/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7114626
You wouldn't believe me if I greenpilled you on this stuff, but yes, incredibly so and on a scale that's honestly beyond us. To be completely honest, I don't think humanity is fully ready. hat being said, when we are, the benefits reaped from them will be paradigm shifting, to say the least.

If you've given thought to mathematics and the sciences during psychedelic experiences, please share some of those thoughts.

>>7114672
let me guess. If someone would ask you for any kind of source or reason to believe you in general, you'd say they're closed minded, not ready for the trooth, right?

>>7114626
pretty good for psychologically stable people. LSD really fucked with my previous outlook on reality

>>7114672

Cut your hair you fucking hippy

To be honest, when I took a hit of LSD I mainly just realized how incredibly lucky I am to be able to know and learn how much I have known and learned, and I understood that I need to be grateful for my abilities which others don't have. I don't think I could have even solved a basic integral though.

So I guess conceptual stuff might be good on LSD, because everything you think is so damn vivid. But calculations are out of the question, at least for me.

>>7114626
>your stance on psychedelic substances
good
>and their use
good
>Do you believe psychedelics have a potential to advance science?
to an extent

>>7114626
>What is your stance on psychedelic substances and their use?
They're shamanic substances. Shamans were the original scientists. We're dumb comparing to them.
>Do you believe psychedelics have a potential to advance science?
Without a doubt.
>How?
Ingestion, smoking, whatever works for you.

I have done a variety of psychedelics and have a MS in physics. I don't believe they have any particular advancement to give science besides finding out their mechanism of action and all the other normal stuff you'd like to figure out about drug interactions.

If your question is asking "can you take some LSD and learn the structures of the universe" or "will mushrooms rewire the connections in my brain making me better at math" I would have to say no, and that if you dosed a bunch of researchers you wouldn't see a different output in their work.

I think that any opportunity to change your perspective is an advancement. I've done mushrooms, LSD and a few other synthetics like 2CB and 2CI. Each individual experience has opened my mind in several different ways, but in whole I feel has made me a more compassionate and decent human being. Also got me really into geometry so thats rad. I personally think that the majority of the world isn't ready for something like that though, but if they were...god damn world peace. Or unlocking some hidden psychosis.

Fact: LSD kills 100x as many brain cells as binge drinking alcohol

>>7114762
I decided on my career while tripping on acid, but I also knew that I can't study effectively while I'm tripping, so I'd better not do drugs all the time.

You people must be thinking you're now "enlightened" after seeing something that isn't fucking real. Hallucinating hasn't and won't improve science, stop destroying your brain with drugs and apply rigour.
>b-but my altered perspectives
Good luck applying delusions to science.

>>7115304
Source?

>>7114672

Why dont you go strawman on /v/ where people are dumb enough to take the bait

>>7116961
>Hallucinating hasn't and won't improve science
[Citation needed]
>stop destroying your brain with drugs
[Citation needed]
>apply rigour
Of course. Nobody is saying that tripping balls is going to reveal the mysteries of the universe and get you a PhD but they can offer another perspective on you life and work

Or you can become a useless pile of meat for a few hours

Why so hostile man?

>>7115304
Fact: you're a liar.

>>7114626
pass it mang
world not ready for this sheit

>>7114626
They induce cognitions, which are the basis of all science and progress of the consciousness, so obviously they can aid scientific advancement.

>>7114672
>>7114626
>>7115297

the drug talk is becoming stronger here, I really wish there was a 'place' for this dialogue that didn't recieve so much criticism from the 'unexperienced'

there's two opposing ideals here
"drugs can advance our knowledge" -experienced drug user
"drugs are inane debochery into mental disfigurations of perception and delusion"- inexperienced user.

I'd like to set up a facebook page, or something, anything, at this point, to talk to other people about what I've been experiencing lately.

and to be absolutely frank with some of you, who have dabbled like I have, the limitations of modern science is a fraction, a small discrete little fraction, of what science can potentially do.

though in the hands of some people, I know that that force is absurd. absurd.

>>7117079
420chan

>>7117079
kek

>>7114626
Yeah idk about advancing science.
Hallucinogens just seem to make me feel things aren't real, probably because of the hallucinating thing. it's pretty interesting watching qualities of one thing colour the experience of an unrelated thing.
Don't really like the neural feedback looping that much though, or the inability to discern internally generated and externally generated signals.

They've made me really appreciative of whatever the neuro terminology is for signal damping, error checking/correction procedures, and the ability to direct/focus attention towards or away from things.

>>7116961
That's funny because wen you take psychedelics you enter the real world. What you're now experiencing is a hallucination.

>>7116961
When you take psychedelics you enter the real world. What you're now experiencing is a hallucination. That's how it actually is. Psychedelics have a tendency to vanquish your cultural filters for a while. Without a ground to stand upon, what you experience is reality in its fullest. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>7114672
>>7115273
>>7117079
I can't tell if these people are sincere or trying to parody the "enlightened" stoner. That's how much of a joke you people are.

more importantly, how many on /sci/ take nootropics?

>>7117535
Truly delusional. It's really quite sad that drugs have fucked you up so much that you can't tell the difference between reality and your brain making pretty colors because you threw a chemical monkey wrench in the gears. If you really wanted people to open their minds to your point of view you wouldn't present yourself as an enlightened wacko.

>>7114626
They're alright for an altered worldview or if you want to look critically at yourself and your philosophy but no I don't think you're going to solve the Yang Mills by "opening your mind" with LSD.

>>7117541
>Truly delusional.
I might be but at least I don't hide behind insults or derision.

>It's really quite sad that drugs have fucked you up so much that you can't tell the difference between reality and your brain making pretty colors because you threw a chemical monkey wrench in the gears.
It's quite sad how ignorant you are. When I say psychedelics lead you to reality, all you hear is "I can see pretty colors". That's how ignorant _you_ are. You have no idea what you're talking about yet you feel like it's very important that you do. Why is that? Why can't you just say "I disagree with you", at least I would respect your opinion in that case. You come across as a bigot when you start using derision and you stop treating your conversation partner with respect. Excuse me for having an open mind. And just so you know, I'm a scientist by profession and haven't done psychedelics since I was 19 (I'm 27 now). But the things they taught me I won't ever forget. In fact it's one of the reasons why I got into science to begin with, purely because they inspired me to do so.

>If you really wanted people to open their minds to your point of view you wouldn't present yourself as an enlightened wacko.
I'm not presenting myself as an enlightened wacko. I'm presenting my opinions. You're free to disagree or even mock them openly if that's your thing but you come off as a bigot every time you do.

If you don't believe that you're living a hallucination right now, and that whatever you're feeling and are continuously aware of is real in any sense of the word, then you're simply a very philosophically naive person. I don't recommend you do psychedelics at all. They would break your comfort zone and it's obvious that you enjoy it and that's fine. It's not bad to have stability in life. Just consider that whatever you happen to know about reality may be false. And you don't have to conclude that either. But for your own sake at least consider it honestly.

>>7117537
This

>>7117566
I can't imagine what he would accomplish in science and also can't imagine a better spokesman on this shitty planet. Rip in piece, you crazy son of a bitch.

>>7117558
>I might be but at least I don't hide behind insults or derision.
I don't really care.

>It's quite sad how ignorant you are. When I say psychedelics lead you to reality, all you hear is "I can see pretty colors". That's how ignorant _you_ are. You have no idea what you're talking about yet you feel like it's very important that you do. Why is that? Why can't you just say "I disagree with you", at least I would respect your opinion in that case.
I don't really care.

>You come across as a bigot when you start using derision and you stop treating your conversation partner with respect. Excuse me for having an open mind. And just so you know, I'm a scientist by profession and haven't done psychedelics since I was 19 (I'm 27 now). But the things they taught me I won't ever forget. In fact it's one of the reasons why I got into science to begin with, purely because they inspired me to do so.
OK, but you're still delusional. Do you seriously think that your alleged profession has any relevance to the validity of your idiotic opinions?

>I'm not presenting myself as an enlightened wacko. I'm presenting my opinions.
Yes, and your opinions are that of an enlightened wacko.

>You're free to disagree or even mock them openly if that's your thing but you come off as a bigot every time you do.
I REALLY don't care.

>If you don't believe that you're living a hallucination right now, and that whatever you're feeling and are continuously aware of is real in any sense of the word, then you're simply a very philosophically naive person.
"If you don't believe my shitty attempt at philosophy, you are philosophically naive"
mhmmm...

There's this thing called science that allows us to test perceptions to determine their consistency. Drug induced hallucinations are not consistent with reality, they are simply your brain making shit up, not reporting external stimuli. This is a scientific fact.

>>7117575
His eloquence truly is astonishing.

>>7117566
Literally everything Terrence McKenna said is wrong. I can't imagine a better spokesman for delusional stoners.

>>7115242
Underrated post.
I feel like this kind of combines the two big stand points here, and makes relatively ok sense of it

The only objective conclusion I can derive from the psychedelic experience is the fact that states of consciousness like that are the closest thing you'll get to something akin to death. They completely disconnect you from your senses and the perception of reality you are used to. You will never be as far from the human experience as you will under DMT.

>>7117578
>I don't care
Great, neither do I. I won't be spending my time arguing with someone who can't show the basic respect towards another human being and their opinions. You're worse than religious people.
>disagree with me?
>haha loser
That's your argument. So fuck off, kindly. And have a nice life.

>>7117558
>If you don't believe that you're living a hallucination right now, and that whatever you're feeling and are continuously aware of is real in any sense of the word, then you're simply a very philosophically naive person.
So you were being philosophically naive when you claimed that psychedelics allow you to enter the real world?

>>7117588
Then why did you repeat over and over again how I was being insulting and a bigot? Do you just enjoy pointing out things you don't care about? Obviously you do care, it's pretty funny how childish you are while pretending to take the "high ground". "You don't know anything brah, but drugs are the key to everything maaaaan." Hilarious.

>That's your argument.
Look I know it's hard for your drug-addled brain to parse arguments, but try a little harder next time.

They're illegal for a reason, because they're dangerous. As long as the people will end up paying for your psych ward you have no right to destroy your mind so badly that we all end up paying.

If you want to do it so badly, fly to a third world shithole.

>>7117592
No, I was in fact being extremely realistic. Anyone who's ever done a good dose of psychedelics will know exactly what I mean - everything becomes more real, more vivid, more intense. It's how reality looks like without the "cultural filters", for the lack of a better word. But those who had either bad experiences, too weak doses or have never touched a psychedelic drug in their lives, won't understand what I'm saying.

