned with what they had always claimed to teach.
“Participants often described becoming more open and understanding toward others’ beliefs, feeling greater love for those they serve, and experiencing renewed clarity in their spiritual leadership.”
“Participants often described becoming more open and understanding toward others’ beliefs, feeling greater love for those they serve, and experiencing renewed clarity in their spiritual leadership.”
Lord have mercy, I reject satan and all his pomps.
When clergy take psilocybin . . . God sees them?
when you eat too many shrooms .. the shrooms eat back at you
Pretty sure giving them to non-clergy eventually created clergy
it's no surprise to me that people who believe goats talks like to trip lol
I have taken boatloads of psychedelics in my life. If I could do my life over again I would have traded every single trip for having read Orthodoxy and the Everlasting Man by Chesterton before I was 25. Tripping gives you zero insights into the divine, it is not revelation, you don't get closer to God. There are real answers, but we as civilization have been deliberately moving away from under false premises, and the world has gotten worse and worse. Drugs can't fix this. If you want a better world, you should not dull your perception of it.
Something that would be much more beneficial for all humanity is if more of the clergy actually preached the bible, instead of trying to explain it away, which is almost exclusively what the clergy I have engaged with tries to do.
Something that would be much more beneficial for all humanity is if more of the clergy actually preached the bible, instead of trying to explain it away, which is almost exclusively what the clergy I have engaged with tries to do.
I take this book was life changing to you, would you mind explaining a bit more on why? If you read it before 25, do you think it would have the same effect, given your different experience at that age?
Psychedelics caused me to isolate from society and those around me. It makes you feel more connected while actually becoming less connected, it makes you feel that you understand while actually understanding less.
I see now that the real pleasure in life is in being connected with your local community, with those around you — not because you agree with them, not because they think or look the same as you, but because they are yours, and you are theirs in a very deep sense.
I also see now that the Church of Christ makes this possible, it's a vehicle for fulfilling our purpose in life. No other thing exists which provides the same avenue, nothing else even comes close.
The specific changes the books made in my life is that it helped me get over my superficial objections to Christ (I was an atheist from the age of about 14), it helped me see the whole, and thus helped me adopt Christ as my saviour, and the Church as my Church, and it brought me to a point where I have faith without doubt.
> We know better than the scholars, even those of us who are no scholars, what was in that hollow cry that went forth over the dead Adonis and why the Great Mother had a daughter wedded to death. We have entered more deeply than they into the Eleusinian Mysteries and have passed a higher grade, where gate within gate guarded the wisdom of Orpheus. We know the meaning of all the myths. We know the last secret revealed to the perfect initiate. And it is not the voice of a priest or a prophet saying, ‘These things are.’ It is the voice of a dreamer and an idealist crying, ‘Why cannot these things be?’
I see now that the real pleasure in life is in being connected with your local community, with those around you — not because you agree with them, not because they think or look the same as you, but because they are yours, and you are theirs in a very deep sense.
I also see now that the Church of Christ makes this possible, it's a vehicle for fulfilling our purpose in life. No other thing exists which provides the same avenue, nothing else even comes close.
The specific changes the books made in my life is that it helped me get over my superficial objections to Christ (I was an atheist from the age of about 14), it helped me see the whole, and thus helped me adopt Christ as my saviour, and the Church as my Church, and it brought me to a point where I have faith without doubt.
> We know better than the scholars, even those of us who are no scholars, what was in that hollow cry that went forth over the dead Adonis and why the Great Mother had a daughter wedded to death. We have entered more deeply than they into the Eleusinian Mysteries and have passed a higher grade, where gate within gate guarded the wisdom of Orpheus. We know the meaning of all the myths. We know the last secret revealed to the perfect initiate. And it is not the voice of a priest or a prophet saying, ‘These things are.’ It is the voice of a dreamer and an idealist crying, ‘Why cannot these things be?’
Given current major religions are visibly inventions of men to cover basic existential fears we all face and were done during roughly iron age era with corresponding illogical parts and conflicting statements, no amount of drugs are going to move any normal person to whatever god or God represents in this universe.
