[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 163 KB, 512x425, 1327020739174.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6105464 No.6105464 [Reply] [Original]

Serious question. Is there a spiritual component to a psychedelic trip? If so, how does this information help us understand reality? If not, where does the information manifest itself from during a psychedelic trip? Could it be that our genes are generic data banks that store much more information than evolutionary traits?

>> No.6105469

Your brain is malfunction due to chemical imbalance caused by you.

>> No.6105472

If by psychedelic you mean any kind of hallucinogenic drug, then no. Your brain gets overloaded with the contents of the drug and that's when the trip happens. Also, it kills brain cells fast.

No spirituality. No other world. No aliens coming to save the Earth. Just a massive hallucination caused by chemical reactions.

>> No.6105482

>>6105464
Nope. Genes are exactly what they say on the tin, sequences of nucleotides coding for proteins. Look up genetic transcription, if you think there's room for spirituality then let me know, I'm interested.

I like psychs as much as the next guy but if you can't get yourself to see that it's your brain adjusting to a change in thought processes, and not the world around you having deeper meaning, then you should lay off acid for a while. I have no sympathy for drug users who don't understand, or even attempt to understand, what drugs do. I mean how could you experience stuff that's so incredibly weird and foreign, and not want to understand even a small bit of the biochemistry behind the experience?

>> No.6105483

> Is there a spiritual component to a psychedelic trip?
No, it's a many faceted chemical altering of your brain's functioning including sensory cues and cognitive judgement.
>how does this information help us understand reality?
It doesn't, what you perceive is merely chemically induced altering of a version of actual reality.
>Could it be that our genes are generic data banks that store much more information than evolutionary traits?
Nope, archetypes are not genetically inherent, they are culturally passed.

>> No.6105487

>>6105482
However, if you do wanna do the whole descent into wearing necklaces with wood-carved mushrooms on, then check out the album Blue Energy by Jaia.

>> No.6105489

>>6105472
>>6105469
I understand where you're coming from, but how do you explain the ego death experience which is common on high dosages of psychedelic substances? If the drug simply alters your brain chemistry then your worldview should become distorted, like on most chemically designed substances. Instead, it's more akin to removing layers upon layers of mental concepts until nothing is left and you're mentally naked. A great deal of users also report contact with entities and gaining knowledge they could not possibly know about before the experience. For example, I read a story once about a guy that traversed the entire biological system of a human being in great detail, learning about the body and figuring out months later through careful study that this information was indeed absolutely correct.

I know how all this sounds, but is it wise to simply ignore all of this in hopes of a simple and rational explanation, or is there something here we don't know about?

Similarly, how do you explain people that meditate their entire lives just to experience a glimpse of the psychedelic mind? Surely it would be a futile attempt if all they're trying to accomplish is alter their brain chemistry?

Just throwing out some thoughts.

>> No.6105502

>>6105472

>Also, it kills brain cells fast.

False.

>> No.6105505

>>6105464
> Is there a spiritual component to a psychedelic trip?

No. There is a change in consciousness that people describe as spiritual, but that's all because of chemical changes in the brain that effect our consciousness. There's the body/brain which generates consciousness but no such thing as a spirit. It can help you understand reality though because it changes the way your brain functions and makes many types of thought such as mathematics much easier.

>> No.6105515

>>6105489
The ego death comes from your brain being unable to cope with the new interpretation of stimuli, so it 'reboots' a little (I'd guess). Ego death is fucking horrible though and makes me want to die.

>> No.6105519

>>6105472

>psychedelics
>kills brain cells

Not many drugs are neurotoxic, especially not psychedelics. Amphetamines can be when abused, but that's all I can think of.

>> No.6105523

>>6105515
Actually, Buddhists describe the experience as highest form of bliss, awareness and transcendence. According to them, the whole reason why humanity is suffering is because we are attached to our egos. Detachment should therefore feel as release instead of further burdening.