By the way, NDE patients experience the exact same thing. And you can go to your local anesthesiologist and ask him about it. You'll be amazed what you'll hear from an actual medical doctor.

>>7115304
If you're gong to troll, at least say something remotely believable, not "brain cells".

http://www.maps.org/research-archive/w3pb/2008/2008_Passie_23067_1.pdf

>>7117598
This is dangerous too, why don't we ban it?

>>7117599
>everything becomes more real, more vivid, more intense

That's how you perceive it, just like plenty of people who've gotten a DUI thought that they were an awesome driver while drunk, even after they hit and killed a loving family driving to church.

>>7117602
Because they have a legitimate use. Wanting to fry your brain because you're too stupid to entertain yourself naturally is not a legitimate use.

>>7117578
you seem to be under the impression that all psychedelics are linear in dose response and all they do is to simply "cause you to see this that isn't there"

>>7117599
>Anyone who's ever done a good dose of psychedelics will know exactly what I mean - everything becomes more real, more vivid, more intense.
Ah, OK. So the idea that non-hallucinatory experience is reality is "philosophically naive" because... some reason. But when you take drugs and FEEL that something is real, well that's being realistic. Please tell me again about how you are a great scientist. Fuck reason and verifiable evidence, if you really feel that something is true then it must be true. I bet that really helps you write research. I'd really like to see a paper but I have a sneaking suspicion that you were just bullshitting about being a scientist.

>>7117605
Reality is what you perceive. Think about that for a second. Whatever you do in your daily life, it's your perception of it that's driving everything. So it's obvious that mind-altering substances have a profound effect on your outlook of life as they change the way you function and interpret the world around you.

>>7117598
Brilliant.

>>7117605
>he has never experienced improved visual acuity on a hallucinogen!
>he has never experienced trademark nootropic effects from a low dose of LSD!
>he thinks he's in any position to tell others what their experiences were like while being utterly drug-naive himself!

>>7117608
Holes in the brain, mate. Holes in the brain.

>>7117608
Psychedelics are like microscopes, they can be useful if you know how to use them. If you put a microscope in front of an ape they won't find it useful either. Usefulness is relative.

>>7117616
I can perceive that I have the ability to fly under my own power simply by flapping my arms all I want but it doesn't make me any less earthbound. Your conclusions are no more profound than those of a common drunk.

>>7117625
>le flying acid man meme
keep going

>>7117583
It's also the conclusion that mainstream academia came to about the drug fifty years ago when the shitstorm of its rise to popularity died down.

>>7117625
You're an idiot.

>>7117599
>It's how reality looks like without the "cultural filters", for the lack of a better word.
The entire psychedelic hallucination is just a big filter. Did you ever consider that, genius?

>But those who had either bad experiences, too weak doses or have never touched a psychedelic drug in their lives, won't understand what I'm saying.
Ah, so people who didn't experience what you experienced are just having the wrong experience. Only you know "duh twoof". Again, this is what we call "delusional".

>By the way, NDE patients experience the exact same thing.
Yes, they experience hallucinations. Talk to your local anesthesiologist and they will explain to you that drugs, disease, and injury can make you see things that aren't real, you wackdoodle. For a "scientist" you aren't very scientific.

>>7117632
I'm not the one placing my faith in the validity of conclusions arrived at while intoxicated.

>>7117610
>you seem to be under the impression that all psychedelics are linear in dose response and all they do is to simply "cause you to see this that isn't there"
The first has nothing to do with anything I've said and I never said that's the only thing they do. They do in fact induce hallucinations regularly. They do not connect you to another world or true reality or whatever bullshit you are peddling.

>>7117639
Your whole life is an interplay of chemicals. Saying that one mindset is superior to another is like saying one star is better than the other. Hop off your high horse and smell the fucking roses.

>>7117620
The difference is that microscopes don't appear to carry a high risk of turning the user into a gullible, irrational hippy. The psychedelic users in this thread are the only reason one needs to see why psychedelics are dangerous.

>>7117644
Certain viewpoints are supported by scientific inquiry while others are not. If you are trying to be rational then being drunk will probably not help you. If you don't care about being rational then don't complain when people point out that your viewpoint is irrational.

>>7117633
>The entire psychedelic [condition] is just a big filter.
in some ways it is, and in some ways it isn't. For example, LSD modulates regulation of the locus coeruleus such that it shows bursts of activity more frequently, which manifests as objects becoming more innately fascinating (in the way of childlike fascination) and noticing trivial and ridiculous everyday things (such as body language or turns of phrase that are, when you think about it, ridiculous; or noticing things you have been overlooking) that you have leant to filter and ignore.

it's precisely those two traits that make low doses of that particular drug potentially useful for various applications.

>>7117640
>They do not connect you to another world or true reality or whatever bullshit you are peddling.
I think you're the only one here to suggest that.

>>7117650
why do you keep going on about being drunk?

>>7117656
>I think you're the only one here to suggest that.
See >>7117535

>why do you keep going on about being drunk?
Drunk, intoxicated, hallucinatory. It doesn't really matter.

>>7117633
>The entire psychedelic hallucination is just a big filter. Did you ever consider that, genius?
Well, try them then tell me.

>Ah, so people who didn't experience what you experienced are just having the wrong experience. Only you know "duh twoof". Again, this is what we call "delusional".
No, it's on the some order as any other experience. If I experienced something in my life and you hadn't, then how can we talk about it? We can't. For example if you have been struggling with depression all your life and I say that you're simply delusional, would you say that would be a bad assertion?

>Yes, they experience hallucinations. Talk to your local anesthesiologist and they will explain to you that drugs, disease, and injury can make you see things that aren't real, you wackdoodle. For a "scientist" you aren't very scientific.
Please refrain from addressing me personally as you know nothing about me and likewise, I know nothing about you. I don't use non-scientific reasoning when it comes down to actual science in my workplace, but what we're discussing here isn't science, it's philosophy. It's to do with ontology and epistemology and things like that. You _don't_ dwell into those with science, because science isn't the tool for that. So when you call my opinion "unscientific", you're really just showcasing how little you yourself know about science, philosophy and life in general. So please just address my arguments if that's agreeable with you.

Some injuries may in fact lead to hallucinations, but you're obviously just addressing the point about perceptual distortion, which is all you really care about, so you can throw my arguments away as swiftly as possible. What you're failing to address, however, is the feeling of ultimate bliss that NDE patients repeatedly report. But you have nothing to say about that because to you that's "unscientific", even though your whole life is based around chasing pleasure.

>>7117661
>Drunk, intoxicated, hallucinatory. It doesn't really matter.
of course it does. are Substances just one amorphous homogenous blob "just like being drunk" in your mind?

>>7117664
your posts are a load of waffle, to be honest.

>>7117664
>Well, try them then tell me.
I took acid and DMT many years ago. I'm sick of you retards peddling this nonsense.

>No, it's on the some order as any other experience. If I experienced something in my life and you hadn't, then how can we talk about it? We can't.
First of all, I have taken psychedelics. Second, it's fallacious to argue that one must experience the same as you to judge whether or not your experience corresponds to reality.

>For example if you have been struggling with depression all your life and I say that you're simply delusional, would you say that would be a bad assertion?
Depression IS treated as a delusion in psychology.

>Please refrain from addressing me personally as you know nothing about me and likewise, I know nothing about you.
Then why did you assume I've never taken psychedelics. And the only thing I've commented on about you is what you've told me about yourself.

>I don't use non-scientific reasoning when it comes down to actual science in my workplace, but what we're discussing here isn't science, it's philosophy.
What is real and what is not is determined by science.

>What you're failing to address, however, is the feeling of ultimate bliss that NDE patients repeatedly report.
What about it? I have nothing to say about it because it's irrelevant to the discussion over whether psychedelics can be used to gain knowledge about reality and advance science.

>>7117685
>Depression IS treated as a delusion in psychology.
Don't be ridiculous.

>>7117685
>I took acid and DMT many years ago. I'm sick of you retards peddling this nonsense.
Maybe you should take it again. The ego has grown a beard on you.

>First of all, I have taken psychedelics. Second, it's fallacious to argue that one must experience the same as you to judge whether or not your experience corresponds to reality.
Fallacious? Nothing could be further from the truth. Everything we talk about is due to our common experience, otherwise none of our words would bear any meaning whatsoever. Linguistics 101, fella.

>Depression IS treated as a delusion in psychology.
Another fallacy. Delusions may be a symptom of depression, they are not correlated in any other way.

>Then why did you assume I've never taken psychedelics. And the only thing I've commented on about you is what you've told me about yourself.
Because you were arguing about my statement, which I still stand by.

>What is real and what is not is determined by science.
Sorry, but this hilarious. Science changes every fucking day. Scientific rules are an extrapolation of natural happenings. Science _does not define_ the natural happenings. Get your facts straight.

>What about it? I have nothing to say about it because it's irrelevant to the discussion over whether psychedelics can be used to gain knowledge about reality and advance science.
The experience is similar enough for there to be a chance of correlation. So it should be investigated, maybe not in the context of this conversation but I was only making a point through it. I still stand by it.

You've demonstrated nothing but poor knowledge in your post.

>>7117685
>>7117695
Just stop.

>>7117692
Don't be ignorant.

>>7117695
>Maybe you should take it again. The ego has grown a beard on you.
Ah yes, the stoner's answer to everything. Just take more drugs until I start making sense!

>Everything we talk about is due to our common experience, otherwise none of our words would bear any meaning whatsoever.
No, it's due to an understanding of what the words mean. You don't need to kill someone to understand what murder is.

>Because you were arguing about my statement, which I still stand by.
That doesn't explain why you made a fallacious assumption.

>Sorry, but this hilarious. Science changes every fucking day. Scientific rules are an extrapolation of natural happenings. Science _does not define_ the natural happenings. Get your facts straight.
That's a non sequitur. Science is a process of determining factual information. You have just pointed out that it is a process. If we are discussing what is real then yes we are going to need science. Otherwise we are just making things up.

>The experience is similar enough for there to be a chance of correlation.
This is gibberish. Similar to what? Correlation to what?

>>7117079

Let me guess: abstract thinking abilities elevated to extreme levels, visualization of concepts made stupidly easier, quicker analysis of problems, a feeling that you can solve anything?
If yes, then you are not alone.

>>7117712
>>visualization of concepts made stupidly easier
>tfw impenetrably complex source code suddenly "clicks" with your mental model of the software while on psys

>>7117710
You're still arguing over nothing. Shut up, both of you.

>>7117715
You first, quack

>>7117717
What?