The introspection part is where true gold is - and to be honest that tells a lot about where we feel above topic is in our cores (and as you yourself confirmed from your experiences, like it or not).
More religion and preaching got us medieval dark ages and tons of endless wars and genocide, I think mankind deserve a bit more these days.
The introspection part is where true gold is - and to be honest that tells a lot about where we feel above topic is in our cores (and as you yourself confirmed from your experiences, like it or not).
More religion and preaching got us medieval dark ages and tons of endless wars and genocide, I think mankind deserve a bit more these days.
> More religion and preaching got us medieval dark ages and tons of endless wars and genocide
This is false.
This is false.
Thank you for commenting. The believer's perspective on life's questions is much too sparse on HN, and it often gets downvoted.
“Almost a decade ago, a Baptist Biblical scholar, a Catholic priest, several rabbis, an Islamic leader, a Zen Buddhist roshi, and more than a dozen other religious leaders walked into a lab—and took high doses of magic mushrooms.”
I seriously wonder what this Catholic priest was thinking.
According to a natural law view, the reason for taking a psychoactive substance is a major component in determining whether taking it is licit. A bad intent corrupts the act. So, if I have a martini in order to calm my nerves, or choose to savor the goodness of a glass of beer, then knowing what we know about the effect of alcohol in moderation and our own personal response to the quantify in question, there is nothing wrong happening. (Catholics are not teetotalers. We like our wine.) Indeed, if you are in a state of high anxiety that impedes the use of reason, taking something to calm your nerves would be therapeutic and restorative. But if we consume alcohol in order to get drunk or buzzed, then this is morally illicit, as the intended effect — the distortion of perception and the impeding of the operation of our rational faculties — is immoral. This is because, on a natural law view, our nature is to be rational animals — to know reality as it is, which is what the senses and reason are for — and to intentionally thwart our nature, and especially that which is most essential to our humanity, our rationality, is bad for us as human beings. (It also produces emotional distortions, which are, again, something bad for us.) That is why it is an affront to human dignity to trip, and we intuitively perceive this when we see a drunk or someone who is high. They disgust us, they arouse pity in us, or, in less serious cases, we laugh at them, because the comedy is the result of them failing to be rational and thus human.
The principle of double effect also tells us how and when taking a substance with harmful side effects is licit. The intent is, again, an essential component, and recreational drug use is simply never licit for that reason as explained above.
The idea of using drugs to produce a “spiritual experience” is also nonsensical. That is because it isn’t a bona fide spiritual experience. It is a hallucination, a corruption and suppression of the perceptive and rational faculties which is how we come to know reality. It does not clarify our perception of reality per se, but darkens it by producing mental and emotional distortions. A true spiritual “experience”, if you want to call it that, would involved the heightened or elevated operation of perception and rationality, not their diminution. So the real McCoy is exactly opposite. That people subjectively report having gained insight is either a side effect of the hallucinogen disrupting some pattern of denial or whatever, or merely an error of perception (which is expected, as people high on drugs aren’t thinking clearly and have a poor ability to appraise the validity and value of their thoughts).
True spiritual maturity is sober. Hallucination is the exact opposite of sober. It is a fraudulent ersatz, not some royal road to the divine or whatever.
I seriously wonder what this Catholic priest was thinking.
According to a natural law view, the reason for taking a psychoactive substance is a major component in determining whether taking it is licit. A bad intent corrupts the act. So, if I have a martini in order to calm my nerves, or choose to savor the goodness of a glass of beer, then knowing what we know about the effect of alcohol in moderation and our own personal response to the quantify in question, there is nothing wrong happening. (Catholics are not teetotalers. We like our wine.) Indeed, if you are in a state of high anxiety that impedes the use of reason, taking something to calm your nerves would be therapeutic and restorative. But if we consume alcohol in order to get drunk or buzzed, then this is morally illicit, as the intended effect — the distortion of perception and the impeding of the operation of our rational faculties — is immoral. This is because, on a natural law view, our nature is to be rational animals — to know reality as it is, which is what the senses and reason are for — and to intentionally thwart our nature, and especially that which is most essential to our humanity, our rationality, is bad for us as human beings. (It also produces emotional distortions, which are, again, something bad for us.) That is why it is an affront to human dignity to trip, and we intuitively perceive this when we see a drunk or someone who is high. They disgust us, they arouse pity in us, or, in less serious cases, we laugh at them, because the comedy is the result of them failing to be rational and thus human.
