The Case Against the Spirit World Model of Psychedelic Action [Archive]

KMO

12-11-2007, 03:02 PM

First, let me say that I'm not an advocate for the "spiritualist" interpretation of psychedelic action. I'd identify myself as a skeptic if a strident contingent of Monday Morning Materialist ideologues hadn't already hijacked that term and distorted it beyond all recognition or usefulness. Instead, I identify myself as an agnostic in these matters, so I'm not the appropriate person to defend the spiritual perspective.

Secondly, as the Dopefiend has mentioned on many occasions, people can smell bullshit, and hyperbolic propaganda that overplays the benefits of psychedelics and downplays the genuine risks and potential harms stinks every bit as much as moralistic drug war propaganda that overstates the risks and denies the potential benefits of psychedelics in order to justify state-sanctioned violence against would be explorers of the psychedelic realms.

Kent's rhetoric is at its strongest in the section: The Dangerous Argument. Warning of "megalomaniacal", messianic psychotics who "turn dark" and "experimentally risqué" with "antisocial" behaviour. James Kent's language is maybe too strong but the points he makes are not outlandish.

It's funny you should pick out that section of Kent's essay, as I thought that his weakest argument came in this section. I don't have time for an exhaustive treatment of this essay, but here's a sample.

This section of his essay has three numbered items. In the first, James Kent wrote, "If psychedelics are considered to be spiritual, and spiritual is good, then it should be good and spiritual to do as many psychedelics as we want. This may sound right on paper..."

"Sounds good on paper?" On the contrary, that sounds nuts right out of the gate. Lets swap out a variable in order to examine the form of this line of reasoning:

"If opiates are considered to be effective pain relievers, and pain relief is good, then it should be good and medicinal to take as many opiates as we want."

If there is anybody making such arguments in favor of the spiritual interpretation of psychedelic action I have never encountered them. I think we can dismiss this line of reasoning by James Kent as an attack on a particularly flimsy straw man.

Point two in that same section strikes me as warmed over Dawkins, i.e. a simplistic attack on religion as nothing other than a means of social control, and so simplistic a portrayal hardly seems worth addressing.

Point three: "If psychedelic spiritual practice is to be rigorously imposed it must be done so in the framework of institutionalized, organized religion."

Huh? Who's proposing that "psychedelic spiritual practice is to be rigorously imposed?" Again, a seeming straw man. His ultimate point seems to be that charismatic cult leaders have been known to abuse their followers, and some of them use psychedelics to enhance their status as spiritual figures in the minds of their followers. Well, sure. That seems like a pretty uncontroversial position to take, but what it has to do with the existence or non-existence of a spirit realm James Kent does not specify. I'd call it a non-sequitor, but I'm not even sure that it rises to the level of faulty argument as it doesn't even seem to approximate the form of an argument. Again, it seems that James Kent has lost sight of the particular claim that he claims to be arguing against (viz. that psychedelics facilitate communication with a spiritual realm) and has defaulted to a default modus operandi of simply painting people who value spirituality in as unflattering a light as possible.

I could go on, but I have other duties to attend to at this time. I'd like to get Lorenzo in on this discussion. I'd appreciate it if someone would post a link to this thread in the Psychedelic Salon forum.

max_freakout

12-11-2007, 04:05 PM

James Kent has always written with that dismissive, materialistic attitude towards psychedelics

Tor25

12-11-2007, 06:06 PM

Max is totally right, that attitude is all over Kent's writings.. it really bugs me. :cool:

I post as Charlie25 on dosenation and replied extensively there to Kent's essay.

http://www.dosenation.com/listing.php?smlid=3831#comments
http://www.dosenation.com/listing.php?smlid=3809#comments

KMO

12-11-2007, 06:54 PM

I post as Charlie25 on dosenation and replied extensively there to Kent's essay.

Hi Tor25,

Thank you for the links. Please feel free to cut and paste your comments there into this discussion thread. I'm sure I'm not the only person who would like to read them here.

Stay well.

-KMO

Tor25

12-11-2007, 08:57 PM

heh, good point.

here's how I generally feel about it... in response to some of james kent's posts..

*******

Firstly, the crux of it to me is that, however you feel or whichever way you sway, there's no need to proclaim that the other way is decadent or invalid, right? You may not personally jive with the idea of plant teachers or spirits, or any kind of other spiritual association, etc, but that opinion is necessarily based on your own limited personal experience. So a seemingly general, or final, statement or declaration on such matters seems a bad idea.. And this goes both ways, of course..

JK wrote = "When we designate psychedelic content as spiritual in origin we dismiss the wondrous capacity of the human imagination."

This seems ridiculous to me. I take issue with some of the ideas expressed in Psychedelic Information Theory - particularly with the voracity in which the counter arguments are criticized. Why does one view of the psychedelic experience (ie the spiritual) have to be demolished & almost mocked ("It Has To Stop", "Let It Go", etc) in order for the other to be explored? We can learn much & appreciate the experience via both these interpretations. I personally celebrate the wonderous capacity of the human imagination, but I've also had *profoundly* spiritual experiences. I'm not cheapening anything by thinking of these trips in spiritual terms, and I don't like blanket dismissal of these matters because they lack a rational base to view them from. Especially when viewed in the glow of 20,000 years of rich, shamanic exploration of sacred inner & outer territories and the myriad of fascinating systems of interpretation.

A lot of us have had extensive psychedelic experience, and a lot of us have explored these issues up and down and so forth. I'd prefer to see a more balanced exploration, in light of the undeniable fact that (and this is the crux of the issue) all we have to go on is our own personal experience. There seem to be no overarching truths in these areas, except for personal ones. Personal experiences and interpretations.

William Blake comes to mind as a fine example of the union of true spirituality and true imagination..

The jist of P.I.T seems to me to be an unflinching focus on the rational and materialistic side of psychedelics, and damn the rest, get your head out of the clouds, stop deluding yourselves, etc. I'm exaggerating of course, but, come on, man. Their "true function" is a personal thing for each individual tripper. Just because you personally can't relate to the mystical, spiritual interpretations doesn't preclude them from shaping other peoples lives, or from being a valid way of looking at the matter.

This ain't personal - I'm a big fan of Tripzine, etc. I just can't really resonate with the James Kent reality tunnel when it comes to psychedelic interpretation. ;)

JK - "The psychedelic space is not autonomous, it is a reflection of who we are."

Exactly!

Most important of all is to constantly question ones own experience and subjective interpretation, whether it has a rational or spiritual bent...no favoritism.