>> No.6105536

>>6105523
That's fair enough, I respect such a worldview. It probably would've been OK had I been a Buddhist before that jungle drum and bass festival. But I wasn't, I'm not, and I miss feeling like the person I grew up as. I'll just get used to who I am now. I am reluctant to go fully Buddhist because I feel like divining philosophical answers/purposes from drugs is a cop out.

>> No.6105541

>>6105489
LSD just changes standard brain activity to a different brain activity which obviously changes your thought processes and emotions and perceptions. someone who has a mental disorder has different brain chemistry/ activity as does someone who is meditating, as does someone who is a genius. It's all relative but people like to think that the normal way things function is the best and that anything else is defective and wrong. There's really no reason to think that since it's temporary and therefore can be reflected upon from the normal state of mind. Thoughts had while in the altered state can be very insightful or complete deluded rubbish but thanks to returning to normal we can figure out which is which with normal thinking. I mean let's say Einstein took acid, figured out E=Mc2 but also thought that he was a cat for a portion of it, once back to normal he can realize that he was not a cat, but that E=Mc2 still makes sense.

>> No.6105549

>>6105541
That makes some sense. What I'm wondering though is where all this information is located. Maybe all the universal secrets are already stored in our brain and such substances are like keys that unlock certain doorways. In which case I have all the more trouble understanding why such a substance would become illegal and culturally shunned.

>> No.6105561

>>6105515
you didn't experience ego death, you experienced one the transpersonal conditions where the ego is out of sight but still operating implicitly

mspefit modern

>> No.6105570

>a recent study found that about 60% volunteers in an experiment on the effects of psilocybin, who had never before used psychedelic drugs, had a “complete mystical experience” characterised by experiences such as unity with all things, transcendence of time and space, a sense of insight into the ultimate nature of reality, and feelings of ineffability, awe, and profound positive emotions such as joy, peace, and love (Griffiths, Richards, McCann, & Jesse, 2006).

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201212/the-spirituality-psychedelic-drug-users

>> No.6105576

>>6105561
would ego death be straight up unaware that you'd ever felt any different, with no recollection of your past ego then?

>> No.6105582

>>6105576
Here's a video of a guy that explains how ego death feels like with absolute clarity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keJGvy9sKWs

>> No.6105591

>>6105549
you can make insightful, but random, extrapolations from your current knowledge. so you've got a bit of information, on acid you come up with an extrapolated theory of say, how dna methylation works, and you also come up with a completely different idea, and a few other hundred extrapolations from that data cause your thoughts are going fast as fuck. you then come across dna methylation, and you realise you had that exact (well, nearly) thought while. the chances of stumbling on a 'universal truth' are relatively likely, as you'll apply confirmation bias, and the idea only has to mildly resemble the 'truth'.

it's illegal because you can't function on it and it nearly always fucks you right up when you do a lot (see cpt beefheart, syd barrett, roly erickson, etc), and a lot of people can't regulate themselves. it's culturally shunned because it's a hippie thing, and a large amount of people don't like hippies.

>> No.6105610

>>6105591
Well, overdoing anything messes you up. I don't agree with the hippie reasoning either. If there's more to these substances then they should be exposed to further research and not simply swept under a rug.

>> No.6105621

>>6105610
but there isn't 'more to these substances'

>> No.6105622

what about DMT? is that still classified with LSD and other as just a hallucination? I read about how our pineal glands may secrete dimethyltryptamine which helps us become more spiritual. Ancient cultures such as Egyptians held our glandular system, chakras, and important medians for us to connect to a higher consciousness or spiritual world.

>> No.6105629

>>6105621
I thought you just implied that indeed those substances can open certain doors in your mind, therefore in the long run maybe even help us develop new scientific theories.

>> No.6105637

>>6105591
No its illegal because DEA swine ban everything that helps their anal fsg sex buddies in the for proffit prison industry, and big pharma keep profitting from jailing and 'treating' you for life with their 'non addictive' meds that have withdrawals yet somehow theyre okay, but anythingnfun 8s not....and otherwealthy powerful old men with outdated irrational views on drugs who need to fucking die already and let new blood in.


cant forget the CIA trafficks tons of cocaine monthly to support its blsck budget. And many law enforcement agencies also sell drugs then seize the buyers money to fund their budgets. Some how, they say drugs are evil yet they use, sell, and manufacture the shit them selves. And murder competition. They pay models to pose as cartel members wives and bait suppliers for MONTHS until they give in, then seize the 25 to 250k or more buy money.