The principle of double effect also tells us how and when taking a substance with harmful side effects is licit. The intent is, again, an essential component, and recreational drug use is simply never licit for that reason as explained above.
The idea of using drugs to produce a “spiritual experience” is also nonsensical. That is because it isn’t a bona fide spiritual experience. It is a hallucination, a corruption and suppression of the perceptive and rational faculties which is how we come to know reality. It does not clarify our perception of reality per se, but darkens it by producing mental and emotional distortions. A true spiritual “experience”, if you want to call it that, would involved the heightened or elevated operation of perception and rationality, not their diminution. So the real McCoy is exactly opposite. That people subjectively report having gained insight is either a side effect of the hallucinogen disrupting some pattern of denial or whatever, or merely an error of perception (which is expected, as people high on drugs aren’t thinking clearly and have a poor ability to appraise the validity and value of their thoughts).
True spiritual maturity is sober. Hallucination is the exact opposite of sober. It is a fraudulent ersatz, not some royal road to the divine or whatever.
Thanks. Sanest comment on this thread. The fact that something "feels" very real and insightful doesn't make it so.
their "spiritual experience" came from Demons, change my mind.
Sometimes I listen to music explicitly for the way it makes me feel, emotionally and physically.
That the "drug" is auditory (physical) instead of chemical (physical) does not change anything meaningful.
Catholics do this too. In fact they are encouraged to do so.
I conclude that your argument is flawed.
That the "drug" is auditory (physical) instead of chemical (physical) does not change anything meaningful.
Catholics do this too. In fact they are encouraged to do so.
I conclude that your argument is flawed.
I conclude that you've attacked a straw man.
Music does indeed move us emotionally. Some music can move us toward healthy emotions conducive to our flourishing, some can move us toward degradation. So, music can be good or bad with respect to the effect it has on us, and our intentions can be good or bad depending on what we want out of music. Circumstances are also important: you don't play waltzes at funerals, and you don't play requiems at wedding banquets. This accord is a matter of rationality. Appropriate music complements or accentuates the content of the occasion, creating an integrity between reason and emotion, while inappropriate music misdirects emotion and sets it in opposition to reason.
(Since you mention Catholics, yes. For example, chant can be used as part of the liturgy to help move us toward a higher, more contemplative state. This is why some of the bad, schmaltzy music that's been employed at many masses since the 1970s has drawn so much ire and disgust. It is not only objectively bad, but trades the contemplative for the mawkish and sentimental. This is tragic, given the magnificence and wealth of the liturgical music tradition.)
Where drugs are concerned, I never said that all psychoactive effects are bad. In fact, I explicitly said that not all are. We can drink coffee in moderation to make us more alert. We can drink alcohol in moderation to calm our nerves. We can take opiates in moderation to relieve pain. Etc, etc. None of these uses involve the dimming of reason — certainly not the intentional dimming of reason — or the twisting of the senses, or the abuse of the emotions at odds with reality. In the first two examples, we are using drugs in a restorative way; we are enabling the proper function of reason and so on. In the third example, we may be using opiates in a restorative way (ever try functioning when you're in pain?), or, if the dose is high enough to impede reason, we do so not with the intention of impeding reason, but with the intention of relieving extreme pain while tolerating a secondary, undesired side effect of temporary diminution of reason. By impeding reason and clear perception, recreational drug abuse intentionally deprives us of the ability to know and perceive reality, and deprives us of the ability to discern what is good for us and to act rightly in accord with it.