In regards Jk's comment below, "Nothing will convince the shamans and priests that there is no spirit world, because then they would be out of a job" - that's ludicrous, and... it has such a mocking and cynical tone to it... I've heard him say pretty much exactly the same in one of his criticisms of Terence Mckenna, that if he had stopped talking about self transforming elf machines he would have been out of a job, etc.

I'd rephrase Jk's quote "The end of *my* spiritual journey was not finding spirits, it was finding *my* self." All that we will ever know is our own felt experience. This is fundamentally important and true, imo.

It's one thing to say that a spiritual vocabulary isn't necessary to "explain" the psychedelic experience, it's another to proclaim that all shaman's and priests are simply protecting their employment benefits by using a spiritual interpretation.

I've had Robert Anton Wilson on my mind this whole time. Specifically his famous encounters with "entities" from Sirius as discussed in Cosmic Trigger I. First he believed it outright, then he dismissed it outright, then he eventually settled into saying "it's best not to try to solve these questions, because your next experience will probably contradict it.."

I consider myself an agnostic in some sense, but I'm also aware of the pitfalls. Contrary to appearances I've been constantly questioning my position here.. it's an endless process. My mind is made up only to value above all else the primacy of personal, felt experience and to be suspicious of over-arching assertions about such subjective matters. Everyone has their own little Occam's razor inside them, it's up to us personally to keep it sharp and effective and... personally substantiated.

We could argue about the merits of agnosticism for aeons, but I still think it's a safer & more intuitively pleasing bet than the alternatives.

psygnisfive

12-11-2007, 10:46 PM

I've discussed this a lot over in the Psychonautic forum, so it's interesting to see the topic come up here.

My stance on the issue is basically this:

If it exists, it's stuff. It is "matter". It may not be what we call matter, but that's because of our own limited perspective. Anything that exists must behave according to some set of rules, however those may play out. Ultimately, then, everything is "matter" and "physics". The attempt to describe the atypical portions of our experience is nothing short of reductionist, just reductionist to "mind stuff", but that's still reductionist.

No matter what explanation you try to provide, you're always explaining things, and ultimately it's all just science.

ottonomy

12-12-2007, 07:41 AM

It seems like his entire argument is a strawman. He's arguing against a position that is a LOT less nuanced than the actual positions staked out by psychedelic thinkers.

For example, his position: "Simply because you heard voices or saw gods or met elves does not mean that the experience has any deeper meaning beyond your own imagination."

vs. the position that seems to have come out of many of KMO's podcasts, along with max_freakout's and Lorenzo's that is more like, 'the psychedelic experience shows that the imagination has deeper meaning than we had thought'

max_freakout

12-12-2007, 11:26 AM

'the psychedelic experience shows that the imagination has deeper meaning than we had thought'

Absolutely, it expands the range of your imagination into a whole new set of unexpected dimensions

core

12-13-2007, 02:54 AM

please forgive the misunderstanding...

[QUOTE=KMO;9995]First, let me say that I'm not an advocate for the "spiritualist" interpretation of psychedelic action.

My apologies kmo, I didn't intend to saddle you with the advocacy of spiritualism. The question in my post's title was intended to spur discussion. Further, I poorly expressed myself by writing that Kent's rhetoric was "strong." I didn't mean he had a solid foundation but rather that his language was over-reaching, preachy, and didn't pass, as you quoted, the "smell test."

Let me be clear that I'm not trying to back-up Kent's opinions. Still, in this Thread, there is rejection of JK's rhetorical technique (which I also reject) but little argument (except for Tor25's post) to support thinking of psychedelic experience in a "spiritual" way. I'm not saying its either/or! Maybe it is both. I certainly don't claim to know, but what leads any of us to conclude a spiritual origin? Please share if you wish to.
Thanks, core

KMO

12-13-2007, 07:41 PM

No matter what explanation you try to provide, you're always explaining things, and ultimately it's all just science.

I think that categorizing the phenomena that reductionist science has yet to get a decent handle on as "supernatural" or "paranormal" presents itself as a cheap and easy out for champions of scientism. If it's "supernatural" then it's all in the minds of mushy-headed religionists and new agers and not even worth a cursory glance from the high-minded people pursuing "real science."

KMO

12-13-2007, 07:57 PM

...in this Thread, there is rejection of JK's rhetorical technique (which I also reject) but little argument (except for Tor25's post) to support thinking of psychedelic experience in a "spiritual" way. I'm not saying its either/or! Maybe it is both. I certainly don't claim to know, but what leads any of us to conclude a spiritual origin?

When someone under the influence of ayahuasca or DMT carries on a conversation with a being made of light or with diminutive figures similar to those described in folklore as elves, sprites, or fairies, I don't think it requires a whole lot of esoteric explanation to see how the people having these experiences would think that they'd had contact with beings from some kind of spirit realm. Now, someone raised on science fiction and quantum physics might have the exact same experience and think of it in terms of trans-dimensional encounters with no whiff of the supernatural, but those folks remain in the minority.

psygnisfive

12-13-2007, 11:25 PM

I think that categorizing the phenomena that reductionist science has yet to get a decent handle on as "supernatural" or "paranormal" presents itself as a cheap and easy out for champions of scientism. If it's "supernatural" then it's all in the minds of mushy-headed religionists and new agers and not even worth a cursory glance from the high-minded people pursuing "real science."

And the supernatural has yet to get a handle on newtonian mechanics. It's an irrelevant point. The question isn't can it be explained or not, everything can be explained. Maybe not by us, but absolutely everything behaves according to -some- rules and principles. Even McKenna's eschatology is ultimately reductionist because it posits that the behaviors we see are all manifested as a result of the movement towards the eschaton in a rational way.

As for whether or not science has sufficiently grasped the "supernatural" or "paranormal" depends entirely on the questions 1) is the supernatural even real (which will determine what branch of science we need to consider) and 2) has it been explored. (1) hasn't been appropriately answered yet, and (2) is no, it hasn't been explored. So to say that science hasn't grasped it yet is about as meaningful as saying that I haven't mastered the fine art of whittling yet: I haven't tried to whittle, so it says nothing about my ability to whittle.

KMO

12-14-2007, 01:59 AM

And the supernatural has yet to get a handle on newtonian mechanics.

I don't know what you mean. When you say "the supernatural" do you mean people who believe in the supernatural? If so, your assertion is obviously and demonstrably false, as I can point to many people who believe in the supernatural who also have a very firm grasp on newtonian mechanics. Or perhaps you mean "the supernatural" as a conscious agent or some kind of personification of the supernatural, in which case your style of thinking seems particularly fanciful.