>>7117710
>Ah yes, the stoner's answer to everything. Just take more drugs until I start making sense!
Well, obviously.

>No, it's due to an understanding of what the words mean. You don't need to kill someone to understand what murder is.
In order to communicate, you must have an idea. And ideas come from experiences. Even if all you did was looked for the dictionary definition for murder, that's still your experience and it's the common ground which allows language to take place.

>That doesn't explain why you made a fallacious assumption.
To match your rate of fallacious assumptions per post, of course.

>That's a non sequitur. Science is a process of determining factual information.
I thought you just said reality defines what is real.

>You have just pointed out that it is a process. If we are discussing what is real then yes we are going to need science.
So that we can talk about what is real in a scientific context? Because, you know, that's the only possible context you can discuss this within?

>This is gibberish. Similar to what? Correlation to what?
The experiences of NDE and psychedelic-induced mental states are similar in characteristic. Studying it may help us evolve neuroscience, specifically knowledge about the pineal gland, which appears to play a big role in these experiences.

>>7117725
Sorry, that should be:
I thought you just said science defines what is real.

ITT: butthurt druggies and autists who wish they could have tried drugs but never got the chance because they have no friends

PS I'm right.

>>7117725
>In order to communicate, you must have an idea. And ideas come from experiences.
Common ideas do not have to come from, and often don't come from, common experiences. Again, you don't have to murder someone to understand what murder is. You don't have to take drugs to understand what a hallucination is.

>To match your rate of fallacious assumptions per post, of course.
Like what?

>I thought you just said reality defines what is real.
I said science determines what is real. Reading, it's not that hard. What is your point?

>So that we can talk about what is real in a scientific context? Because, you know, that's the only possible context you can discuss this within?
I can discuss anything in any context. But if we are talking about reality then we should base the discussion in our knowledge of reality. Otherwise we would just be making shit up. I can make shit up if you want.

>The experiences of NDE and psychedelic-induced mental states are similar in characteristic.
So?

>Studying it may help us evolve neuroscience, specifically knowledge about the pineal gland, which appears to play a big role in these experiences.
Oh great, pineal gland woo. Just when it was getting boring. You know we understand what the function of the pineal gland is and it has nothing to do with DMT or NDE or any of that shit right? That's just New Age bullshit. You do know Terrence McKenna is not a reliable source on anything right?

>>7117737
>Common ideas do not have to come from, and often don't come from, common experiences. Again, you don't have to murder someone to understand what murder is. You don't have to take drugs to understand what a hallucination is.
You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Whatever your understanding may be, it came from experience. You can't get past that. Everything you know, you know through experience.

>I said science determines what is real. Reading, it's not that hard. What is your point?
My point is that your assertion that "science determines what is real" is hilarious. Science does no such things. Science is an evolving tool. In 300 years science may as well say something that would sound completely contradictory today.

>I can discuss anything in any context. But if we are talking about reality then we should base the discussion in our knowledge of reality. Otherwise we would just be making shit up. I can make shit up if you want.
Funny how science never talks about consciousness in any serious context and everyone is experiencing it every waking hour of the day. Science can't even get a hold on how attraction between people works. Sure you can reduce it to biology and chemistry but you won't explain, using science, what your feeling towards another is. Science is not omnipotent. It is a tool and like any other tool, it has its limits. Too bad people like you glorify it and make it practically into a religion.

>So?
So nothing, I don't know why you're still discussing this.

>Oh great, pineal gland woo. Just when it was getting boring. You know we understand what the function of the pineal gland is and it has nothing to do with DMT or NDE or any of that shit right? That's just New Age bullshit. You do know Terrence McKenna is not a reliable source on anything right?
It's not fully understood, and claiming otherwise would just be insulting to the people who actually work on these theories.

>>7117737
>>7117747
this is like watching Angela and Hitler duke it out with utterly mundane posts on /g/.

Angela and Hitler are the same person, by the way.

Christ, so much ignorance and intolerance

There is utility in altered states of perception from drugs because. Of course these experiences should be reflected on rationally, but they are not all without merit. In my personal experience, psychedelics strip the cultural language that the mind filters the world through. great for abstract thinking and connecting dots that have always been separate. I agree the hippie 'woo' quantum bullshit goes too far, but that's what happens when plebs are not exposed to things they can't explain. Its the reason why the experiences were reserved for wise shamans historically

>>7117757
more or less

>>7114626
gtfo

>>7117747
>You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Whatever your understanding may be, it came from experience. You can't get past that. Everything you know, you know through experience.
Yes, but not COMMON experience. Try to focus on defending the point you made. I know it's hard.

>My point is that your assertion that "science determines what is real" is hilarious. Science does no such things. Science is an evolving tool.
How does the fact that science is an evolving tool counter the fact that science determines what is real? And I'm wondering now where exactly you think factual information comes from if not from science.

>Funny how science never talks about consciousness in any serious context and everyone is experiencing it every waking hour of the day. Science can't even get a hold on how attraction between people works. Sure you can reduce it to biology and chemistry but you won't explain, using science, what your feeling towards another is.
Funny how ignorant you are of neuroscience and psychology.

>Science is not omnipotent. It is a tool and like any other tool, it has its limits.
Never said it was omnipotent or not a tool. Again is your brain so drug addled that you can't follow a simple line of reasoning?

>Too bad people like you glorify it and make it practically into a religion.
You're the one trying to tell people drugs will make them enlightened.

>So nothing, I don't know why you're still discussing this.
Yes, I know you don't understand the argument.

>It's not fully understood, and claiming otherwise would just be insulting to the people who actually work on these theories.
I didn't say it's fully understood, I said we understand what it's function is. But thanks for showing us you can't tell the difference between reality and New Age quackery.

>>7117783
yah dude that shit makes holes in you're brain

yah

I think Im lost

>>7117810
>How does the fact that science is an evolving tool counter the fact that science determines what is real? And I'm wondering now where exactly you think factual information comes from if not from science.
As if factual information is a substance of its own. Can you touch it?

>Funny how ignorant you are of neuroscience and psychology.
Funny how neither neuroscience nor psychology has a coherent theory about the things I mentioned.

>You're the one trying to tell people drugs will make them enlightened.
I'm trying to make a case that not all drugs simply distort your perception, some might expand it.

>>7117819
>As if factual information is a substance of its own. Can you touch it?
Are you serious? Am I being trolled or are you really this dumb?

>Funny how neither neuroscience nor psychology has a coherent theory about the things I mentioned.
First of all, there is a lot of work in neuroscience and psychology on both consciousness and attraction, you ignorant buffoon. Second, if you understand that science is a continual process, why are you demanding fully formed explanations of everything? My point is that if we want to determine facts, we need to use science. How are you going to explain consciousness or attraction without science? By making shit up? Oh wait, let me guess, drugs.

>>7117828
>pharmacology is not a science
wot
>the study of neurotransmitters is not a science
wot

I believe that psychedelics can be used to expand your perspective and remove yourself from any social or cultural biases you may hold. Any scientist should value these properties.

>>7117833
>Pharmacologists use psychedelics to do pharmacology.
>Neuroscientists use drugs to do neursocience
Literally retarded

>>7117840
You know what also does that? Using your brain.

>>7117843
although you've twisted my words, those sentences are nevertheless true

>>7117849
>using the cerebral jew

>>7117828
>Are you serious? Am I being trolled or are you really this dumb?
Yes, I am being perfectly serious and I'm not trolling you. You speak of "factual information" as if it's written in stone somewhere. You fail to realize that we invented the meaning of "fact". There's no facts in nature, only happenings.

And yes, I'm surely dumb for continuing this conversation. I could be doing something far better with my life.

>First of all, there is a lot of work in neuroscience and psychology on both consciousness and attraction, you ignorant buffoon
I didn't say there wasn't.

>Second, if you understand that science is a continual process, why are you demanding fully formed explanations of everything?
No, I'm saying that YOU (yes, YOU) are seeing correlation where there's NONE. YOU keep saying that science is the all-knowing savior that will eventually tell us what consciousness is. YOU keep implying that science is capable of such deeds, WITHOUT having a single EVIDENCE to support your claim.

You're being unscientific yourself, and because I happen to have a different philosophy on life than you do, you deem it appropriate to call my opinions unscientific. Well you're just a moron, aren't you?

>My point is that if we want to determine facts, we need to use science.
And you keep implying that facts are needed to explain life. Facts are needed in science, they are not needed to explain the beauty of a flower. But you don't understand that because you're a materialist. You keep implying that I'm dumber than you for not sharing this materialistic outlook, as if that's somehow required of me to even function in this society. Well guess what, I function fine in this society. I'm probably higher on the social scale than you are. So fucking what? You keep insulting me from all angles, that's all you know how to do when you disagree with someone. Pathetic to say the least.

>How are you going to explain consciousness or attraction without science?
Philosophy of mind.

>>7117849
Do you have anything substantive to say?

>>7117854
Can you two knock it off, please?

>What is your stance on psychedelic substances and their use?
pretty cool and they can be useful.

>Do you believe psychedelics have a potential to advance science? How? And if not, why?
Yes. They may be useful in treating depression, alcoholism, nicotine dependency, PTSD. Other than that I personally think that they can induce spiritual experiences. Don't know if that helps though.

>>7117854
>You speak of "factual information" as if it's written in stone somewhere.
Where did I do that. Again, where do you think factual information comes from? Your ass?

>You fail to realize that we invented the meaning of "fact". There's no facts in nature, only happenings.
You fail to realize that once again you have stated some irrelevant hippy bullshit that doesn't counter the fucking point. The only way we can get reliable information about reality is through science. How many times do I have to say this? How many times are you going to avoid the point by saying some childish bullshit?

>I didn't say there wasn't.
You said "science never talks about consciousness in any serious context". You said "Science can't even get a hold on how attraction between people works". This is just bullshit. You are not a scientist, you fucking liar.

>No, I'm saying that YOU (yes, YOU) are seeing correlation where there's NONE. YOU keep saying that science is the all-knowing savior that will eventually tell us what consciousness is.
WRONG you illiterate fuck. Either science will examine what consciousness is or there is nothing to be said about consciousness besides baseless conjecture, which is all you seem capable of spouting.

>YOU keep implying that science is capable of such deeds, WITHOUT having a single EVIDENCE to support your claim.
Where did I say that? I said, science is the only tool we have to determine what is factual. That doesn't mean that science will answer every question. Only a buffoon would think my argument is equivalent to the drivel you are describing. You are a buffoon.