So, where an analogy between music and drugs can be made hinges at least partly on the ill or good effects it produces, which is greater, and whether the ill effects are intended. Recreational drug use intends the bad effects by intending the delusions, the hallucinations, and the irrational. Music that habituates bad mental habits, habituates bad emotional responses and moods, or contains harmful content should likewise be avoided.
Music does indeed move us emotionally. Some music can move us toward healthy emotions conducive to our flourishing, some can move us toward degradation. So, music can be good or bad with respect to the effect it has on us, and our intentions can be good or bad depending on what we want out of music. Circumstances are also important: you don't play waltzes at funerals, and you don't play requiems at wedding banquets. This accord is a matter of rationality. Appropriate music complements or accentuates the content of the occasion, creating an integrity between reason and emotion, while inappropriate music misdirects emotion and sets it in opposition to reason.
(Since you mention Catholics, yes. For example, chant can be used as part of the liturgy to help move us toward a higher, more contemplative state. This is why some of the bad, schmaltzy music that's been employed at many masses since the 1970s has drawn so much ire and disgust. It is not only objectively bad, but trades the contemplative for the mawkish and sentimental. This is tragic, given the magnificence and wealth of the liturgical music tradition.)
Where drugs are concerned, I never said that all psychoactive effects are bad. In fact, I explicitly said that not all are. We can drink coffee in moderation to make us more alert. We can drink alcohol in moderation to calm our nerves. We can take opiates in moderation to relieve pain. Etc, etc. None of these uses involve the dimming of reason — certainly not the intentional dimming of reason — or the twisting of the senses, or the abuse of the emotions at odds with reality. In the first two examples, we are using drugs in a restorative way; we are enabling the proper function of reason and so on. In the third example, we may be using opiates in a restorative way (ever try functioning when you're in pain?), or, if the dose is high enough to impede reason, we do so not with the intention of impeding reason, but with the intention of relieving extreme pain while tolerating a secondary, undesired side effect of temporary diminution of reason. By impeding reason and clear perception, recreational drug abuse intentionally deprives us of the ability to know and perceive reality, and deprives us of the ability to discern what is good for us and to act rightly in accord with it.
So, where an analogy between music and drugs can be made hinges at least partly on the ill or good effects it produces, which is greater, and whether the ill effects are intended. Recreational drug use intends the bad effects by intending the delusions, the hallucinations, and the irrational. Music that habituates bad mental habits, habituates bad emotional responses and moods, or contains harmful content should likewise be avoided.
I appreciate your thoughtful response, but I think you are being misled by the popular wisdom and where it is disconnected from ground truth.
One phrase that jumps out, because it's a bit of a cliche, is "recreational drug abuse". It can be parsed a couple of ways, and you may not intend it this way, but it's often used to imply that all recreational drug use is abuse. This is not correct or reasonable.
Caffeine is a recreational drug, as are Fentanyl, MDMA, cannabis, et cetera. All can be abused to physical detriment. But all also have medical and therapeutic uses as well.
Moving back to the the main point though, I am not claiming equivalence between music and drugs. Some drugs are as safe as music, but most are not.
But both are sometimes used explicitly for the changes in brain chemistry that they evoke. My argument is that it is reasonable to use music for the purpose, and it is also reasonable to use drugs for the purpose. You need to be more careful with the latter, but that is not a condemnation. We use lots of things responsibly, which require caution to use safely.
Your phrase "intentional dimming of reason" also suggests an incomplete understanding of recreational drugs. Some do, but some do not. Some of the legal ones do. Some of the illegal ones do not. Some of the illegal ones that do, can be used responsibly in dosages that do not.
But even further than that, dimming of reason is not necessarily always a bad decision. We do it all the time. I am assuming you are religious, so I apologize if this is offensive, but faith is an intentional decision to diminish (or devalue, or at least demote) your reasoning abilities. So is love. And patriotism. These can be healthy and productive things, in moderation.