As for whether or not science has sufficiently grasped the "supernatural" or "paranormal" depends entirely on...

Again, are you casting "science" in the role of a conscious agent? If so, we're on completely different planes. I was talking about human adherents of scientism using the excuse of something being "supernatural" and therefore (by fiat) not accessible to the investigative tools of science as an excuse to exclude whole catagories of human experience from the set of things which they are willing to entertain as legitimate topics of investigation.

psygnisfive

12-14-2007, 06:09 AM

Ah well, let me say this: I don't know of many serious science minded people who think that the "supernatural" is outside the realm of scientific inquiry. It could simply be the people I hang about with, but I don't think so. The general consensus that I get from people is simply that it's for the most part silliness, pseudoscience, superstition, etc. and there's nothing to explain in the first place (e.g. it's like explaining why you get heads on average 50% of the time when tossing a coin: superfluous given the nature of the phenomena). The things that they do acknowledge need to be explained they generally find as being mysteries of the mind not the world (e.g. what are we seeing when we take psychedelics is a question of how that arose in the brain; the idea that it's explainable in the brain is implicit, details forthcoming). I've never met someone who simply ignores the "supernatural".

max_freakout

12-14-2007, 07:29 AM

Now, someone raised on science fiction and quantum physics might have the exact same experience and think of it in terms of trans-dimensional encounters with no whiff of the supernatural, but those folks remain in the minority.

But what is the difference between being 'transdimensional' and being 'supernatural'? Are they not just different ways of saying the same thing?

psygnisfive

12-15-2007, 01:09 AM

But what is the difference between being 'transdimensional' and being 'supernatural'? Are they not just different ways of saying the same thing?

Are gravity and little gremlins that push every particle not the same thing? It should be clear that they aren't. "Supernatural" (which is ironically a technical impossibility but whatever) beings exist in a completely different world view than "transdimensional" beings that are "just like you and me" for all intents and purposes, ignoring the differences in the hypothetical biophysical composition of said beings.

Szifers

12-15-2007, 06:38 AM

Hello, KMO.

When atheists argue against God, They usually do it without understanding what they are talking about. They have a different mental representation of the concept than religious people do. And that's because there are some relatively fundamental structural layers of conceptual awareness that are different in different people.

It's an incompleteness, a heterogeniousness of conceptual consensuality. It's an explosion of culture. We can talk about stuff with people who come from very different places. There's a fragmentation of meaning.

Similarly, I am absolutely sure that there is no meaning in a critique of the "spirit world model" like the one above.

That's because I think I uderstand both sides of language use, and I think I know that there are some important basic differences in meaning.

The "spirit world model" is an absolutely primitive model. It's prehistoric. It's a paradigm that goes through history, manifests in many forms, but is basically connected to old, old archetypes, old ways of feeling oneself into nature.

This kind of dualizing criticism on the other hand derives from the most modern, most novel mental constructs. Modern philosophy, modern scientism, modern reductionism. Actually, we are supposed to be in the era of post modern relativism, or archaic revival, which are both supposed to be open to the free and pragmatic primitive model. Or are we already in the neo-fundamentalist era? :) Anyway, that's not the point.

The point is that the two languages are worlds apart. Even to the level of the meaning of objective reality. Because the meaning of the word for existence is nothing else than our way of relating to our language use. What do I mean when I say that something exists? It has some interpersonal expectations in it, some half-conscious messages, etc. The meaning of that basic verb is like a signature of the culture.

It's primitive shamanistic pragmatism. I see the spirits, and according to my best judgement, I can be a useful shaman if I mentally enter that world and navigate in it by taking it for real. That's the realest real there is. That's what makes real real in a non-ideological, pragmatic primitive mind.

The spirit world model transcends all the conceptual frameworks that we built up in order for our technological civilization to unfold. Actually, it is a framework for transcending frameworks. Psychedelics disrupt that framworking function of the brain, so no wonder it seems to be a meta language, over ideologies. If reality is illusion, then illusion is reality. Metaphore made objective. Manifesting the mind. Psyche-delic. There is no scientistic criticism of the spirit world model. There is just a lack of understanding an alternative way of thinking due to ideological stuckedness and the lack of mental freedom. It's shooting at a shadow.

max_freakout

12-15-2007, 07:40 AM

Are gravity and little gremlins that push every particle not the same thing?

They could be, if the cause of gravity is little gremlins, after all, nobody knows what the real 'cause' of gravity is, we just take it for granted

It should be clear that they aren't. "Supernatural" (which is ironically a technical impossibility but whatever) beings exist in a completely different world view than "transdimensional" beings that are "just like you and me" for all intents and purposes, ignoring the differences in the hypothetical biophysical composition of said beings.

I dont understand why this should necessarily follow, why cant beings who inhabit transdimensional realms be considered to be supernatural? What i am asking is, what would qualify a being as 'supernatural' as opposed to 'transdimensional'?

symbiont

12-15-2007, 09:59 PM

There seems to be an assumption that if some artifact or phenomenon has not been defined by science it must not exist. And if people have some kind of experience or intuition in regards to said phenomena they must be delusional.

It seems to me that scientific discovery is largely linear. Discoveries build on previous discoveries. I don't think that science and spirituality or the supernatural or the unknown other are mutually exclusive.

Is it not possible that these mysteries will eventually be defined by scientific method? I think this is highly likely. At the moment we are still largely in the dark about consciousness and the brain-mind connections. The psychedelic experience seems to be advanced consciousness research. Excuse the poor metaphor but isn't that like trying to learn String theory before understanding Newton's laws?

I keep thinking about what Terrence said about the fish, and that they probably didn't discover water. How can we come to definative objective conclusions about the water (consciousness) when we (the fish) are swimming it?

I absolutely advocate the investigation. It's the conclusions I have trouble with. Which is not to say I don't want answers because I do. I just don't know if anyone has them.

psygnisfive

12-15-2007, 10:59 PM

They could be, if the cause of gravity is little gremlins, after all, nobody knows what the real 'cause' of gravity is, we just take it for granted

You know what I mean, Max, don't be a jerk.

I dont understand why this should necessarily follow, why cant beings who inhabit transdimensional realms be considered to be supernatural? What i am asking is, what would qualify a being as 'supernatural' as opposed to 'transdimensional'?