They are worse than the people they lock up.

>> No.6105641
File: 157 KB, 830x949, dmt.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6105641

>>6105622
It is. But it's one of the strongest psychedelics out there and virtually everyone that's experienced it reported a strong sense of awareness shifting and, well, spiritual components. Entity encounters are also extremely common.

Pic slightly related.

>> No.6105648

>>6105629
that's not 'more'. i was defining 'more' as spiritual stuff unknown to science of the present. people have known for a while that being on something cant help you think with more abstraction. so in that aspect, yes you're correct, hallucinogens do have that power. but what would be the point of research? what would you be trying to find out?

>> No.6105653

>>6105648
Well isn't the whole point of research finding more and more about ourselves and the universe we live in? It seems unreal that something so strange and thought provoking would go under wraps of militant government aristocrats.

>> No.6105658

>>6105621
The chemicals in your brain are at a certain ratio. They allow your eyes to see a certain image right?

So what makes you think changing the level of some chemicals cant let us prceive things our eyes cant normally pick up?
Kind of lile putting on certain glasses to see infared. A different wave length kind of, but the general category for what wave lengths are. Dont know the word. A different type of energ?

>> No.6105666

>>6105653
so say we had a good enough understanding of neuroscience for our research to be beneficial. what do the government do if someone found out it's completely harmless? admit they've been wrong for the last 60 years and give acid out for free?

>> No.6105669

>>6105648
can*

>> No.6105672

>>6105666
We already know psychedelics are more or less harmless, especially when administered in a safe and controlled environment. The whole drug thing is just a charade that keeps people from questioning their leader's motives. That's my interpretation of it anyway.

>> No.6105677

>>6105658
your eyes receive images through specific wavelengths stimulating photoreactive proteins in your eyes. hallucinogens can't help you see other things; only interpret the signals from your eyes differently. if you put a sepia effect on a photo, that doesn't change the composition of the photo.

we also deduce that the things we see when sober are more real than the things we see when on acid because perception matches up far more accurately between individuals when sober.

>> No.6105683

>>6105677
The curious thing about the psychedelic experience is more the feeling than the visual aspect of it.

>> No.6105694

>>6105482
You said nothing that revokes spirituality or "the world around you having a deeper meaning".

Tim Leary proposed a pretty straightforward view of psychedelic spirituality that is rooted in neurochemistry. It doesn't require anything else and it doesn't take away the value of the experiences, my guess is that you have not actually experienced the bardos, let alone the "primary clear light" as he calls it.

>> No.6105696

>>6105672
the reality is probably somewhere between your viewpoint and the government's. a lot of people would fuck themselves up if acid were legal because they wouldn't look for a 'safe and controlled environment'. a lot of people would overuse and go schizo, and a lot of people have genetic predisposition to hallucinogen-induced psychosis anyways.

>> No.6105705

>>6105483
> they are culturally passed

this is only partially true, there is indeed an order of mind where there are recognizable archetypes that are clearly culturally imprinted, however I have experienced an order past that where there are (for me at least) non-recognized seemingly transpersonal archetypes. I witnessed what the Buddhists call forceful deities, which look like nothing I had ever seen before. It was only a few years afterwards that I saw paintings of what I had witnessed in my visions, did I recognize them as such. I had never seen them prior to my visions, and they looked pretty identical.

My experience leads me to think there are two orders of non-Jungian archetypes, one being culturally passed, and one that is much more subtle that is indeed somehow inherent or genetically passed.

>> No.6105715

>>6105505
>no such thing as a spirit
surely you are oversimplifying and ignoring the normative use of the term spiritual.
It can not require a "spirit" and be inline with Einstein, where it is a religious or spiritual sense arising from the experience of all things. Which doesn't require a "spirit".