People who choose to temporarily alter their perceptions via recreational drugs have many reasons for this choice. Some are trivial, like entertainment. Some are reasonable, like relaxation. Some are suggestive of deeper psychological problems, like escapism. And some are interesting, like breaking rigid or unhealthy patterns of thought that may be associateed with situations or ideas.
You can do serious and useful work, with the help of some recreational drugs, typically hallucinogens or entheogens. Denying that fact is denying reality. Everyone should choose their own path, and responsible use of recreational drugs can be a perfectly valid and good and healthy option. And irresponsible use of (some) recreational drugs can be less harmful than irresponsible use of other affective things.
In short: it's more complex than that. You seemed to be suggesting that any intentional altering of one's thought processes (using drugs) was a horrible no good very bad idea, but that idea is simplistic and wrong.
One phrase that jumps out, because it's a bit of a cliche, is "recreational drug abuse". It can be parsed a couple of ways, and you may not intend it this way, but it's often used to imply that all recreational drug use is abuse. This is not correct or reasonable.
Caffeine is a recreational drug, as are Fentanyl, MDMA, cannabis, et cetera. All can be abused to physical detriment. But all also have medical and therapeutic uses as well.
Moving back to the the main point though, I am not claiming equivalence between music and drugs. Some drugs are as safe as music, but most are not.
But both are sometimes used explicitly for the changes in brain chemistry that they evoke. My argument is that it is reasonable to use music for the purpose, and it is also reasonable to use drugs for the purpose. You need to be more careful with the latter, but that is not a condemnation. We use lots of things responsibly, which require caution to use safely.
Your phrase "intentional dimming of reason" also suggests an incomplete understanding of recreational drugs. Some do, but some do not. Some of the legal ones do. Some of the illegal ones do not. Some of the illegal ones that do, can be used responsibly in dosages that do not.
But even further than that, dimming of reason is not necessarily always a bad decision. We do it all the time. I am assuming you are religious, so I apologize if this is offensive, but faith is an intentional decision to diminish (or devalue, or at least demote) your reasoning abilities. So is love. And patriotism. These can be healthy and productive things, in moderation.
People who choose to temporarily alter their perceptions via recreational drugs have many reasons for this choice. Some are trivial, like entertainment. Some are reasonable, like relaxation. Some are suggestive of deeper psychological problems, like escapism. And some are interesting, like breaking rigid or unhealthy patterns of thought that may be associateed with situations or ideas.
You can do serious and useful work, with the help of some recreational drugs, typically hallucinogens or entheogens. Denying that fact is denying reality. Everyone should choose their own path, and responsible use of recreational drugs can be a perfectly valid and good and healthy option. And irresponsible use of (some) recreational drugs can be less harmful than irresponsible use of other affective things.
In short: it's more complex than that. You seemed to be suggesting that any intentional altering of one's thought processes (using drugs) was a horrible no good very bad idea, but that idea is simplistic and wrong.
By taking drugs they immediately invalidate their legitimacy and licenses as clergy, so not sure this means anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people
What are the odds that peddlers of religion would turn to promoting chemical drugs on the side ...
What are the odds that peddlers of religion would turn to promoting chemical drugs on the side ...
There’s that word again: ”drugs” - you just know anyone using that word in earnest is suffering from a narrow and naïve world view imposed upon them by generations of propaganda.
There is a huge experiential chasm between opiates and psychedelics. These two groups of substances have nothing to do with each other.
There is a huge experiential chasm between opiates and psychedelics. These two groups of substances have nothing to do with each other.
Religion is not literally opium; Marx was speaking/writing figuratively. He just referred to a popular recreational of his time.
No, he was referring to making the people unwilling and unable to revolt.
This is literally a thread about psychedelics, not allegory.
This is literally a thread about psychedelics, not allegory.
kazinator(1)
[deleted]
>There’s that word again: ”drugs” - you just know anyone using that word in earnest is suffering from a narrow and naïve world view
Do you know what a drug is?
Do you know what a drug is?