Ok, let's look at this another way. You or I are not transdimensional nor supernatural. However it's conceivable to have a supernatural being who's not transdimensional (e.g. your prototypical nature spirits which don't exist in some other realm but merely inhabit the world and are somehow magical in nature). The point is that the supernaturality of the being is a quality of their abilities within the world they're confined to (i.e. they break the rules) whereas transdimensionality is a quality of the world the creatures live in (i.e. they don't break any rules, the universe merely has rules we haven't discovered).

I don't think that supernatural beings can exist even theoretically — I would argue that everything is following the same set of rules, we just don't know what they are, and so in that respect what's called supernatural is _merely_ natural, in the same way that planes are _merely_ natural (e.g. they fly) despite our ancestors undoubted belief to the contrary (that they're magical). That doesn't mean that what we call supernatural must be transdimensional (I'm not entirely sure why people want to resort to transdimensionality (e.g. new physics + new dimensions) when simply positing unknown laws of physics could suffice.).

But there is a distinct difference between supernatural and not. Supernatural inherently implies above/beyond the laws of nature.

psygnisfive

12-15-2007, 11:07 PM

There seems to be an assumption that if some artifact or phenomenon has not been defined by science it must not exist. And if people have some kind of experience or intuition in regards to said phenomena they must be delusional.

No scientist has ever even SUGGESTED that this is the case. The only thing that scientists want, before they spend time investigating a phenomena, is a good reason to believe that the phenomena even exists.

If I asked you "why does the sun wear a tutu?" you wouldn't spend hardly a second trying t answer the question, because you'd first ask me "DOES the sun wear a tutu?" (assuming you haven't already decided that the sun doesn't).

People seem to confuse evidence-for-existence and evidence-for-why. Evidence-for-existence is PRESCIENTIFIC and has nothing to do with science. Everyone, you, me, the Pope, we all demand to know THAT something exists before we go on and try to explain WHY. Science is all about the "why" of existence, epistemology is about the "that" of existence.

When most scientists approach the issue of psychedelics, nay, when most people with any proper notion of epistemology at all approach psychedelics, the first thing they ask is, "Does it even exist?". Most people make the only sane decision given the information they have: Given the available information, no, it doesn't exist. That's not a closed-minded approach, it's a pragmatic and completely sensible approach. It's completely open to the possibility that it does exist, all that's required is a reason to believe that it does. That's all.

max_freakout

12-17-2007, 01:38 PM

When most scientists approach the issue of psychedelics, nay, when most people with any proper notion of epistemology at all approach psychedelics, the first thing they ask is, "Does it even exist?". Most people make the only sane decision given the information they have: Given the available information, no, it doesn't exist. That's not a closed-minded approach, it's a pragmatic and completely sensible approach. It's completely open to the possibility that it does exist, all that's required is a reason to believe that it does. That's all.

Please explain what you mean by this, does what even exist? :confused:

Szifers

12-17-2007, 01:54 PM

That reminds me of how Terence McKenna used to mock the question about UFOs being real or not.

Btw, are my comments intelligible? I wonder if anyone can read them.

psygnisfive

12-17-2007, 07:35 PM

Please explain what you mean by this, does what even exist? :confused:

Anything you claim to be explaining.

For example, astrology. Astrologers purport to be explaining why people behave certain ways, and why these ways pattern. They do so by saying, well, maybe it's because of the stars, and here's what we think explains it. The problem is there is nothing that NEEDS to be explained. There is no patterning, at least not along the lines that they say there is. So there's no need to even explain it, since IT doesn't exist.

Or let's take another example, more close to home: Morphogenetic Field Theory. The theory purports to be an explanation of why certain things happen, such as people having similar fates as their family members, or whatever. The problem is there's no such thing happening: an individual here or there might have a similar fate as an ancestor, but that's expected simply because sometimes there are two unrelated events that look similar and sometimes they happen to people in the same family. If everyone, or at least a shitload more people than you'd expect from co-incidence of events, had this phenomena occur to them, then yes, we'd want to explain it, since there's obviously something going on, but in real life there ISN'T such a thing going on.

That's precisely the issue that the majority of scientists will judge: If there even is something that needs to be explained when discussing psychedelics. And this is not restricted to scientists: lay folk, religious folk, etc.; they all have to make the same judgment before trying to explain it. If they say, "No, there's nothing that needs to be explained, it's just crazy hallucination.", then noones going to look hard into the mechanism of the hallucination, but if someone says "Yes, there is something that needs to be explained", they'll look for an explanation of how we touch this spirit world through psychedelics, etc. But if you judge the effects of psychedelics to not be some external phenomena (i.e. you judge the external phenomena to not exist), then you're not going to bother trying to explain said external phenomena, because it's just not there.

You, max, simply take it for granted that there's something requiring explanation, whereas I don't. I want to know I'm not going to spend my time trying to explain away the suns non-existent tutu wearing habits before I take up the challenge of doing so. Once I have a reason to believe something exists, then I'll take up the challenge of describing and explaining it.

psygnisfive

12-17-2007, 07:38 PM

That reminds me of how Terence McKenna used to mock the question about UFOs being real or not.

Well, there in is another humorous problem. UFO's meaning what? Unidentified Flying Objects? Well noone denies those exist, but that's trivial, since it means "there are these things that fly and I have no idea what they are!" Well ok, wow, you don't know what something is, how fucking miraculous.

The problem comes about when people say "I KNOW what they are! They're ALIENS! And they want to ANAL PROB ME!". Then you get into all sorts of trouble, because that's not "UFOs" anymore, that's a whole 'nother game right there.

Szifers

12-17-2007, 08:07 PM

Exactly. "UFO" is a phenomenological and pragmatic description.

I don't really understand the fantasy about some "rules" that can be theoretically (or even actually?) broken by "supernatural" phenomena, as opposed to non-supernatural phenomena that don't break the rules. It's ungrounded belief, assuming that there are such "rules", and I can't see the possible consistency of the notion of natural rules that can be broken. So I don't know if the spirit world is supernatral or not in the sense you mean, because I don't understand that sense.

The primitive, original, shamanistic model is not ideological. It's myth on the one side, and pragmatic shamanistic service on the other side. When I say that I talked to a non-material being, that's like saying that I saw a UFO. Simply a phenomenological description. It's not an explanation. The explanation can be neurological. That doesn't make the spirit world or the work of the shaman less real.

Szifers

12-17-2007, 08:21 PM

psygnisfive

12-17-2007, 10:51 PM

Exactly. "UFO" is a phenomenological and pragmatic description.

I don't really understand the fantasy about some "rules" that can be theoretically (or even actually?) broken by "supernatural" phenomena, as opposed to non-supernatural phenomena that don't break the rules.