>Facts are needed in science, they are not needed to explain the beauty of a flower.
The beauty of a flower is just your subjective experience. Of course science is necessary to explain it. Otherwise you are not explaining anything.

>>7117878
>Where did I do that. Again, where do you think factual information comes from? Your ass?
Words, smartass. All your facts are phonemes, clumped together and assigned meaning to. Is the word "tree" the same thing as a tree? Who's dumb now?

>The only way we can get reliable information about reality is through science.
It may be one way, it certainly isn't the only way, regardless of what your feeble intellect can comprehend.

>You said "science never talks about consciousness in any serious context". You said "Science can't even get a hold on how attraction between people works". This is just bullshit. You are not a scientist, you fucking liar.
And that's true, because in the context of science, consciousness always takes a back seat. It's an "emergent" property, after all. It's something that happens once you clump together a lot of neurons. Read my posts again and try to interpret them objectively please.

>Either science will examine what consciousness is or there is nothing to be said about consciousness besides baseless conjecture, which is all you seem capable of spouting.
Proving my point that you're making science into a religion. Good job there, buddy. Better establish a priesthood now.

>The beauty of a flower is just your subjective experience. Of course science is necessary to explain it. Otherwise you are not explaining anything.
Oh please do explain the beauty of a flower using science. Humor me.

>>7117854
>You keep implying that I'm dumber than you for not sharing this materialistic outlook, as if that's somehow required of me to even function in this society.
Being dumb dhas nothing to do with functioning in society, it just means you're dumb. Yes, believing in dualism is stupid. There is no reason to believe in dualism. If appearing rational is not important to you, how am I being insulting when I point out you are being irrational? Obviously it is important to you, so you should at least try harder to be rational, instead of spouting drivel.

>Philosophy of mind.
OK so explain consciousness to me and then explain how you know your explanation is correct.

>>7117892
Being dumb is subjective. And obviously you're just trying to prove your points through derision. I don't mind it anymore at this point. It gets old pretty soon.

>OK so explain consciousness to me and then explain how you know your explanation is correct.
Let me be perfectly clear. I can't explain consciousness. I can, however, draw more conclusions as to how it functions using philosophy than I can using science. Science only tells me what's going on in the brain, it tells me nothing about what's going on in my mind. And that's what I'm interested in within this context.

>>7117890
>Words, smartass. All your facts are phonemes, clumped together and assigned meaning to. Is the word "tree" the same thing as a tree? Who's dumb now?
Again, completely irrelevant drivel. Facts are represented by words, so what? Thank you for showing us that acidheads can't think. You've truly opened my mind to the realm of stupidity in the hippy thought space.

>It may be one way, it certainly isn't the only way, regardless of what your feeble intellect can comprehend.
Nope, it's the only way. Anything else is just arbitrary conjecture. Science IS the correlation between model and reality.

>And that's true, because in the context of science, consciousness always takes a back seat. It's an "emergent" property, after all. It's something that happens once you clump together a lot of neurons
So science DOES talk about consciousness in a serious context. Thank you for proving yourself wrong.

>Proving my point that you're making science into a religion.
Religion assumes it's dogma is true and denies all contradictory evidence, science doesn't assume dogma and continually looks for contradicting evidence. Science is not a religion. The fact that it is the process by which we acquire reliable knowledge about the world does not make it a religion.

>Oh please do explain the beauty of a flower using science.
Flowers are beautiful because they evolved to attract animals so that their pollen would be dispersed by them.

They're fun and they can be a useful tool for exploring yourself. This can put your mindset/life in a better position to do maths and science. It is fantasy though, and not a substitute for actually doing maths and science.

>>7117907
>And obviously you're just trying to prove your points through derision.
My points are proven by my arguments. Derision then follows when you fail to respond to them.

>Let me be perfectly clear. I can't explain consciousness.
You can't even try to explain consciousness. Not in a way that discerns between reality and your imagination. Because you need science to do that.

>>7117911
Funny how you keep referring to me as a druggie when I haven't taken psychedelics for 8 years now.

>Facts are represented by words, so what?
So everything. If you don't see my point then I'm sorry.

>So science DOES talk about consciousness in a serious context. Thank you for proving yourself wrong.
Classifying something we experience on a daily basis as an emergent property is not my idea of serious scientific modelling. It's a "let's fill the gaps" mentality. That's not science, that's hogwash.

>Religion assumes it's dogma is true and denies all contradictory evidence
Exactly! You're assuming the dogma that science can explain everything. I'm saying it can't possibly explain the mind, to which you have no counter-evidence.

>science doesn't assume dogma and continually looks for contradicting evidence. Science is not a religion. The fact that it is the process by which we acquire reliable knowledge about the world does not make it a religion.
I'm not saying science is a religion, I'm saying you're making it into one.

>Flowers are beautiful because they evolved to attract animals so that their pollen would be dispersed by them.
I didn't ask why are flowers beautiful. I said, and I quote: "explain the beauty of a flower using science"

>>7117915
>My points are proven by my arguments. Derision then follows when you fail to respond to them.
No, with you it's derision first, arguments second.

>You can't even try to explain consciousness. Not in a way that discerns between reality and your imagination. Because you need science to do that.
Well I'm arguing that science isn't capable of doing so. You know that I disagree with you and I know that I disagree with you, can't we just keep it at that?

>>7114626
Hell no, there's always been notable people in acadamia that used drugs like these been they always quite like Alan watts. "once you get the message, hang up the phone" Alan watts.

>>7117928
what?

>>7114626

For me really they are what they are, fun recreational drugs. I prefer psychedelic drugs just because they go better with my persona than weed, alcohol etc. but I rarely do it anymore. It's a very nice experience when it comes to understanding your human nature and can give you several "insights" in life.

>>7117918
>Funny how you keep referring to me as a druggie when I haven't taken psychedelics for 8 years now.
I never referred to you as a druggie. I called you an acidhead and hippy.

>So everything. If you don't see my point then I'm sorry.
You can't explain your point coherently. Either because you lack the ability or no point exists. Facts are created and corrected all the time. They are not written in stone nor did I say they were. Then you responded with 'facts are just words brah'. Truly representative of the hippy thoughtspace.

>Classifying something we experience on a daily basis as an emergent property is not my idea of serious scientific modelling.
Why? Because it doesn't conform to your preconceived notions?

>It's a "let's fill the gaps" mentality. That's not science, that's hogwash.
Clearly you have no idea what science is.

>Exactly! You're assuming the dogma that science can explain everything.
When did I ever say that? I didn't, yet you keep repeating it. Science is the only tool we have to reliably explain things. That doesn't mean it can explain anything you want. Why do I have to keep repeating this? Are you illiterate?

>I'm saying it can't possibly explain the mind, to which you have no counter-evidence.
Science is explaining the mind right now. Counter-evidence brought. Where is your evidence that it can't explain the mind?

>I didn't ask why are flowers beautiful. I said, and I quote: "explain the beauty of a flower using science"
Those are the same thing, you retard. Why don't you just explain what you want?

>No, with you it's derision first, arguments second.
You ignore the arguments anyway. You just stated that I'm trying to prove my points with derision. So which is it?

>Well I'm arguing that science isn't capable of doing so.
An argument usually consists of reasoning. Perhaps science is incapable of doing so. But this is all irrelevant to the original point, which was that science is the only way we can get such explanations

>>7117942
>I called you an acidhead and hippy.
clap clap clap

drugs are against science -- you heard it on /sci/ first!

>>7117942
>I never referred to you as a druggie. I called you an acidhead and hippy.
I assumed those were synonymous within your artillery of insults.

>You can't explain your point coherently.
Well, let me try to be clearer. There's a distinction between a symbol and reality. As humans, we've learned to classify reality into symbols, using language. We live our lives basically confusing the two, because the notion of a symbol is so ingrained into our way of thinking that for example, when we see a tree, we intuitively think of it as a real tree, and when we hear the mention of the word "tree", we intuitively map this symbol to the reality it represents. But the point is that symbols are not an exact mapping to reality, they represent reality but they need a reference point which is essentially how humans view and construct ideas. Point of it all being, that whatever assumption you may come up with about reality, it remains a symbol and it remains an artificial construct. That's the distinction between the real and the absolute in philosophy and I'm more or less making my point between the lines while referencing this basic contrast.

>Why? Because it doesn't conform to your preconceived notions?
It goes against science by not investigating the issue at first hand. It avoids the problem by posing a solution that sounds reasonable but relies on false premise.

>Science is the only tool we have to reliably explain things.
Again, I disagree. There's philosophy.

>Those are the same thing, you retard. Why don't you just explain what you want?
No, they are not the same thing. Explain how you feel right now using the scientific method.

>An argument usually consists of reasoning.
I've explained my reasoning several times during this conversation. Maybe you should read my posts again.

like this

>>7117942
>I never referred to you as a druggie. I called you an acidhead and hippy.
I assumed those were synonymous within your artillery of insults.

>You can't explain your point coherently.
Well, let me try to be clearer. There's a distinction between a symbol and reality. As humans, we've learned to classify reality into symbols, using language. We live our lives basically confusing the two, because the notion of a symbol is so ingrained into our way of thinking that for example, when we see a tree, we intuitively map it to the word "tree", and when we hear the mention of the word "tree", we intuitively map this symbol to the reality it represents. But the point is that symbols are not an exact mapping to reality, they represent reality but they need a reference point which is essentially how humans view and construct ideas. Point of it all being, that whatever assumption you may come up with about reality, it remains a symbol and it remains an artificial construct. That's the distinction between the real and the absolute in philosophy and I'm more or less making my point between the lines while referencing this basic contrast.

>Why? Because it doesn't conform to your preconceived notions?
It goes against science by not investigating the issue at first hand. It avoids the problem by posing a solution that sounds reasonable but relies on false premise.

>Science is the only tool we have to reliably explain things.
Again, I disagree. There's philosophy.

>Those are the same thing, you retard. Why don't you just explain what you want?
No, they are not the same thing. Explain how you feel right now using the scientific method.

>An argument usually consists of reasoning.
I've explained my reasoning several times during this conversation. Maybe you should read my posts again.

>>7117973
>Point of it all being, that whatever assumption you may come up with about reality, it remains a symbol and it remains an artificial construct.
Yes. But once again, this doesn't respond to my argument in any way. Why do you think it does?

>It goes against science by not investigating the issue at first hand.
That's nonsense. Of course we are investigating it first hand. The problem is that you believe consciousness is this magic immaterial thing that can't be investigated. Thus whatever we investigate, you will not be happy with.

>Again, I disagree. There's philosophy.
How do you determine which philosophy represents reality?