Caffeine, Tylenol, beer, heroin, LSD, Sudafed, Five Hour Energy, …
Why do people insist on complicating all this so much ... just take a hit of whatever and experience it for yourself.
I believe people complicate it because brain chemistry modification is mostly a one way change.
There’s plenty of reasons but that’s not a great reason for or against - there is no process you can do to your brain that isn’t a one way change.
There is always a lesser change, which may be what you want. Nobody wants brain damage.
I swear psilocybin affects the sense of importance, sacredness, meaningfulness. One can be staring at the most boring thing and see the Universe in it. Doesn't mean there's really anything important nor useful in it. Just like a shot of dopamine affects feeling of pleasure, psilocybin affects the brain's feeling of "importance".
You make it sound very negative. It’s a strong experience, and after a strong experience most people have it on their mind, and talking about it is one way to integrate the experience. Previously insufferable people have a new channel to be insufferable, scientific people will analyze what their brain chemistry did, dull people will brag about how extreme it was, and so on.
What I find interesting is that the line between a religious experience and a brain chemistry event seems a lot thinner than we usually think. The clergy didn’t lose their faith after taking psilocybin. Instead, they seem to hold their beliefs a bit more loosely and focus more on what they feel in the moment.
In some ways, this feels like something humans have always done. Whether it's prayer, meditation, fasting, or psychedelics, people keep looking for ways to quiet the noise in their heads and feel connected to something bigger. The methods change, but the need stays the same.
>the line between a religious experience and a brain chemistry event seems a lot thinner than we usually think.
George Gurdjieff wrote about this many, many years ago (1890 – 1912). He called it "The Fourth Way". This is the relevant passage from the book "In Search of the Miraculous":
“So that when a man attains will on the fourth way he can make use of it because he has acquired control of all his bodily, emotional, and intellectual functions. And besides, he has saved a great deal of time by working on the three sides of his being in parallel and simultaneously.
“The fourth way is sometimes called the way of the sly man. The ‘sly man’ knows some secret winch the fakir, monk, and yogi do not know. How the ‘sly man’ learned this secret — it is not known. Perhaps he found it in some old books, perhaps he inherited it, perhaps he bought it, perhaps he stole it from someone. It makes no difference. ‘The ‘sly man’ knows the secret and with its help outstrips the fakir, the monk, and the yogi.
“Of the four, the fakir acts in the crudest manner; he knows very little and understands very little. Let us suppose that by a whole month of intense torture he develops in himself a certain energy, a certain substance which produces certain changes in him. He does it absolutely blindly, with his eyes shut, knowing neither aim, methods, nor results, simply in imitation of others.
“The monk knows what he wants a little better; he is guided by religious feeling, by religious tradition, by a desire for achievement, for salvation; he trusts his teacher who tells him what to do, and he believes that his efforts and sacrifices are ‘pleasing to God.’ Let us suppose that a week of fasting, continual prayer, privations, and so on, enables him to attain what the fakir develops in himself by a month of self-torture.
“The yogi knows considerably more. He knows what he wants, he knows why he wants it, he knows how it can be acquired. He knows, for instance, that it is necessary for his purpose to produce a certain substance in himself. He knows that this substance can be produced in one day by a certain kind of mental exercises or concentration of consciousness. So he keeps his attention on these exercises for a whole day without allowing himself a single outside thought, and he obtains what he needs. In this way a yogi spends on the same thing only one day compared with a month spent by the fakir and a week spent by the monk.
“But on the fourth way knowledge is still more exact and perfect. A man who follows the fourth way knows quite definitely what substances he needs for his aims and he knows that these substances can be produced within the body by a month of physical suffering, by a week of emotional strain, or by a day of mental exercises—and also, that they can be introduced into the organism from without if it is known how to do it. And so, instead of spending a whole day in exercises like the yogi, a week in prayer like the monk, or a month in self-torture like the fakir, he simply prepares and swallows a little pill which contains all the substances he wants and, in this way, without loss of time, he obtains the required results.
https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.5892/page/49/mode/2up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Way
George Gurdjieff wrote about this many, many years ago (1890 – 1912). He called it "The Fourth Way". This is the relevant passage from the book "In Search of the Miraculous":
“So that when a man attains will on the fourth way he can make use of it because he has acquired control of all his bodily, emotional, and intellectual functions. And besides, he has saved a great deal of time by working on the three sides of his being in parallel and simultaneously.