It's just the definition of supernatural, that's all. Like I said, I don't believe that anything breaks any rules, so I discount the notion of "supernatural" as inherently illogical. If somethings doing something that we don't expect, then we simply don't know all of what to expect, rather than it's breaking some rules.

The primitive, original, shamanistic model is not ideological. It's myth on the one side, and pragmatic shamanistic service on the other side. When I say that I talked to a non-material being, that's like saying that I saw a UFO. Simply a phenomenological description. It's not an explanation. The explanation can be neurological. That doesn't make the spirit world or the work of the shaman less real.

The problem is that while _you_ use it as a description of your experiences, some people don't, they use it as a literal explanatory device.

psygnisfive

12-17-2007, 11:00 PM

Is the spirit world real, or is it just a secondary reality, based on biochemical processes?

That's the way I can understand the spirit world question. And this way of putting it makes it clear that the question is only meaningful on the basis of hard-core materialism. Because it assumes that material reality is somehow primary reality, and non-material reality is only secondary. It's a valid question, but only within the confines of a certain ideological belief.

I've said it before but: If the spirit world is real, then I'd consider it material. We just lack a proper definition of what kind of material, and what counts as material. Material is what-is, by definition. If it's not what-is, but how-it-is, then it's immaterial, but that's the only difference. "Spirits" or whatever we care to talk about are merely some other substance (ectoplasm, as they used to say). That's the problem with trying to define words, rather than giving words to definitions. If your definition is "something that exists" and your label is "substance, material", then no problem, right? But if you say "substance, material" is x, y, z then you get problems because you almost invariably never mean JUST x, y, z. It's like when people try to define consciousness. There's no point in defining it in terms of qualities, it's just whatever it is that humans have and animals don't, now go out and figure out what that is, don't try to take the word with some connotation and try to figure out what you mean by it. That's just silly, saying you have to figure out what you mean when you say about it. Words don't come before things that they're for. Which is why I say there is no such thing as "immaterial", as is commonly conceived, because as conceived it's still all quite material, since it's stuff/something and material is another word for stuff/something.

Szifers

12-18-2007, 04:21 AM

If everything that is were material, then the adjective 'material' wouldn't have any meaning. Just like if everything were 'yellow', the word lost all meaning.

Thoughts, feelings, memories, smell, sound, spirit, etc are non-material. Not by definition, but by natural conceptual consensus.

I would like to say that saying "everything is material" is some kind of hyper-hardcore-materialism, as compared to hardcore materialism mentioned above.

But I have to say that it is just simply meaningless, not bearing any information, but just reducing the expressiveness of language. It misses to refer to material reality, but it could just as well miss to mean that there is no material world. It's hard to tell.

I think that a well-grounded idea about the relationship between the material and the non-material is one which is based on direct experience. Accordance with experience is what makes ideas well grounded. And it's an experiential fact, that reality appears primary as non-material. Thoughts, memories, etc. Material reality is a conjecture that we imagine to be behind non-material reality. It appears secondarily. It is argued toward, not inherently present. That's the direct experience. And ideology which doesn't correspond to experience is not realistic.

So, even the opposing radical ideology is more realistic and rational than materialism is. The Universe is created by God, a non-material being, or the material world is just an illusion, a simulation, run by gnostic demons, and ideas like that.

"In Principio Erat Verbum [...]"

Szifers

12-18-2007, 04:51 AM

("If it's not what-is, but how-it-is, then it's immaterial, but that's the only difference."

That's what materialism claims. That non-material reality is not substantial, but just a "how" of material reality. That's what they mean when they say that material reality is primary, and non-material reality is secondary.)

max_freakout

12-18-2007, 08:06 AM

Anything you claim to be explaining.

I dont claim to be explaining anything though :confused:

i am as mystified as anyone

But if you judge the effects of psychedelics to not be some external phenomena (i.e. you judge the external phenomena to not exist), then you're not going to bother trying to explain said external phenomena, because it's just not there.

I think it is crazy to reduce talk of the psychedelic experience, to an issue of the existence or non-existence of an 'external phenomena'. there is nothing external about the psychedelicv experience, except the drugs themselves. The experiencve takes place internally/subjectively

[QUOTE]
You, max, simply take it for granted that there's something requiring explanation, whereas I don't. QUOTE]

Im not taking anything for granted, the psychedelic experience exists, there is no ambiguiity or controversy about that is there? But it is an experience, it is not something external to the experiencer

And i dont really think it requires an explanation, im not sure it can be explained, but i do think it requires a coming to terms with, that is very important, but it is not the same as an explanation

I think that many (if not all) the pertinent philosophical issues can be explained in terms of the psychedelic experience (including philosophy of science)

psygnisfive

12-18-2007, 10:24 PM

If everything that is were material, then the adjective 'material' wouldn't have any meaning. Just like if everything were 'yellow', the word lost all meaning.

Of course it would have meaning. There would still be "immaterial" things, like waves, or information, but that's a vastly different kind of immaterial than the immateriality of ghosts.

Thoughts, feelings, memories, smell, sound, spirit, etc are non-material. Not by definition, but by natural conceptual consensus.

Right, those are immaterial things, but they're not independent of material (ignoring spirit, since that has multiple meanings that I won't go into). They're all grounded in the material world, they arise from it, not along side it.

I think you're confused about what I'm saying, as usual, but whatever.

I dont claim to be explaining anything though

i am as mystified as anyone

The "you" doesn't have to be interpreted as meaning you max freakout, it's a generic you.

I think it is crazy to reduce talk of the psychedelic experience, to an issue of the existence or non-existence of an 'external phenomena'. there is nothing external about the psychedelicv experience, except the drugs themselves. The experiencve takes place internally/subjectively

First let's just make a distinction. External means that its not all in your head. Internal means it is all in your head. External is real like chairs and rocks, internal is real like imagination and fantasy.

And countless people believe that the stuff they see in a psychedelic vision is, without a doubt, real like rocks and chairs. It might be, which is not my contention. My contention is the without-a-doubt part. The absolute certainty for no reason.

Im not taking anything for granted, the psychedelic experience exists, there is no ambiguiity or controversy about that is there? But it is an experience, it is not something external to the experiencer

But you still take it as indicative of, or showing, "something more". You would reject the view that the drug just induces some as-of-yet-unknown hallucination in your brain, would you not?

And i dont really think it requires an explanation, im not sure it can be explained, but i do think it requires a coming to terms with, that is very important, but it is not the same as an explanation

Thinking that something needs to be come to terms with means there is something in the first place. If it's just pretty lights and wonderful sensations induced by a drug with no greater meaning than that, then there's nothing to come to terms with other than Drug-as-Fancy-TV.