>> No.6105721

>>6105677
There are remarkably similar reports of "elves" and other things from people across many cultures when they take dmt. All through out history actually.

so by your logic ...?

>> No.6105727

>>6105694
how could i say something that revokes spirituality? by definition a spiritual element wouldn't alter the biochemistry, or even be ruled out by a biochemical explanation. how did you expect me to refute something so abstract?

i'm interested, what did he say? i think it's unlikely that i fit your criteria of 'bardos', i'm not a 'psychonaut' at all, ive just done acid at a few festivals and such. if there's some inherent nature of the process that is completely unimaginable to me, despite have done trips a few times, due to my not having reached the required levels, then that's fair enough. but i'd like a bit more explanation to try and help me understand why i don't get it (if that's alright), as it's an interesting topic

my flat out 'no' in my original reply to the OP was due to the fact that if spirituality were involved, i don't see why it would have to be genetic - if anything, this would indicate something biochemical posing as spiritual

>> No.6105736

>>6105576
I am watching the video proposed by another person.

True ego-death isn't necessarily completely unaware that you'd ever felt, and doesn't necessarily lack recollection of your past ego. Such recollections however would be lacking influence and would not cause discursive thought, they would be like drawings on water.

What you are describing sounds like a transpersonal condition that the Buddhists call base-of-all, but this is not true ego death. True ego-death is where there is no ego-return and a total completeness, total plenitude, complete satisfaction and supreme happiness.

True-ego death is what the Buddhists call Rigpa qua fruit.

>> No.6105742

>>6105591
You are ignoring aspects of gnostic revelation and experienced truth brought potentially brought on by psychedelics and meditation. Which are non-conceptual or transconceptual states in which root issues of human suffering are completely overcome.

Such as in the Buddhist Rigpa/Nirvana, where the root existential lack, unpleasantness, and dissatisfaction, are completely uprooted. A fundamental state of awareness remains where there is a total completeness, supreme happiness, absolute plenitude, and complete satisfaction remains and remains for good.

>> No.6105762

>>6105721
I don't know, but my guess would be this kind of thing http://www.thisman.org

>> No.6105770

>>6105727
>spiritual element wouldn't alter the biochemistry

This is a semantic issue and I reject this definition has having any bearing on the normative and general use of spirituality.

> if anything, this would indicate something biochemical posing as spiritual

I reject the biochemical/spiritual dichotomy.

Read Timothy Leary's Psychedelic experience.


Then read the three volumes:

http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/en/Main/Bb-bm-bh

which really corrects a lot of errors in transpersonal psychology/philosophy

>> No.6105771

>>6105696
No. Marijuanna and meth use have grown exponentially since the 60s world wide. Schizophrenia rates have remained constsnt through out time. 1% ish +/- a half percent. Around the world. So how is it billions have used psychosis inducing drugs but the rates remain unchanged if drugs truly caused schizophrenia ?


As a schizo myself, I can tell you why 50% of us have serious addiction problems or high rates of cannabis meth cocaine sndnnicotine usage.


OUR LIVES AS TEENAGERS FUCKING SUCKED DICK due to the illness and all the meds do is dull everything . They do nothing for language problems. Which develop into social skills deficencies and a state of perpetual isolation and unemployment. And half of us cant explain whats wrong with us clearly. Or we cant even tell were sick we think everyone else is wierd.

The meds only remove delusions and hallucinations. The disease is much more than that. The meds make us less annoying and weird to the doctors and society. They dont make us happy. Infact they makenit harder.

Drugs on the other hand do. Instantly. When your entire life has been shit tier, you just want to feel good.


schizos are drawn to drugs. Drugs dont cause schizophrenia. The consistant level of scz sufferers in society despite sky rocketing drug abuse make impossible for drugs to create it in a healhy person.


Every episode I ever had followed STRESS not drug use. A bad trip on shrooms = stress. Losing a fsmily member = stress. Both can be a trigger. Drugs are irrelevent.

Regardless. Booze makes fathers beat and rape their daughters and causes drunk driving. And is on par with hard drugs on organ system damage ability. And physically addictive.

Whys any other drug banned if wr allow this?