>No, they are not the same thing. Explain how you feel right now using the scientific method.
They do mean the same thing. If you want people to understand what you're trying to say, be more specific.

>I've explained my reasoning several times during this conversation. Maybe you should read my posts again.
You have not given any reasoning for why science is incapable of explaining consciousness. The only thing you've said is that you don't like the description of consciousness as emergent.

>>7118000
I've also said that science is incapable of explaining attraction, or even basic human emotion, like pain. Does a neurologist understand pain better than any other human being because he knows a lot about the nervous system?

>That's nonsense. Of course we are investigating it first hand. The problem is that you believe consciousness is this magic immaterial thing that can't be investigated. Thus whatever we investigate, you will not be happy with.
Well, maybe you've nailed it. It is magic and without it we wouldn't really exist or even have this conversation. And I can get away with calling it magic because we don't understand it.

>How do you determine which philosophy represents reality?
This is actually a good question, I'm glad you started asking intelligent questions for a change. It's actually such a good question that I might even think about it for a few days. I won't be arrogant and pretend I know the answer to this.

>Yes. But once again, this doesn't respond to my argument in any way. Why do you think it does?
Because it's linked to how we view and interpret the world around us. And the very reason I'm bringing it up is because whatever psychedelics do, one thing is sure and that is, they dissolve linguistic structures. It's not uncommon to have a child-like experience on a psychedelic. So that would be the ground being, the state of being where words are meaningless.

>>7118012
I'm not the guy you're arguing with but man you're a fucking moron. Seek help, and if you are really a scientist then I suggest you leave your field immediately. There's no telling what danger and harm you can cause to people with the way you rationalize basically anything.

>>7118019
That's too bad, I'm already in a firmly established position.

>>7118012
>Does a neurologist understand pain better than any other human being because he knows a lot about the nervous system?
Yes.

>And I can get away with calling it magic because we don't understand it.
No you can't. What are you twelve? Not understanding something does not mean you just get to make up whatever you want about it.

>I won't be arrogant and pretend I know the answer to this.
The answer is you can't. Again, science is the correlation between model and reality.

>Because it's linked to how we view and interpret the world around us.
Still not responding to the argument. All models are artificial constructs. This does not respond to the point that science is the only reliable method for testing models.

>>7118021
Resign. You clearly aren't qualified for even the simplest lab technician job.

>>7118022
>Yes.
I know he understands the neurology of pain better, but are you claiming he actually understands pain, as in pain - the emotion, better?

>No you can't. What are you twelve? Not understanding something does not mean you just get to make up whatever you want about it.
Yes, I really can. You don't have to like it. And I already said I'm 27.

>The answer is you can't. Again, science is the correlation between model and reality.
Philosophy evolves from logical premises in the same way science does. I don't think you know all that much about philosophy.

>All models are artificial constructs.
And no model accurately maps to reality. Every single model is an approximation.

>This does not respond to the point that science is the only reliable method for testing models.
Science makes models, science tests them. You're arguing within the context you yourself defined and you think you're proving something.

>>7118029
Right. I will resign from a great job position and leave all my years of training behind because a random anon deemed I was incapable of doing science for having a difference of opinion.

One thing is clear - I wouldn't want to work with you. You seem intolerant and actually quite hostile.

http://in5d.com/starseed-and-royalty-survival-how-to-recognize-implants-and-tags/

/sci/ - Politically Incorrect

>>7118031
>I know he understands the neurology of pain better, but are you claiming he actually understands pain, as in pain - the emotion, better?
You are making arbitrary distinctions between understanding an emotion and understanding the physical aspect of an emotion.

>Yes, I really can. You don't have to like it. And I already said I'm 27.
Ok, but that's literally stupid magical thinking. So don't complain when people call you out for it.

>Philosophy evolves from logical premises in the same way science does. I don't think you know all that much about philosophy.
Philosophy doesn't test itself against reality though. It doesn't have to evolve from logical premises. You can make up whatever philosophy you want and it doesn't have to be logical or realistic at all. That's exactly what you've done in fact.

>And no model accurately maps to reality. Every single model is an approximation.
Some models are more accurate than others. Some models are accurate enough to be called facts. The process through which we test the accuracy of a model is science.

>You're arguing within the context you yourself defined and you think you're proving something.
You attempted to argue against the idea that science is the only way of determining facts. Is that correct or not?

>>7118036
It isn't your difference of opinion, it's the fact that you lack critical thinking skills and are prone to logical fallacies and magical thinking. These are all things that are hallmarks of an unscientific individual.

>>7114626
It takes a lot of time for society to accept changes you need patience if you do it to quick people will think you're a lunatic, and psychedelics change the perspective really fast and really hard.
Regarding the question about science, Yes and I'd say LSD would work the best because, my god is the mind quick and smooth at those times.

>>7117661
Are you fucking serious? Different drugs affect different receptors in your brain differently.

That's like saying a sword and a table saw are the same thing.

>>7118054
>You are making arbitrary distinctions between understanding an emotion and understanding the physical aspect of an emotion.
Oh it's arbitrary now? Is it still arbitrary when someone kicks you in the balls? Does it stop being arbitrary at this point?

>Ok, but that's literally stupid magical thinking. So don't complain when people call you out for it.
I'm not complaining.

>Philosophy doesn't test itself against reality though. It doesn't have to evolve from logical premises. You can make up whatever philosophy you want and it doesn't have to be logical or realistic at all. That's exactly what you've done in fact.
That's not true. Philosophy is not philosophy unless it follow logical premises. What you wanted to say is that logic itself is a philosophical proposition, which is why you "can't know nothing". I think you probably understand my point much better at this point but you keep complaining just for the sake of it.

>Some models are more accurate than others. Some models are accurate enough to be called facts. The process through which we test the accuracy of a model is science.
Right. But no model is 100% accurate, would you agree on that?

>You attempted to argue against the idea that science is the only way of determining facts. Is that correct or not?
Yes, and I still stand by that because you can as well determine facts using philosophy. I wasn't arguing that, I was saying that facts themselves are a scientific (or philosophical) construct. It's really tiring when I have to explain myself 6 times over, you know?

>>7118062
In the context of philosophy, I'm free to do whatever I deem purposeful, be it rational or otherwise. In the context of my work, I'm required to be perfectly rational. I am perfectly capable of seeing the distinction between the two.

>>7118062
>These are all things that are hallmarks of an unscientific individual.

>>7118073
Yes, I understand that you think that, but the problem is that your definition of rationality is different from what is universally believed as rational thought. You have these personal beliefs that you view to be completely rational, which is fine, to each his own. But if that is how rationality is defined by you, then your rational while work will also follow the same stream of thought. You see what I mean?

>>7118089
I see what you mean, but it's false. I just happen to be interested in philosophy.

>>7118071
>Oh it's arbitrary now? Is it still arbitrary when someone kicks you in the balls? Does it stop being arbitrary at this point?
Yes.

>Philosophy is not philosophy unless it follow logical premises.
So all philosophy is perfectly logical? You haven't studied philosophy.

>What you wanted to say is that logic itself is a philosophical proposition, which is why you "can't know nothing".
No I did not want to say that.

>Right. But no model is 100% accurate, would you agree on that?
Yes.

>Yes, and I still stand by that because you can as well determine facts using philosophy.
How do you determine facts using philosophy?

>I wasn't arguing that, I was saying that facts themselves are a scientific (or philosophical) construct.
Yes, and how does that respond to my point? It agrees with my point.

>>7118099
If you think your philosophical bearing on things doesn't have a direct effect on how you perceive and interact with the world, consciously or subconsciously, then I think you are gravely mistaken.

>>7118101
>Yes.
I propose an experiment. We'll have a device that will kick you in the nuts until you say "it's not arbitrary anymore". We can repeat this experiment as many times as you want. Will that work for you?

>So all philosophy is perfectly logical? You haven't studied philosophy.
No, I didn't say that. I say all philosophy follows logical premises. The ends of those branches can be perfectly illogical because no answer can follow from it, or it is just posed in a way that is unanswerable. And no, I haven't studied philosophy, that's why I have a job today.

>No I did not want to say that.
You said you can make philosophy up, which is true up to a point, but it _must_ necessarily be derived from logical principles. Otherwise it's fantasy and not philosophy.

>How do you determine facts using philosophy?
By constructing them out of thin air, of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic

>Yes, and how does that respond to my point? It agrees with my point.
Your point being?

>>7118104
Of course it has, that's why I'm interested in it. What would be the point otherwise?

You seem to be implying that a person can't be both scientific and have a crazy philosophy or even a crazy religion in some cases. Do I need to type out a list of well known scientists who had either?

>>7118118
No, what I'm implying is that what you're trying to do won't work. You're attempting to meld your philosophical beliefs with science. When Einstein believed that there was no way that the Universe was expanding and created the Cosmological Constant, he was starting a premise with a conclusion. He wanted to believe the Universe had to be in a fixed non-accelerated state, so he made a theory to explain it. Ultimately that theory was not true, and he lived to see how he was wrong in that respect.

Whether or not a person has been scientific or can live within the duality of two beliefs is irrelevant to the validity of the conclusions that they try to make.

>>7118135
>No, what I'm implying is that what you're trying to do won't work.
And you will be the judge of that?

>>7118115
>I propose an experiment. We'll have a device that will kick you in the nuts until you say "it's not arbitrary anymore". We can repeat this experiment as many times as you want. Will that work for you?
I don't see how this puerile line of argument is supposed to support the idea that understanding how an emotion works is not understanding that emotion.

>I say all philosophy follows logical premises.
They don't.

>The ends of those branches can be perfectly illogical because no answer can follow from it, or it is just posed in a way that is unanswerable.
If the premises are logical and the conclusion follows then the conclusion is logical.

>You said you can make philosophy up, which is true up to a point, but it _must_ necessarily be derived from logical principles. Otherwise it's fantasy and not philosophy.
What test is there to make sure philosophies are logical?

>By constructing them out of thin air, of course.
Then they aren't facts. Logical premises are not facts. There is no such thing as a true or false premise. They are assumptions.

>Your point being?
The point that you attempted to respond to was that science determines facts. I've said this many times and you keep failing to explain how you've responded to it.

>>7118152
No, history is. It's already been tried. On multiple occasions with a variety of different people, causes, and schools of science.

>>7118155
I'm tired of this endless nitpicking. You may be right, some philosophies may just be totally illogical. I made a fallacious statement there.

I'm tired of arguing about this.

See this if you're at all interested in what I was trying to argue about.
http://youtu.be/SDV2EgVC8KI

>>7118168
History also tells us that radical ideas often transform the humanity on the whole, often for the better.