I think that many (if not all) the pertinent philosophical issues can be explained in terms of the psychedelic experience (including philosophy of science)

THAT is an interesting line of inquiry and I think we should take that particular thing into a new thread. I'd like to hear you fully explain your thoughts, because I've a similar hope about psychedelics as providing deep fundamental insights.

I don't mean to slight the C-Realm community, but I'm doing to do that thread in the Psychonautica forum, since it seems to fit more with the community there.

CyclotronMajesty

12-19-2007, 02:35 AM

First let's just make a distinction. External means that its not all in your head. Internal means it is all in your head. External is real like chairs and rocks, internal is real like imagination and fantasy.

And countless people believe that the stuff they see in a psychedelic vision is, without a doubt, real like rocks and chairs. It might be, which is not my contention. My contention is the without-a-doubt part. The absolute certainty for no reason.

Whats really interesting is that the internal is not just "all in your head" neither is imagination or fantasy.

What you imagine does actually affect the external world and this is totally demonstrable by the simple explanation as follows:

Think of a whole bunch of horrible things, dwell on them, dwell deeply on them for a long time, untill you start to feel somthing about it. Then follow that feeling, and notice what you do. Your imagination just changed your phisological and chemical equilibrium. That in turn changes your behavior, which changes the world.

Or look at it this way. People are treated for OCD because people imagine that when they are doing these obsessive things they are actually helping themselves escape from a negative emotion: anxiety. Now if the imagination or thoughts did not shape reality then medication for OCD would do nothing for the mind because the mind and imagination are compeletly internal and it's "all in your head". But since there are treatments for OCD and other psychological disorders, and in the form of pills, this proves that the body and mind affect each other in a very direct way.

Also on a more "supernatural" note. Many people can send energy through their bodies by just imagining or thinking of a certian thing. That thing triggers a chemical reaction in their body because of the imagined. Thus what is internal is not all just "in your head".

Also if you look at it at a very rudimentry and sober level, just take the idea that you do what you decide to do. You say i'm going to go get a cup of coffee, and you get up and you do it. You might even imagine how your going to do that, and do it that way.

There is a time differential in that process. But in others there are not like energetic work and other phenomena.

I think one of the first steps to explaining what the supernatural is in the first place is looking at how what is internal is not just internal, and what is external is therefore not just external.

=)

Very nice discussion BTW.

psygnisfive

12-19-2007, 04:53 AM

Whats really interesting is that the internal is not just "all in your head" neither is imagination or fantasy.

Unless you're a solipsist. But the play of neuronal activities isn't what I mean by "it" when I said that it's all in your head. "It", in this case, refers to the thing you're seeing (e.g. a conga line of miniature animals, as a friend once described seeing when he was on acid). "An image of a conga line of miniature animals" is most certainly "in your head", the question is, is the conga line more than just an image in your head or not.

What you imagine does actually affect the external world and this is totally demonstrable by the simple explanation as follows:

Think of a whole bunch of horrible things, dwell on them, dwell deeply on them for a long time, untill you start to feel somthing about it. Then follow that feeling, and notice what you do. Your imagination just changed your phisological and chemical equilibrium. That in turn changes your behavior, which changes the world.

Indeed, and yet the thoughts themselves are not horrible things in the world. Thinking real hard about a gun shooting and killing you won't leave you dead with a bullet through you body.

Tho you mention something very interesting because Baudrillard, if I've read him correctly, dealt heavily with the idea of "things" that don't exist but rather are "simulated" by people believing in them (i.e. the thing is the idea, the meme, etc.), but which might as well have been real given how people behaved towards the thing.

Or look at it this way. People are treated for OCD because people imagine that when they are doing these obsessive things they are actually helping themselves escape from a negative emotion: anxiety. Now if the imagination or thoughts did not shape reality then medication for OCD would do nothing for the mind because the mind and imagination are compeletly internal and it's "all in your head". But since there are treatments for OCD and other psychological disorders, and in the form of pills, this proves that the body and mind affect each other in a very direct way.

Mind is internal but run on, is influenced by, and influences its neurological architecture. That's how mind and body affect one another. Not through a Cartesian magical link, or some other stuff like that. Mind is a pattern and a flow of information within a substrate, not separate from a substrate.

Also on a more "supernatural" note. Many people can send energy through their bodies by just imagining or thinking of a certian thing. That thing triggers a chemical reaction in their body because of the imagined. Thus what is internal is not all just "in your head".

"Energy" almost assuredly can't behave in this fashion. I think what you mean is they can induce biochemical changes in the brain that then induce biochemical changes elsewhere in the body that affect the behavior of that part of the body. But that's trivial since that's all of voluntary muscle control, etc. Learning to control other biochemical pathways is tricky and impressive, but not supernatural. And again, here we're not talking about anything internal at all, since the experience of whatever you're doing is not the same thing as the neurological phenomena associated with that experience. Experience, the internal part, is more your brain/mind observing itself. To paraphrase Damasio, we don't cry because we feel sad, we feel sad because we cry. The experience, the internal thing, is secondary and is the result of the underlying neurophysiology. Ask the people who burst into tears but swear they feel no sadness, they just can't help bawling their eyes out, thanks to a specific kind of brain damage.

Also if you look at it at a very rudimentry and sober level, just take the idea that you do what you decide to do. You say i'm going to go get a cup of coffee, and you get up and you do it. You might even imagine how your going to do that, and do it that way.

Ah another interesting issue. In fact the opposite is quite true. Well, lets first make a distinction between different kinds of intent:

First, the intent of planning, e.g. "I will, in a few minutes, do x, y, and z."

Second, the intent of action, e.g. you move your hand intentionally.

The first kind of intent is a mental to-do note, and involves imagination, planning, etc. along with a binding of that to some point in time, giving you an expectation, waiting anxiety, etc.

The second kind of intent is much more interesting and doesn't truly exist, not causally anyway. If I say to you, any time in the next 30 seconds, move your hand, but be sure to choose at random, you'll be able to complete this fine and when I ask you when did you DECIDE to move your hand, you'll say when you moved it. In fact, we can play a video for you and you can tell us afterwards what was on the screen the moment you say you decided to move your hand.