The govt. Isnt here to control what consenting adults do behind closed doors. If were not hurting anyone letnus smoke snortnor shoot just like you drink. It doesnt efrect you.

Live and let live?

>> No.6105773

>>6105576
after watching the video, I would advice that it is superfluous, overly subjective and pertaining to his experience, and filled with too many notions unrelated to ego-death.

Plus there are random assertions that are a bit much and would be rejected by many modern peoples

>> No.6105777

>>6105683
feeling by be a bit misleading too, the clear light for example is beyond feeling or numbness, it isn't easily described phenomenologically.

>> No.6105779

>>6105762
el oh el, you be trolling

>> No.6105781

>>6105773
The fact that he's crying gets me. You should cry after DMT, there's no other natural response to the amount of information you're exposed to. Just my perspective.

>> No.6105786

>>6105727
How do you know what we call spiritual isnt just something science cant detect yet?

What would people in the past say if you went back in time and told them about radiation, nutrinos, niclear weapons, or radio waves?

>> No.6105787

Define "spiritual".

>> No.6105795

>>6105781

One can cry from happiness or intensity in all sorts of dmt, non-dmt, and meditative states, this doesn't mean it is ego-death or accurately describes or relays such.

Yeah I have done dmt a loooot (gone through lbs of extracted bark for personal).

It sometimes can be so over the top and powerfully intimate and personal that one feels like crying. About 50% of the people that I shared it with that breakthrough cry on their first or second time. Others handle their awestruckness differently. Another point that induces the crying is when trying to explain or relay some of the first majorly powerful experiences, reliving it and realizing words cannot come close, it in of itself can be overwhelming.


However TM use to advise doing it so much that one wouldn't be awe-struck AT ALL, no more tears, being completely use to it and level headed, as to extract the most clear-headed viewing and experience. I have to agree with TM here, after the first few dozen breakthroughs, one can really begin to remain calm and try to influence and interact with the experience, opposed to being overwhelmed and almost a victim of information saturation. TM advises that one sing while in the state, indeed, there are all sorts of aspects yet unexplored by the bulk of the DMT community.

>> No.6105802

>>6105786
not the person you are commenting to, but similar things have occurred, loose metaphysical notions of atoms existed prior to being scientifically discovered in Indian philosophy and would be rejected by a critical scientific skeptic due to insufficient evidence, until atoms were discovered. Though it wasn't a 1:1 correspondence to the philosophical notion, part of this is due to approaching the subject through axiomatic divergent approaches, one being applied philosophy partially rooted in direct meditative trance.

>> No.6105803

>>6105795
Your post makes a lot of sense, especially the part about information saturation.

>> No.6105805

>>6105787
I agree that this is importance because others and myself seem to be talking at each other and in circles due to approaching this term in different ways.

So op, please define such.

>> No.6105815

>>6105482
Are you saying that reality is created in the brain?

>> No.6105816

>>6105805
Spiritual by my own definition is anything that isn't bound to materialistic laws. Basically, if there's a supermind of sorts, it is inherently spiritual (as opposed to materialistic).

>> No.6105820

>>6105815
Not him, but that's essentially my belief. There's no reality without a mind and there's no mind without reality. The two go together like a coin has two sides and can't exist with a single side.

>> No.6105832

>>6105802
So why are some of you (not you specifically i mean sci as a majority) so close minded you cant consider the fact this may be the case?

Im not saying believe with out proof of course but more like wouldnt a real scientist be curious anout these things and remain agnostic so to speak rather than automatically shooting any outlandish ideas as rubbish and ridoucling them?


Skeptic means needs proof, not
>insults person with idea, maintains baised view, refuses to investigate strange things, and exclusively practices mental masturbation by repeating experiments of great men they share nothingnin common with

>> No.6105852

>>6105820
A tree is still there if you're facing away from it.

There is obviously a very real reality outside of your brain, dumbass.

>> No.6105856

>>6105852
If no one observes the tree, then how can you be sure the tree is there?