“The fourth way is sometimes called the way of the sly man. The ‘sly man’ knows some secret winch the fakir, monk, and yogi do not know. How the ‘sly man’ learned this secret — it is not known. Perhaps he found it in some old books, perhaps he inherited it, perhaps he bought it, perhaps he stole it from someone. It makes no difference. ‘The ‘sly man’ knows the secret and with its help outstrips the fakir, the monk, and the yogi.
“Of the four, the fakir acts in the crudest manner; he knows very little and understands very little. Let us suppose that by a whole month of intense torture he develops in himself a certain energy, a certain substance which produces certain changes in him. He does it absolutely blindly, with his eyes shut, knowing neither aim, methods, nor results, simply in imitation of others.
“The monk knows what he wants a little better; he is guided by religious feeling, by religious tradition, by a desire for achievement, for salvation; he trusts his teacher who tells him what to do, and he believes that his efforts and sacrifices are ‘pleasing to God.’ Let us suppose that a week of fasting, continual prayer, privations, and so on, enables him to attain what the fakir develops in himself by a month of self-torture.
“The yogi knows considerably more. He knows what he wants, he knows why he wants it, he knows how it can be acquired. He knows, for instance, that it is necessary for his purpose to produce a certain substance in himself. He knows that this substance can be produced in one day by a certain kind of mental exercises or concentration of consciousness. So he keeps his attention on these exercises for a whole day without allowing himself a single outside thought, and he obtains what he needs. In this way a yogi spends on the same thing only one day compared with a month spent by the fakir and a week spent by the monk.
“But on the fourth way knowledge is still more exact and perfect. A man who follows the fourth way knows quite definitely what substances he needs for his aims and he knows that these substances can be produced within the body by a month of physical suffering, by a week of emotional strain, or by a day of mental exercises—and also, that they can be introduced into the organism from without if it is known how to do it. And so, instead of spending a whole day in exercises like the yogi, a week in prayer like the monk, or a month in self-torture like the fakir, he simply prepares and swallows a little pill which contains all the substances he wants and, in this way, without loss of time, he obtains the required results.
https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.5892/page/49/mode/2up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Way
People often assume that a spiritual experience is by-definition somehow supernatural, but it makes sense to me that it would need to functionally have a wiring system in order to actually work.
In other words, even if you assume that the vision of God/feeling of divine presence/etc. is valid, there are two methods of implementation: either it’s done in a supernatural way that defies physics and logic; or it’s done in a way that accords with the structure of reality (as in, chemically.)
The latter seems a lot more elegant to me, IMO.
In other words, even if you assume that the vision of God/feeling of divine presence/etc. is valid, there are two methods of implementation: either it’s done in a supernatural way that defies physics and logic; or it’s done in a way that accords with the structure of reality (as in, chemically.)
The latter seems a lot more elegant to me, IMO.
My own view is an idealist style one, where I think God impresses experiences upon us, and the experiences we have are determined by physical states. On this view, it's impossible to have a religious experience without there being appropriate physical states in place. In other words, agreeing with your conclusion.
The entire premise of supernatural is wrong. Anything that occurs in this world is, by definition, natural.
Other definitions of supernatural really fail to be complete or useful. One definition is 'not predictable' , but by that metric, every moment of a newborns first few moments of life is supernatural.
Of course, there's another definition, which is experiences that do not take place in this world and unobservable to us. In which case, sure but then we cannot experience them here on earth. The moment such a thing is experienced by a human, it becomes natural
I honestly challenge people to explain what they mean when they say 'supernatural'.