Interestingly, if we hook you up to an fMRI, we can tell that you're going to move your hand up to a full second before you say you decided to move your hand. This of course provides an interesting problem: Your brain is deterministic, so the neurological cause of your hand movement is temporally linked, and you can't have decided AND caused an action AFTER the cascade of neurological activation started. In fact what's going on is the reverse: the brain sends signals to the body with an expectation of what the body will do. It monitors the body, and if the body does what was expected, the brain says, "Yes, I decided to do that at time x." That's why you experience your decision as coinciding with your movement. But that's a lie that your brain constructs. Or rather, it's your brain saying "yep, everythings working fine." If you consume dissociative anaesthetics, and I can speak to this from experience, you loose that sense of being the agent of your own actions. You feel like your body is doing shit and you're just along for the ride. With enough focus you can "decide" to do things, like lift your leg, life your arm, etc. even in a to-do-note-in-the-brain sort of way, but it never feels like you caused it, it always feels like massive cosmic coincidence and nothing more. In a way, this is a magnificent insight, because in retrospect you're enlightened to the deterministic nature of the universe, that your sense of self and agency is an illusion.

I think one of the first steps to explaining what the supernatural is in the first place is looking at how what is internal is not just internal, and what is external is therefore not just external.

Internal, in the strictest sense, is just internal. As described above, internal is constructed by the brain/mind; it is the information that the brain processes, as processed by the brain. The things that you describe as being internal-yet-external are really the underlying states of the brain, the neurophysiological states, which ENCODE the information, but are not the information itself. The internal content affects the external body by way of being encoded in the body, not by way of magic. And I think such a trivial distinction is absolutely necessary if we want to explore whatever might actually BE external yet outside of modern science.

max_freakout

12-19-2007, 07:23 AM

First let's just make a distinction. External means that its not all in your head. Internal means it is all in your head. External is real like chairs and rocks, internal is real like imagination and fantasy.

Yes and the psychedelic experience is completely internal, the drugs are (obviously) external like rocks and chairs

And countless people believe that the stuff they see in a psychedelic vision is, without a doubt, real like rocks and chairs. It might be, which is not my contention. My contention is the without-a-doubt part. The absolute certainty for no reason.

I know many people who have taken high-dose psychedelics, and i have never met anyone who would make such a claim, it is completely absurd to say that the psychedelic experience proves that some external material thing exists, experience is immaterial, the things you see on psychedelics are nothing whatsoever like rocks and chairs

So you present an argument and then debunk it, i am saying that no intelligent person would ever make such a conclusion from a psychedelic experience, and hence there is no argument to debunk, you are only debunking your own argument, i do not believe your assertion that 'countless' people would make this ridiculous argument

But you still take it as indicative of, or showing, "something more". You would reject the view that the drug just induces some as-of-yet-unknown hallucination in your brain, would you not?

something more than what you would be aware of in the abscence of a psychedelic experience, yes

I think the expression "some as-of-yet-unknown hallucination in your brain" may be very accurate, except that the word 'hallucination' is very ambiguous and poorly defined

therefore i would rather call it "some as-of-yet unknown mental phenomena"

and that sums it up perfectly, that is the 'something more' that psychedelics reveal, abilities of your mind that you didnt previously think would be possible

What you might say after a psychedelic trip:
"wow i didnt know my own mind could do that!!!!!"

Thinking that something needs to be come to terms with means there is something in the first place. If it's just pretty lights and wonderful sensations induced by a drug with no greater meaning than that, then there's nothing to come to terms with other than Drug-as-Fancy-TV.

yes but it isnt the existence of some physical thing that needs to be come-to-terms with (as you seem to repeatedly insist), it is the existence of previously unknown and unimaginable mental phenomena, and all its philosophical implication, that needs to be come to terms with

it is a radical trivialisation and oversimplification to call a psychedelic experience "just pretty lights and wonderful sensations induced by a drug with no greater meaning than that" or "Drug-as-Fancy-TV"

But also it is a complete misunderstanding to say that the psychedelic experience proves the existence of some physical thing like a rock or a chair, and yet you seem to be repeatedly insisting on this. Psychedelics couldnt POSSIBLY do this!!!

THAT is an interesting line of inquiry and I think we should take that particular thing into a new thread. I'd like to hear you fully explain your thoughts, because I've a similar hope about psychedelics as providing deep fundamental insights.

Well i have an enormous amount to say on that topic :cool:

and i think it is far more fruitful to talk about that, than to endlessly talk about the existence or non-existence of some 'external' straw-man, there is no such straw man to be found, and it is a complete waste of time trying to suggest that a subjective drug-induced experience could ever possibly reveal the existence of a solid object like a rock or a chair

where did you get this idea from? Who are these 'countless people' who would make such an absurd suggestion? Have any psychedelic authors/scholars ever makde such a suggestion? I very much doubt it, Mckenna never said the dmt realm was external, or like a rock or a chair

Ostritt

12-19-2007, 02:20 PM

I think the idea that these worlds are external and independent is one that shouldn't be thrown aside so easily. Rick Strassman and Graham Hancock both suggest that DMT and other molecules may switch the brain to a seperate channel and allow us to perceive dimensions that may be freestanding. We need an explanation that can account for the fact that we have seen the same entitites and motifs in 40,000 years of trips without any constant cultural or environmental factor.

Also, DMT is also and most importantly an endogenous substance. It can be unlocked by trance dancing and anything else that inspires its release. It's a vital part of our consciousness.

On a seperate note, how does the fact that these experiences are internal make them any less real? Personally I think they are the truest things we can experience, everything else is just an arbitrary agreement of labels and concensus. We don't even know if we are talking about the same independent quality when we say "blue". What we can say, with 100% certainty, is "I perceived this". Imo that makes the psychedelic experience more "real" than a football game or a giant squid.

There is also the possibility that entheogens unlock the 95% of our DNA that is as yet undiscovered. What is know about this DNA is that it is a language of some kind (Harvard scientists applied Zipf's Law and another test to it). Considering this possibility, us accessing internal DNA (which we all share, even large segments are the same as DNA in pretty much everything else, unchanged by millions of years of evolution) can be seen as tantamount to accessing external reality, because this language is external from our every day perception.

max_freakout

12-19-2007, 03:04 PM

I think the idea that these worlds are external and independent is one that shouldn't be thrown aside so easily. Rick Strassman and Graham Hancock both suggest that DMT and other molecules may switch the brain to a seperate channel and allow us to perceive dimensions that may be freestanding. We need an explanation that can account for the fact that we have seen the same entitites and motifs in 40,000 years of trips without any constant cultural or environmental factor.

i do not think i am throwing the idea aside, im saying lets focus on other aspects of this enquiry than the issue of the reality or unreality of some 'other external place'. For psygnisfive, the main issue seems to be this existence of some other place, but i think that this line of enquiry is fundamentally pointless, because the psychedelic experience is subjective, psygnisfive seems to be insisting that it is objective.