>> No.6105866
File: 320 KB, 300x225, 1372896597990.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6105866

>>6105771
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEglHjd_gUQ

>> No.6105869

>>6105820
My belief is that subjectivity doesn't exist. So many paradoxes disappear with it out of the equation.

>> No.6105874

>>6105816
uh...that seems a bit complicated.

isn't it easy to assert like an informational neutral monism?

>> No.6105880

>>6105852
a wave-function centric view utilizing orch-or for example, would posit that the tree wouldn't be rendered by the universe if no measurements of it were taking place.

>> No.6105884

>>6105869
also appears to be a cop out, seems self-evidently there

think it makes more sense to think of inter-subjectivity than objectivity

>> No.6105893

>>6105884
How is it a cop out?

>> No.6105926

There is a spiritual component insomuch that psychedelics alter neural circuits associated with inducing spiritual experiences in people. As to whether this is producing genuine spiritual experiences is unfalsifiable and therefore is impossible to know either way. This spiritual component, if it existed, wouldn't help us understand reality, Psychedelics do that through other mechanisms (ie altering information transmission between different regions of the brain, allowing for novel states/perceptions/thoughts to arrive that perhaps could not have been achieved soberly).

>> No.6105936

>>6105880
Are you the same guy as the one I called a dumbass?

If so, how does your last post relate to your first?

I don't see any problem with the post I'm quoting, it merely assumes there would be no reality without a subject. no object without subject.

I totally agree with that. But in terms of one brain experiencing its surroundings, it doesn't relate at all.

The brain reacts to the outside. There's still "measuring" going on when you're not around.

>> No.6106025

>>6105893
because it is self-evidently there a priori

to disregard it on the basis of it being difficult or it leading to supposed paradoxes is copping out

disregarding subjectivity with no good reason seems foolish to me

>> No.6106029

>>6105936
wasn't saying otherwise, it could be assumed that being measured by the universal-wave-functions and other wave-functions

however very biocentric or sentientcentric views would posit otherwise

>There's still "measuring" going on when you're not around.

though this is very likely, at heart it is speculation

>> No.6106050

>>6106029

> Being measured by a wave function.

Physicist here. Have you been listening to too much Deepak Chopra? You clearly have no clue what the fuck you're talking about.

>> No.6106058

>>6106050
no it is loose jargon, and no I disdain Chopra

I am using language in line with Penrose/Hameroff/Rattz

>> No.6106061

>>6106058

So you read Penrose/Hameroff/Rattz papers? I seriously doubt you have a physics degree or the ability to understand their work.

>> No.6106087

Why don't you go read a babby undergrad biology book on the neural substrates of hallucinations and their computational models instead of flooding /sci/ with quack nonsense?

>> No.6106247

totally explaining it in terms of neural substrates may still not actually totally answer the question ala Chalmers etc.

>> No.6106268

Never said I had a degree, however I have communicated with with Raatz and Hameroff enough to be able to loosely discuss it. Hell even Hameroff used to get slammed by Susskind because Susskind, possibly like yourself are jargon nazis who nit-pick to a non-meaningful degree.

>> No.6106288

LSD helped me and other people see the lizard dimension of our consciousness. It can't be accurately explained with our current system of logic, because their existence is too abstracted, encompassing many, many different facets of our how we function internally and externally.

You're asking nerds who haven't actually done the stuff, you know.

>> No.6106303

>>6106288
Case in point: If I were to say "the claymation hologram" when describing DMT, the only people who would remotely get what that means would be the people who have done it.

>> No.6106311

>>6106268

> Implying you can learn quantum mechanics by communicating with someone.

Yeah sure. So tell me why do we require that the time-evolution of a quantum system is given by a unitary operator? Why do we quotient out the kernel of the 2-norm to construct L^2?

>> No.6106344

>>6106025
My reasoning is that subjective knowledge must refer to a subject, but this is impossible because it can also only be possessed by that subject. Therefore, it causes self-reference, the key component of a paradox.

Now, for what causes the illusion. The illusion cannot be proven and negatives cannot be proven, so I suggest the illusion might be a negative. The brain is somehow sensing that information is incomplete.

Did I slip up really bad anywhere?