>>7118190
lol Craig is an idiot. No thanks, I've heard it all before.

>Do you believe psychedelics have a potential to advance science?

They would be utterly invaluable in neuroscience

>>7118201
He's talking about Dr. Eben Alexander.

>>7118201
Maybe you'll enjoy this video then. Unless you dislike Stuart Hameroff as well.

http://youtu.be/1d5RetvkkuQ

>>7115304

Technically true, since neither one kills any.

Ok there's a lot of shitposting here that I can't all reply to, to I'll just post my main thoughts and see what people disagree with

>saying this as a semi regular psychedelic user

>psychedelics are illegal because they're fucking drugs. Not because they hold some sort of grand secret or anything, just because they alter your perception in a huge way. Not always in a good way. But they should be legal, so stupid high schoolers can stop dying from synthetics

>I... guess psy's have a sort of legitimate scientific use? idk you'll have to specify, I don't really know what you mean by that. You can make really anything scientific, but psychedelics aren't really going to make great advances with anything. Maybe with mental health but not really anything else


in general, people should realize the face value they're getting from psy's. Don't act like you're fucking better than anyone else on earth just because you made a mere choice to ingest something. And don't be the faggot that says "everyone should take psys mannnn we'd all be peaceful" because you KNOW that's bullshit. I don't give a shit what cultures take them regularly now or have in the past, the point is that they are CULTURES that take them. SPECIFIC PEOPLE that are all pretty much the same socially, genetically, the world is too mixed to do that now.

If you take them because you're looking for something, you're not going to find it. Throw away your stupid tiedye shirt and find something in the real world. I know so many people that graduated from my hs now that took acid and are now self proclaimed philosophers, even though they've never read any. Psychedelics affect people differently, for me they bridge the connection between corny ass motivational quotes to do something with my life and the motivation itself.

>>7117646
>risk of turning the user into a gullible, irrational hippy
Wow, you think the people in those cases aren't irrational people to begin with? If you're an idiot, psychedelics won't plant the seed of rationality in you, no, they will amplify what is floating in your idiotic brain and perhaps even present it as some meaningful truth which will further the cause of your idioticity.

>>7114626
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TncmNVhDmQc

They begin talking about psychedelics at 1:51:07

>>7118258
I can't believe that people who have taken acid could think it would make everyone peaceful. Many people are wild when they take acid. The first time I did it with a group we talked about what it would be like if everyone did it recreationally and we quickly concluded that it would neither improve nor destroy society, it would just make people weirder than they already are.

>>7117578
Retarded know-it-all atheist-fag detected. Go back to fapping to James Randi and Michael Shermer, please.

>>7117582
And you're qualified to say so how? Oh right, you just believe what some lying faggot like Richard Dawkins says, just like with Rupert Sheldrake.

All these naysayers are full of shit.
Numerous things they do every day, like watching TV, involves just as much if not more manipulation of the senses than psychedelic drugs, only that one may well never realize that one has hallucinated if it is assumed to be real, as e.g. happens when they "wag the dog".
It is like Mormons telling you not to drink a cup of coffee while their wives are all high on antidepressants.

>>7118802
Ah, well I gotta start hanging out with different people then!

I've tripped numerous times, and am a double major in computer science and philosophy. Here's how i see it. Being sober is some chemically induced state that we are extremely used to. Soberness is a specific way of interacting with reality and input/stimulus in general. On substances that method of interaction changes. LSD specifically feels as if the vale of reality is lifted, as if you're interacting with objective reality in a purer way, taking each stimulus for what it is at that moment. It has a lot of potential for science, especially in terms of paradigms of science.

I believe psychedelics would have power in science in terms of forcing you to see things from a different perspective so being able to approach a problem in a novel way and thus maybe break some sort of mental barrier you needed to pass in order place your mind where it needs to be to find that solution.

I also believe the same thing could be done by new experiences like going to new places, discussions with other people, or just in general, having new novel experiences. It's all about making the right connections. So, I think psychedelics could have an impact, but not really in any sort of special way.

That's all mere speculation though. I believe the real power with psychedelics is working on the self. Being able to look at yourself, stripped of your ego has the power to seriously work on yourself but it requires more than just simply taking hallucinogens. It requires daily hard work. I don't place much special importance on them, they are simply an aid on a grander scheme.

Umm the concept of the DNA structure and all the iShit can be sourced to acid

http://m.bbc.com/ news/science-environment-31772140

Psychedelics not harmful.

>>7119187
>Solar Impulse plane begins epic global flight
totes

Acid did wonders for me, psychologically. It helped me have an open mind, really think about who I am at some point and the way I managed my 20-25 sessions with acid made them really amazing psychedelic experiences, on the fun side. But, if it were to become legal, it would be massively misused (it is much easier to do harmful shit while in an acid trip than while drunk, also, acid is way more intense, specially for a newcomer), and I also believe that it does not hold some big consciouness secret.

So I think acid could be a tool in the hand of psychanalists and psychologists for treatment and research, though. That's the only way (aside from chemists analyzing the compound) that I can see psychedelics being used in science.

I heard CERN is taking weekly Datura trips for interpreting the data

>>7117566
I would disagree on this one point:
>culturally laid down models of behaviour and information processing.
The thing is that these models aren't laid down culturally. They're neurological, and so naturally our culture reflects them.

What psychedelics -do- do is completely fucking scramble the routing tables. So yes you do see things in a new way, but you also hear purple and smell yellow and see whimsy. These things are cool but totally non-ideal if you think about it for a second. The brain is arranged and functions as it does for good reason.

>>7114626
Yes, they're horridly overrated.

Creative thinking and conceptual planning can be hugely enhanced and psychedelics can helps us understand the brains better.

>>7119202
TRONDHEIM, Norway, March 8 (UPI) -- A new study from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology has found there is no connection between psychedelic drugs and mental health issues.
The researchers analyzed data from the U.S. National Health Survey (2008-2011). The data includes over 130,000 randomly selected adults, including nearly 20,000 psychedelic drug users. The analysis showed people who use LSD or psilocybin mushrooms do not have an increased risk of mental health problems.

"In general, use of psychedelics does not appear to be particularly dangerous when compared to other activities considered to have acceptable safety," the study says.

"Over 30 million US adults have tried psychedelics and there just is not much evidence of health problems," said author and clinical psychologist Pål-Orjan Johansen.

"Drug experts consistently rank LSD and psilocybin mushrooms as much less harmful to the individual user and to society compared to alcohol and other controlled substances," said co-author and neuroscientist Teri Krebs.

The researchers claim it is more likely there is a link between improved mental health after using psychedelic drugs. However, they acknowledge certain people are at a higher risk for mental health problems in general and should be careful.

The study is published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.

I'm studying science at a university atm. I've also used lsd. It's fun to use, but it won't help you understand math/science any better.

I am a BSc undergrad and an occasional user of psychedelics.

I pretty much share this poster's opinion:
>>7119165
But without so much conviction, or maybe just a bit more cynicism. Psychedelic drugs can be useful for introspection, and maybe for imagination if you manage to think about work and have it pop for you, but you still have to put in the hard yards sober.

I am fairly distrustful of more vocal proponents of psychedelic drugs, especially if they start quoting Terrence McKenna who very much took a monkeys with typewriters approach and didn't believe much of the shit he said. He was a piss-taker.

>>7118931
As an ex mormon i can confirm a large portion of mormon wives are pilled out

>>7120833
I've done psychedelics only a few times. I wouldn't say occasional user as the times have been too few but we seem like similar people in this situation. Just like any other substance, they will be stretched of their abilities in both directions to an extreme extent. It happens to everything though, especially on this board. Insert topic, watch polar opposite opinions fly.

>>7114626
I enjoy taking LSD and other drugs with milder psychedelic properties like MDMA (combine that shit with acid and you'll be blown away). Even pot can be considered somewhat psychedelic. The first times I smoked I had very psychedelic experiences and still do from time to time.

I take drugs for mostly recreational reasons, but I do believe they can teach you some things about yourself, but not so much the world at large. They may be useful for science in some ways, maybe in understanding the brain. I've become much more skeptical about using them for self-enhancement in the five years I've sporadically taken them (I took my first LSD when I was 20). I've noticed that some users get delusions of grandeur, and I'm certainly a bit guilty of that too. Psychedelics seem to exert this mostly fake and almost divine kind of meaning to mundane things and obvious observations.

>>7119310
>it won't help you understand math/science any better.
Perhaps you meant to say that it hasn't helped / won't help you understand math/science any better.

>>7122230
>Psychedelics seem to exert this mostly fake and almost divine kind of meaning to mundane things and obvious observations.
>"My notion of what the psychedelic experience is, for us, that we each must become like fishermen, and go out on to the dark ocean of mind, and let our nets down into that sea. And what you're after is not some behemoth, that will tear through your nets, follow them and drag you in your little boat, you know, into the abyss, nor are what we're looking for a bunch of sardines that can slip through your net and disappear. Ideas like, "Have you ever noticed that your little finger exactly fits your nostril?", and stuff like that. What we are looking for are middle-size ideas, that are not so small that they are trivial, and not so large that they're incomprehensible. Middle-size ideas we can wrestle into our boat and take back to the folks on shore, and have fish dinner." -Terence McKenna
It's what you make of it. It isn't even the psychedelics that "seem to exert" something, it's you and you're in control.

I see that several people in this thread mention having had psychedelic experiences. It seems that even on a fairly autismal science board, people who've experienced psychedelia don't seem find it especially mathematically oriented.
Really? No psychonaut on /sci/ feels the huge potential that psychedelics have for mathematical intuition?
Past a certain point, the psychedelic experience can be and will be the pure EXPERIENCE of mathematics - the concepts of topology, differential geometry and fractal geometry will blossom through the sensory space and are no longer confined to the realm of mere thought. n-dimensional renditions of the farthest abstractions will dance before you, become you and carry you to their habitat far past 3-space.
I'm surprised none of you see it in a similar way. If you've been there, how was it not a mathematical heaven?

>>7114762
The topology I had to learn for undergrad analysis finally clicked while on mushrooms. I also made extensive usage of LSD when studying quotient topologies and ended up teaching myself how to visualize 4d geometry in my head.

I think they have enormous potential if used carefully.

>>7117578
Woah there, bro, do you know how mad you were going?

Also
>consistent with reality
top kek. Define this for me please.

>>7117710
The point

-------------------------------------------------------------
your head

Bump.