Other definitions of supernatural really fail to be complete or useful. One definition is 'not predictable' , but by that metric, every moment of a newborns first few moments of life is supernatural.
Of course, there's another definition, which is experiences that do not take place in this world and unobservable to us. In which case, sure but then we cannot experience them here on earth. The moment such a thing is experienced by a human, it becomes natural
I honestly challenge people to explain what they mean when they say 'supernatural'.
I’m a Christian and here’s my
perspective.
There’s a physical realm we exist in defined by space and time. Everything outside of that is the supernatural.
God is not bound by time and His true nature is not something we can fully understand. He is in our world, but not from it.
The Bible makes references to angels and demons, entities that cannot be seen or measured unless they choose to make themselves known. They can affect still affect the natural world. These effects can be observed, but it would be difficult to reproduce any experiments because they are an unknown variable.
Science has trouble differentiating between an effect without a cause (a miracle basically) and an effect with a mechanism we haven’t accounted for.
There’s a physical realm we exist in defined by space and time. Everything outside of that is the supernatural.
God is not bound by time and His true nature is not something we can fully understand. He is in our world, but not from it.
The Bible makes references to angels and demons, entities that cannot be seen or measured unless they choose to make themselves known. They can affect still affect the natural world. These effects can be observed, but it would be difficult to reproduce any experiments because they are an unknown variable.
Science has trouble differentiating between an effect without a cause (a miracle basically) and an effect with a mechanism we haven’t accounted for.
I'm a Christian too and while I agree with everything you said, any time anything outside our 'world' interacts with our world, the phenomenon we see is... Natural.
> there are two methods of implementation: either it's done in a supernatural way that defies physics and logic; or it's done in a way that accords with the structure of reality (as in, chemically.)
Why not both?
Everyone agrees that brain chemistry-stuff happens when you have a supernatural experience, just as brain chemistry-stuff happens when you eat a steak. The disagreement is whether that's all that's happening. Pointing to the existence of brain chemistry-stuff as an argument against the existence of the supernatural is like pointing to it as an argument against the existence of the steak.
Also, the 'supernatural' does not defy physics or logic; it is perfectly logical, and outside the scope of physics.
Why not both?
Everyone agrees that brain chemistry-stuff happens when you have a supernatural experience, just as brain chemistry-stuff happens when you eat a steak. The disagreement is whether that's all that's happening. Pointing to the existence of brain chemistry-stuff as an argument against the existence of the supernatural is like pointing to it as an argument against the existence of the steak.
Also, the 'supernatural' does not defy physics or logic; it is perfectly logical, and outside the scope of physics.
It has lasting effects that go way beyond the effects of the drug.
However I think it's complicated to derive generalisms like saying it's a drug for everyone and everybody should take it. It's definitely not for everybody.
I'm also not going to be a hypocrite and say that you shouldn't do it. What I'll go and say is that it's your journey to figure out what you are going to invite into your life. In any case, depending on what you believe, you aren't actually here to figure things out. You already did. You are here to remember.
In more secular terms, you are here to do the required work to understand yourself, your circumstances, stand on the shoulder of giants and study the great minds that came before you. That will give you the necessary foundational philosophy to withstand and understand these experiences, should you choose to go through them. This is the only way to acquire a foundational respect for these substances and these experiences.
Have I done this work? Have I achieved the required level of understanding to make heads and tails of these experiences? Not for a while at least. It was rough the first couple of times. Very violent and crude, like rushing naked through a sea of people while being completely sure that that night is the last night of your life (I wasn't actually naked, it just felt like that and that everyone was eventually going to merge with me and that I should feel ashamed of it).
But with time and with the necessary exposure to understand the basics of existencialism I think I managed to pin down a more gentle form of this experience that can help me remember how to lay myself bare to the goddess and just be there when I dance.
So I think I can extend this invitation to anyone that feels brave enough to lift the reins of existence and reality and expose yourself to the truth. That everything is a story about the end of the world. About the beginning. And about everything at once.
It's scary, it's blissful and it's totally worth it.