>> No.6106350

>>6106344
If you've arrived at a paradox, your thinking is muddled, or you are transgressing the boundaries of language (i.e., your language is disguising your (lack of) thought).

>> No.6106378

>>6106288
what

>> No.6106471

>>6106311

No I implied one can understand the bottom line or various relevant generalities, not specific and peripheral details.

I admit loose jargon and discussions had to the point of understanding generalities and the bottom line, and in response you bring up specific jargon to drudge up nuanced particulars?

Why?

>> No.6106529

>>6105464
Is it possible that you played too much assassins creed?

>> No.6106545

>>6106529
lol

>> No.6106580

>>6106471

It shows you don't know shit about quantum mechanics. Those are very basic things anyone who has even read the most introductory book on quantum mechanics should know.

Go back to watching your pop science videos, pleb.

>> No.6106593

>>6106350
I'm showing that it's a paradox in order to demonstrate that the current view is flawed.

>> No.6106600

On Saturday I did some acid with my friends and went to the top of the mountain. Also smoked a shit ton of weed. Definitely had a number of different epiphanies on the combo. Looking back though all of them made sense. I suck at explaining it when I'm high so everyone thought I was full of shit but I remember my thought processes and looking back they are all very sound.

>> No.6106848

>>6106580
No, that's just your ego playing the game of "I'm better than you". A real and open-minded scientist would explain those terms to a layman. All you did was glorify your own knowledge, as if it somehow mattered in this debate. You're a prime example of someone who instead of trying to join the debate, tries to dictate the outcome by claiming superiority. I'm not even him.

>> No.6106878

As a frequent tripper, fuck you for making us all look bad

You can disregard any "insight" you get during a trip if it involves anything of "spiritual" nature

>> No.6106879

>>6106848
In science, you debate with evidence, facts, not qualia.
If you go to discuss calculus, and you don't understand how to divide or add or any basic mathematics, can you really discuss it?
No, you can jerk off on your own knowledge and think you know shit when you don't know shit m8.

>> No.6106911

>>6106878
Funny how you are so militant about it. Maybe the term itself bothers you, not so much the power of the experience?

>> No.6106920

>>6106879
Wrong. In science, you debate with postulates which may or may not turn into evidence at some point or another.

Maybe you should pull that head of yours out of your ass. Excuse my French.

>> No.6107183

>>6106848
>Ego playing the game of "I'm better than you"

cringe/10

Good luck on your spiritual tangent, anon. But trust me, you'll be back.

>> No.6107238
File: 124 KB, 573x572, hurr2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6107238

>>6106848

> Doesn't know even the most basic shit from babby's first quantum book.
> Doesn't matter when debating quantum mechanics.

>> No.6107248
File: 246 KB, 787x768, 1373008728663.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6107248

>>6105637
sadly, this

>> No.6107265

> Is there a spiritual component to a psychedelic trip?
No. (not science, etc)
hallucinating is the brain failing to comprehend information from it's sensors
> If so, how does this information help us understand reality?
Science doesn't have a spiritual part...so none.
The drugs science have used have never been hallucinogens, but uppers like nicotine, cocaine, caffeine, and more recently amphetimines
> If not, where does the information manifest itself from during a psychedelic trip?
memory mostly, but the connections are connected wrong so the information is broken and shouldn't be used as fact.
> Could it be that our genes are generic data banks that store much more information than evolutionary traits?
no.

This is more /x/ material btw.
Anything you see while hallucinating; any spirituality you should go elsewhere than /sci/.
>>>/x/

>> No.6107307

>>6107265
>hallucinating is the brain failing to comprehend information from it's sensor
That's just insanely wrong. And hallucinations are such a small part of the psychedelic trip they're not worth mentioning.

And /x/ can't debate anything seriously. /x/ is a troll board (not that /sci/ isn't, but at least here once in a blue moon someone says something smart).

>> No.6107313

>>6107307
you can see the visual cortex light up like a christmas tree. yes there's other parts too that fire incorrectly. This is your trip. There is no "spiritual connection"

If you want to talk about science you are going to have to find a peer reviewed article and not just your personal anecdote.
Spiritualism doesn't belong on /sci/.