>>7114626
These kinds of threads are all the reason I need not to use psychedelics. It's amazing what people can convince themselves of by messing with their brain chemistry a few times. On an anecdotal note: I knew several people at uni who took psychedelics. Those that didn't use them to excess didn't have any problems but I can't say that it helped them either.

>>7125337
go away
ftp is thataway

>>7125339
why would I need a file transfer protocol? :^)

>>7123981
Negro please

>>7125337
what problems thid the ones that did use them to excess have?

>>7125384
They'd loose interest in many things and stop going to lectures. Saw the same thing with people who drank too much as well, I don't think it's anything specific to psychedelics (though the effects did seem more pronounced).

Just noticed I typed "thid", what the hell.

>>7125392
That seems reasonable, you know, why bother learning stuff when you can just lie in bed and experience divine one-ness or whatever.
I used to read around on dmt-nexus, a lot of heavy users seem a bit hypocritical in that getting a kick out of heroin or coke is stupid and evil but then getting a kick out of psychedelics is totally okay and makes you a better person.

>ITT: Ignorant sheeples getting furious over the truth

>>7118216
Hameroff is a quack and his ideas are nonsensical.

>>7125408
>makes you a better person
This is the annoying part for me, the "enlightened stoner" attitude.
>>7125458
>unironically using the term sheeple
Can't tell if underage or just retarded.

>>7118919
I'm qualified apparently because I have a brain and an internet connection to research his claims and find out how ridiculous they are to people who actually know what they're talking about. If you believe people like McKenna, Sheldrake, and Chopra, then you have no critical reasoning skills. You're a joke.

>>7125392
>loose
Kill yourself

>>7119186
That's just bullshit people say for counterculture cred.

>>7123954
So what great things have you done on psychedelics anon?

>>7124282
>Define this for me please.
This is the science board. Do you understand what science is?

>>7124287
Real life

------------------------
Your drug-addled brain

>>7125481
no u :3

>>7125473
Indoktrinated ignorant slave detected

>>7125473
>Annoying part for me
It's hard when you dont love yourself anon, you have to throw your bullshit and ignorance on others. But i accept that because many lost fools are like that. A tool for society/government

>>7125495

>>7125497
Truth hurts fagget

>>7125499
>truth
Gets me everytime. Have fun chasing ghosts, you paranoid loon :^)

>>7114626
Psychedelics can change your life.

But you have to accept them. For most of you, they would never work, you're just as well off drinking because if your mind is closed you will not gain from the experience. Unless you take too much.

I don't think they have much potential to advance science. I mean, I think to an extent the free association sparked by acid can be used to facilitate scientific insight but that is rare and only happens when someone does acid who is a serious researcher throwing a lot of shit around in his brain.

Rather, psychedelics have amazing potential for spiritual growth and personal development. The insights provided by psychedelics can be amazing, both beautiful and useful, and they can have a lasting impact on the way you perceive and interact with the world. However, spiritual development is a separate issue from psychedelics though it can be facilitated by their use, that is a different conversation though. The point is, both spiritual development and personal growth and insight are both essentially internal processes. And science doesn't really work there, science only works in making sense of physical processes and our interactions with external reality.

Of course science is the best way of knowing reality. If an idea contradicts science, you can throw it out. But there are a lot of things that science does not properly explain, and you'd have to be a damn fool to decide they simply don't exist because you can't slap a meter on them.

Psyhedelics can be p. cool. They can provide insight and perspective when used properly. Especially from the perspective of self improvement. You can make connections between concepts you never realized were even related before on a foundational level. The ego loss can also make you feel like you can make a fresh start which can be quite motivating.

I haven't done psychedelics in years though and I tapered off of them quite roughly. I have a mushroom saved for when I finally get my degree. I think they do carry some potential, but there appears to be a lot of misapprehensions about them. Then there's the common inherent risks which underlie recreational (ab)use.

>>7125504
Have fun surviving life being this ignorant. Pathetic smiley show how butthurt you really are

>>7125545
>all this projection

>>7125553
>All this brainwashing

>>7125556
How do you know you're not the one who's brainwashed?
>checkmate hippies

Look up how the double helix was discovered.
To be fair it would have been discovered by more and more powerful microscopes, but the way it happened is through trains tracks, a scooter and lsd.

>>7125565
So popsci it hurts

>>7125565
Nope. Crick only took LSD in 1967. The double helix was discovered in 1953. Retarded hippie.

>>7125584
Okay, how about Karry Mullis, PCR and LSD then.
Crick definitely did use LSD though, no question about it.

>>7125592
Which he stole from a woman.
Drugs, not even once.

>>7125594
Karry Mullis, the guy who denies AIDS, climate change, and believes in astrology. Yes, clearly an iconic spokesman for acidheads.

>Crick definitely did use LSD though, no question about it.
Long after all of his scientific breakthroughs.

>>7125598
>implying climate change due to human activity is a thing
Please go, this is a science board.

>>7125601
v. good m8

>>7125601
>The report is the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies.
>"warming of the climate system is unequivocal", and "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

The 4th assessment report has been. Recently superseded by the 5th assessment report.

>>7125692
If they wanted they could've quoted 6.000 pear-reviewed scientific studies and said the opposite.

>>7125797
Pear trees profit from a warmer climate, so I wouldn't trust those papers.

>>7125832

>>7125372
?

>>7125484
>what great things have you done on psychedelics
"Great things", how? Lots of great things, psychedelics are great for a variety of great activities.

>how can you disprove that your conciousness doesn't go to another dimension when you are under the influence of psychedelic drugs? :^)

>I'm not saying it definitely happens, but it's possible :^)

>>7127258
>every time I take DMT my mind gets transported to the realm of space god where we have freaky tantric sex while he whispers the secrets of creation to me, prove me wrong :^)

psychedelics help people get over their bullshit and start doing something. seeing as a lot of sciency people are stuck with depressions and mindfulness, it's a good way to clear the head.

>>7117712
>Let me guess: abstract thinking abilities elevated to extreme levels, visualization of concepts made stupidly easier, quicker analysis of problems, a feeling that you can solve anything?
If yes, then you are not alone.

I didn't think I was alone
that doesn't stand to imply that I'm wrong.

my argument is solely that the people who are pro drug and anti drug doesn't reside on any sort of real data collected from either side, it's a one sided debate where people who have psychedelic experiences know that things seem to 'work' when the mental blocks are taken away.

the anti-drug party doesn't really have an argument, they just formulate some gibberish against drug users because they don't like drug users.

Why do people not like drug users is a more infamous debate here, not whether drugs improve or don't improve cognition is something you can't chime in on unless you yourself have actually experienced.

how could anyone here possibly be so inane as to debate a subjective experience? either you have the experience, or you don't. If you don't, there's no need- there's no reason- there's no way for you to formulate an intelligent argument.

I'd like to just converse with people who have used drugs, and filter out anybody who'se a nay sayer. it's not that I don't respect their opinions, but it is.

>>7127356
I'm a regular drug user. Now what? What do we talk about?

>>7127356
> people who have psychedelic experiences know that things seem to 'work' when the mental blocks are taken away.
>the anti-drug party doesn't really have an argument, they just formulate some gibberish against drug users because they don't like drug users
your living in a bubble m8

>>7127466
I agree. On acid I realized it's just a chemical inside my body that, when present, changes my perception of things. Changed perceptions can make people see things from a different view, but people rarely use it for these reasons.

>>7127587
I agree. But seeing things from a different perspective is not necessarily a good thing, as I've experienced first hand and have seen more dramatically with friends of mine. Moreover, drugs, to my mind, doesn't seem the best method to induce productive different perspectives. If anything, the opposite, I'm afraid.

>>7119228
Fuck off on your last point; synesthesia is extremely helpful. At the least, it's as valid a sensorium setup as the typical arrangement.

>>7127645
>synesthesia is extremely helpful
You sure about that?

>>7127258
>>7127267
How much have you observed this kind of behaviour in this thread?

>>7127654
>get synesthetic feeling for concept
>concept becomes (more) intuitive due to occupying a part of the sensorium
This is actually one of the primary causes for the abilities of autistic savants - they can associate synesthetically and thus something like mental arithmetic can be akin to sensory experience for them.
As you might know, having a sensory experience of things lets you have direct contact with concepts. Seeing a table will instantly confirm for you the properties of that very table and some generalizations of all tables. If a table was merely described to you, your mental image would not and could not be exact and complete.

Bump.

>>7117079

I feel you.

Look at all the autistic replies you got.

Nerds that never even drank a beer.

>>7129129
How is drinking alcohol in any way positive? It's a solvent that has nearly all of the imaginable negatives of a drug in some form.

All drugs do is impair your judgment into thinking whatever ideas you have while high are significant in some way.

>>7129187
>everybody that drinks alcohol abuses it

please for your own sake leave your basement and discover how grown ups act in sociaol situations

>>7117578
>pic related it's you

I hope you know that factually there is no such thing as a fact in this world of ours.

Everything is a construct of humans and of mutual understanding and agreement.

The notation, mathematics, physics; everything man made, just to deal with the "reality" we face.

In the end. Everything is pathetic.

>like you

>>7117596
>Then why did you repeat over and over again how I was being insulting and a bigot?

'Cause you were you little shithead and I'm not even the guy you're responding to.

>>7117650
>Certain viewpoints are supported by scientific inquiry while others are not.
>>7117650
>supported by scientific inquiry
>>7117650
>scientific inquiry
>>7117650
>scientific
I hope you know that is only one big construct to deal with the "reality" at hand?

Just a pragmatic solution so we can live our lifes and deal with our problems.

>>7117685
>What is real and what is not is determined by science.
>actually believing this

Are you some kind of faggot m8?

>>7117729
Yep. :'3

And I guess you're a druggie.

>>7118048
Underrated post.

>>7129197
>All drugs do is impair your judgment into thinking ...
>All drugs do is ...
>solidifying the mechanism of a complex variety of psychoactive substances into a single sentence that isn't even true

On my last psychedelic experience I saw my brain putting out these seemingly 4D objects whose shape was especially similar to the Mandelbrot set.

>>7129792
fgt

>>7127609
I agree. Discovering your own mind is a hard enough task, putting substances into the picture makes it even more confusing for most.

>>7131470
What? A "faggot", you say?
I wasn't the one telling my brain to visualize 4D renditions of structures resembling the Mandelbrot set. What is your problem with someone's brain doing that, anyway?

>>7129792
>I saw my brain putting out these seemingly 4D objects whose shape was especially similar to the Mandelbrot set
You saw what *you thought* was "4D renditions of structures resembling the Mandelbrot set".

>>7129381
And how does that respond to the point? Fucking stoners just proving my point with every rambling, incoherent post.

>>7131477
but that's wrong though

I mean, maybe if you're particularly small-minded and have a hard time even coming to grips with your own rationality. But as a rational individual, I had no issue coming to grips with my status as an over-educated monkey in a suit. That perspective really isn't so hard to understand, I know the average normalfag is an uneducated moron afraid of thinking hard and has a hard time processing it but if you wish to be a man of science you should be able to arrive at that level of philosophical understanding first.

Then I took drugs and realized that just having a rational knowledge of a fact does not imply a true understanding of something on a level that impacts your life. You should try it sometime, you might learn something. Acid and psilocybin are in a completely different realm from coke and shit like that and as long as your little mind keeps putting them in the same box of 'bad illegal drugs that distort reality' your understanding of the world will continue to be limited.

As a long term drug user (my first psychedelic experience was when I was 16, 27 now), I'd say yes, to a certain extent, but it won't make you a genious suddenly nor will it extend your capacities. Good amphetamines mixed with mephedrons do wonder to you in that area though, and the comedown isn't so bad.

>>7129792
sets don't have shapes nerd

>>7131751
>philosophical understanding
>true understanding
>your understanding of the world will continue to be limited
I'm sure taking drugs has made you very clever, anon.

>>7131854
it's mostly the druggy deep thinkers that quit philosophy in their first year
>But professor, what if the world is a higher dimensional fractal simulated on a quantum computer?
>yeah, good point... Moving on.

Can we determine any reality beyond a inductions on a continuum of sensory inputs?

>>7131700
Are you implying that visualizations on psychedelics are somehow a lesser condition of seeing? Or are you implying that sight as a whole is just the observer thinking he/she is seeing something?
I hope it's the latter.

>>7114626

am I ready for LSD, /sci/ ?

>mushrooms
used up to 7g and literally dissolved reality for 12 hours which was awesome. I can comfortably take an 8th and go outside and do things by myself in crowds of people on them.

>LSA
used twice, both times just on an outside adventure by myself. ate 8 packages of morning glory seeds each time but the second time did an extraction. had lots of fun in the library at school watching the ceiling cleave in half and the floor undulate. went to my girlfriends house and giggled because i thought I was standing on the wall instead of in the bathtub. wasnt able to get hard and fuck on the lsa though, likely due to the vasoconstriction.

I've done MDMA, coke, 6 vyvanse at a time but not sure if im ready for LSD.

help me out here ^ _^

>>7133552
I'm implying that you're delusional if you think that the funny shapes you saw in your head whilst high were "4D renditions of the Mandelbrot set".

>>7133570
or maybe he was just on drugs

>>7114783
Source on what? Reason to believe: look up Bulk space, Dimensional Analogy/Flatland, the work of Rick Strassman, John Conway, Nick Herbert, Terence and Dennis McKenna, among many others. Also look into the Tibetan Book of the Dead, as well as OBEs and NDEs, look up astral projection/lucid dreaming, and start meditating.

>>7114792
An attempt at...an insult, I guess? What are you bringing to the table here besides your own fear?

>>7116998
But, you are the one strawmanning me. I'm not surprised, it's pretty obvious you've never tried a psychedelic before.

>>7117537
The only joke here is your lack of curiosity and how much you don't realize modern materialistic science is your religion.

>>7117650
Alcoholic detected.

>>7117685
Because people who have REALLY taken them and explored know you are just fucking ignorant, I'm sorry but you are like a baby trying to make a dissertation on quantum physics after just looking kind of close at something.

>>7133598
>he takes a Vietnamese finger puppet board very seriously
People aren't gonna give you reasonable arguments if your only point is "it appeals to my sense of reasoning".

>>7133611
I don't think you read my post. In the first quote section I gave you a list of things to research. Like back in school, if you haven't completed the "recommended reading" you're not going to pass the exam on the subject.


Btw Carl Sagan invented the Dimensional Analogy, or at least popularized it.

>>7133619
>Tibetan Book of the Dead
>astral projection
>lucid dreaming
Sounds like a load of old wank tbh m8.

>>7125392

shrooms had the opposite effect on me, after I took them something clicked in my head and a lot of chemistry became really astounding to me and pushed me harder in my studies

>>7133636
You're lucky I haven't closed this tab yet then:

http://pastebin.com/ch00JQnA

Also, you conveniently left out most of my suggested reading? Is that because it did not fit into your insult or because it is obvious those particular subjects would explain "supernatural" psychedelic circumstances?

>>7133562

of course you are ready anon.
it all depends on dose, set and setting though, but im sure you already know that.

also it's pretty hard to find actual lsd. and you can never be 100% sure, unless you test the fuck out of it.


I wish I could try some dmt (careful what you wish for and all that..)


anyway, happy tripping

>>7116961
Crick conceptualized the double helix on an LSD trip, I'd say that's pretty enlightening.

>>7134126
I'm already familiar with geometry and the concepts of higher-dimensional spaces, probably a lot more so than you. The rest of your sources are a collection of people with colourful opinions. Now, for your reading/education list I suggest:
General Relativity to get you more acquainted with physics in higher dimensions and the concept of causality.
Quantum Physics and/or Quantum Field Theory (if you're man enough) to get you familiar with laws of propagation for various particles.

These should be sufficient for you to realize that concepts like remote viewing are, in fact, a load of old wank.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/16/10_famous_geniuses_who_used_drugs_and_were_better_off_for_it_partner/

Does anyone else enjoy smoking pot and doing Chemistry or Physics problems? I find that I can conceptualize everything much easier, I always smoke before an exam and I get As.

>>7134232
that's sounds like a lot of work in comparison to just dropping some acid on a regular basis mang

>>7133570
I said they were similar to the Mandelbrot set. There isn't really a way to rationalize me being delusional if I'm telling I saw something resembling something. It would be a different case if I had said I saw the actual Mandelbrot set in 4D.
Sometimes (often) during psychedelic experiences, there appears such perceived geometry whose properties are very much comparable to something in existing mathematics. Then again it's no different from looking at a cube-shaped object and comparing it to the corresponding mathematical object.
Psychedelics just tend to introduce geometry that isn't possible to perceive in normal conditions.

Bump.

>>7125480
What point exactly did you disagree with?
Are you saying that cultural constructs are factual?
So just because you've been taught something as a child, and people around our believe it, it is correct?
Heuh.

>>7117968
really looks legit like shrooms

>>7119101
but i never know if this is really happening or that we just think this is happening

same for when you have drunks and you think you have really awesome and smart thoughts and the next day they become shit

>>7133562
why the fuck do you ask us if YOU are ready?

>>7136169
Just about every claim McKenna made was ridiculous bullshit. Here are a few:
1. Psychedelics give you access to "higher dimensions of reality"
2. Mushroom spores are an alien species that traveled to earth and gave life intelligence
3. Shamanism is a science
4. Mushrooms increase visual acuity (false) and sexual arousal (false) and this led to homo erectus evolving into homo sapiens (false)
5. Novelty "theory", an idiotic mess of numerology and arbitrarily interpreted mythology

>Are you saying that cultural constructs are factual?
This question is gibberish. A fact is knowledge verified by some empirical, scientific process.

>So just because you've been taught something as a child, and people around our believe it, it is correct?
Science is not a dogma, it does not require belief. It can be SHOWN to be correct, unlike your drivel.

Psychedelics can help you find solutions to problems you've been thinking about for a while. Especially if the solution turns out to be something strange.

LSD is partly responsible for a Nobel Prize winning discovery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLTMavzWlgk

>>7131854
I was clever to begin with. A moron taking drugs gains nothing, he continues to be a moron just one with delusions about reality. An intelligent person can use drugs to gain a better understanding of himself and the world around him.

Sadly it looks like you do not have that capability.

>>7136338
Who knows if LSD actually led to Mullis's discovery. Maybe it just made him crazy and start denying AIDS and believing in astrology.

>>7134232
Listen anon

The guy you are talking too seems like a hippie who has taken too much acid but that does not invalidate his message.

I am a PhD student in mathematics who has also tripped some serious balls. The concept of astral projection, spiritual connection, remote viewing and all that stuff is almost completely separate from the mathematics of higher-dimensional geometry. Mathematics just describes the physics of things, that's how it works in three dimensions, it's how it works in 4 or 6 or however many you are visualizing on acid or DMT. It doesn't describe the biology of it, how living individuals interact with and perceive that world, all it describes is the physics. Pretending like you have any fucking clue what you are talking about, is like telling a biologist you already understand their field without opening a textbook because you understand the underlying physics. It's a fucking retarded display of hubris you'd usually expect only from a philosophy department.

Different fields take different sources, you should read what some of these people have to say with an open mind, read critically and do not accept things that sound too ridiculous but consider it seriously, don't just reject everything that doesn't conform to your materialist view of physics out of hand.

Bleh, hopefully someone reading this isn't completely closed to reality.

>>7136371
How would you know? You're clearly not intelligent.

>>7136412
wow great comeback try to use the exact same insult back at me, hit you a little close to home huh? having a closed little mind is really horrible

>>7136419
>brah just open your mind XD
Do you realize how pathetic you sound?

>>7136429
You're the one terrified of knowledge.

>>7136449
I'm not terrified and you don't have any knowledge anyway. You're an immature fool who thinks yourself enlightened because you played around with your brain. Imagine someone with religious fervor over being concussed. That's how stupid you are.

>stupid hippie thread

psychedelics basically remove some barriers in your mind and allow you to think differently or more freely than usual

that's about it

useful for solving problems you're stuck on, both work problems and personal, emotional, mental, social problems. useful for therapy. useful for creativity and open-mindedness, and also just plain recreation

not useful for: becoming smarter, basically anything else the stupid hippies in this thread say

>>7117644
Underrated post
LSD is just a chemical that changes the pathway of some neural activities in the brain, it also promotes feelings of seeing outside the box and of enlightenment, just as cocaine gives you a feeling of being fucking awesome. Its not limitless, it doesn't help you do science... But in the hands of some people it can change their outlook positively and make them work harder. But like any chemicals introduced there are side effects.

>>7136462
You're an ignorant fool who thinks 21st century scientific theory can explain every aspect of the universe when it doesn't even pretend to itself. You're so terrified to even admit that your knowledge might have a limit that you refuse to even consider the idea that you're wrong. If you're truly so blind you see even the slightest implication that physics cannot explain every aspect of the universe as on par with delusional religious ramblings, I pity you. Because you're no scientist, no rationalist, just a blind deluded fool.