>> No.6107325

>>6107183
Thanks. Back to what? My interest in science is very high. I happen to know a lot about Buddhism as well. In my view the two are perfectly compatible.

>>6107238
Please read my post again.

>> No.6107333

>>6107313
>you can see the visual cortex light up like a christmas tree. yes there's other parts too that fire incorrectly. This is your trip. There is no "spiritual connection"
I think you're just confused with the syntax. What if instead of "spiritual" we used the word "interconnectedness"? Would that make it any better?

>If you want to talk about science you are going to have to find a peer reviewed article and not just your personal anecdote.
Every groundbreaking scientific paper started as a personal anecdote. Perhaps you need to realign your own definitions of what science is supposed to be doing? How often do you see a peer reviewed article on /sci/?

>Spiritualism doesn't belong on /sci/.
As I said, if that word bothers you so much, we can use another.

>> No.6107338

>>6107333
> Every groundbreaking scientific paper started as a personal anecdote.
sure.
but then they went through lots of rigor

> As I said, if that word bothers you so much, we can use another.
tell me what you mean.

> What if instead of "spiritual" we used the word "interconnectedness"?
If be interconnectedness you are referring to telepathy than no.
what specifically are you saying?
it sounds like you are talking about philosophy and not science

>> No.6107352

>>6107338
Science is a subset of philosophy.

Here's what I think personally, and feel free to refute me (I won't change my mind though). We (our species) are obsessed with rationality. Over the course of thousands of years, we've grown so accustomed to it that now the very idea that something exists outside the rational seems absurd. We have science, and science is great. It's a tool and it strives to make our lives easier. But here's my proposal: the rationality that we've grown so attached to, is just a tiny tiny dot of "what is". It's like comparing the entire universe to Earth, that's about how vast I take rationality for. Now psychedelics and forms of meditation allow us to transcend this rationality. As we do, we figure out that the universe is not black and white, it's not just a purposeless mechanical system going on for millions of years. Instead, the world is infinitely more complex than the smartest scientists living today can fathom. It's infinitely more absurd as well. The second you understand that you've been living your whole life in the rational, never even stopping to think that there may be things in the universe that aren't rational, aren't logical and can't be dissected and formulated into mathematical theorems, then you feel like you're reborn and you start to see reality in a whole new light. It's not that you forget about logic, if anything, you start to respect it more. It's about losing your cosmic virginity, so to speak.

And this is what I mean by spirituality.

>> No.6107374

>>6107352
And so Quantum Bhuddism was born.

seriously though, only because a pothead like you states somethings existence, it doesn't mean it actually exists. Go smoke some more, you expert on the universe.

>> No.6107383

>>6107374
What I'm telling you is that existence is weirder than you think it is. It's fine if you don't share this opinion, I don't mind.

>> No.6108331

>>6105622
LSD is technically a tryptamine but check the spectrum of other receptors it affects. The most striking effect of LSD in my opinion is the blanking of signals from the rod cells in the eye.

>> No.6108342

>>6107352
I mostly agree. Although I'm on the fence of our universe (or multiverse depending on your beliefs) entirely based on just logic or just illogic.

>> No.6108367

I hate OP so much. He makes the rest of us who use psychedelics look horrible with his idiotic postings in this thread. I guess the problem is that LSD makes you think, and when stupid people think, their thoughts will still be stupid.

>> No.6108372

>>6106247
>ala Chalmers etc
What?

>> No.6108589

>>6106288
Lizard dimension is merely the beginning of your journey. Rumors have that you can reach the cow level when you combine certain items in a special cube. Think about it while tripping.

>> No.6108638

>>6107352
next time say philosophy instead of "spiritualism" and I'll be able to ignore you instead of berate you for breaking /sci/'s rules.

>> No.6109323 [DELETED] 

>>6108367
Well why _do_ you use psychedelics, if not for mind expansion?

>> No.6109324

>>6108638
We can bicker about syntax all day long. The only problem here are your own connotations to particular words.