You see the same external world when you are on acid as the one you see when you arent on drugs, it's just that on acid, this external reality looks differemnt, it becomes wavy and floaty, but the chair you sit in on acid is the same chair as the one you sit on when you arent on acid

and you can perceive interior spaces on psychedelics, which seem just as real (or in my experience more real) than the external world

On a seperate note, how does the fact that these experiences are internal make them any less real?

I think that this is the main issue!! psygnisfive is conflating 'real' with 'external'

and instead of saying that the psychedelic, interior worlds actually are or arent real, im saying that this is not the point, they show you, clearly and logically, that what you perceive to be the external world isnt actually real, it is a subjective hallucination

What we can say, with 100% certainty, is "I perceived this".

Can you really say that with 100% certainty?

psygnisfive

12-19-2007, 05:27 PM

Yes and the psychedelic experience is completely internal, the drugs are (obviously) external like rocks and chairs

Yeah. To some extent. I mean, the experience is internal, the neurological cascades, etc. are external.

I know many people who have taken high-dose psychedelics, and i have never met anyone who would make such a claim, it is completely absurd to say that the psychedelic experience proves that some external material thing exists, experience is immaterial, the things you see on psychedelics are nothing whatsoever like rocks and chairs

Well we've met different people then. :) Obviously I'm addressing the general notion that the experience is of an external phenomena (e.g. God himself, etc.)

therefore i would rather call it "some as-of-yet unknown mental phenomena"

and that sums it up perfectly, that is the 'something more' that psychedelics reveal, abilities of your mind that you didnt previously think would be possible

What you might say after a psychedelic trip:
"wow i didnt know my own mind could do that!!!!!"

Completely agree.

But also it is a complete misunderstanding to say that the psychedelic experience proves the existence of some physical thing like a rock or a chair, and yet you seem to be repeatedly insisting on this. Psychedelics couldnt POSSIBLY do this!!!

That's my point: psychedelics prove nothing. I was addressing the issue of people who do think they prove such. So I think again we agree on this matter.

Well i have an enormous amount to say on that topic :cool:

and i think it is far more fruitful to talk about that, than to endlessly talk about the existence or non-existence of some 'external' straw-man, there is no such straw man to be found, and it is a complete waste of time trying to suggest that a subjective drug-induced experience could ever possibly reveal the existence of a solid object like a rock or a chair.

where did you get this idea from? Who are these 'countless people' who would make such an absurd suggestion? Have any psychedelic authors/scholars ever makde such a suggestion? I very much doubt it, Mckenna never said the dmt realm was external, or like a rock or a chair

Well just for a mild example, a lot of the way the experiences are spoken about are in ways that you would never usually talk about content in your mind. It's mostly McKenna, actually, that I find a lot of this mysticism, with talk about natives-and-their-drugs seeing insight into the true spiritual nature of the cosmos blah blah blah. And it's like, no, they're not getting insight into the cosmos, they're getting insight into what the drug does to their experience.

I'll have to dig up a specific example if you want, but suffice it to say, my issue is with the notion that the internal experience is induced by an external phenomena that's the content of the experience, in the same way that (we suppose) the experience of a chair is induced by an actual chair. I take no issue with the idea that the experience is an internal phenomena, just the automatic assumption that its representational of the external.

Now, I don't rule out the possibility that it's an experience of something external, and I think it'd be pretty damn cool if it were, as it'd open up whole new avenues of research and provide new insights into fundamental physical theories.

psygnisfive

12-19-2007, 05:36 PM

I think that this is the main issue!! psygnisfive is conflating 'real' with 'external'

No please let's not make that my stance. My stance is that the content-of-experience, e.g. the chair you experience as you look into the world, isn't a real chair if it's not external, it's just an image-of-a-chair in your brain. That's the distinction I make. Just like the people portrayed in a painting aren't the people-themselves. That's what I mean by real/not-real. The real thing exists external to the experience, but the unreal exists solely in the experience.[/QUOTE]

We need an explanation that can account for the fact that we have seen the same entitites and motifs in 40,000 years of trips without any constant cultural or environmental factor.

To that I'd say the simple answer is clear: Brains do, for the most part, the same things, such as extract edges, find motion, etc. etc. Tickle the motion centers of the brain and it doesn't matter who you do it to, they'll perceive an ethereal sort of of motion in the world, the kind you experience in those optical illusions.

This is one of my personal uses of psychedelics, to experimentally probe and identify the cognitive centers within my own brain in order to develop an accurate model of how cognition works. I've identified at least one fundamental all-encompassing mechanism within the brain thanks to dissociatives, so I don't think the idea is a bad one. But I don't think it necessarily needs a magical explanation.

The question of why all trips would be so fucking similar is like asking why all dog prints, despite 40,000 years of dogs making prints in the ground, should look the same, and the answer is trivial: because all dogs have (roughly) the same shaped paws.

max_freakout

12-19-2007, 07:04 PM

Yeah. To some extent. I mean, the experience is internal, the neurological cascades, etc. are external.

what do you mean 'neurological cascades'? Nobody really knows the precise mechanism by which psychedelics work

Well we've met different people then. :) Obviously I'm addressing the general notion that the experience is of an external phenomena (e.g. God himself, etc.)

Well now you are confusing things, may people have the experience on psychedelics that they actually are God (or Jesus, Buddha whatever) and i think much more rarely speak of encountering an external 'God'

But this is VERY different to saying that a psychedelic experience has shown some thing to exist in the same way that a rock or a chair exists

That's my point: psychedelics prove nothing. I was addressing the issue of people who do think they prove such. So I think again we agree on this matter.

i have never heard of a person saying that psychedelics proved some material thing existed, and Mckenna never said this, nor did any other entheogen author that i know of, all entheogen scholarship always emphasizes the point that the psychedelic experience is subjective/internal, so you are chasing a straw-man round and round in circles imo

what psychedelics really 'prove', imo, is facts about ordinary life and existence, NOT facts about the psychedelic experience

Because the psychedelic experience transcends all other experiences, it gives you a higher dimensional perspective from which to look at life

Well just for a mild example, a lot of the way the experiences are spoken about are in ways that you would never usually talk about content in your mind.

i disagree, please give an example of this?

if i talk about an great big solid house made of bricks, which i dreamed about a few nights ago, am i talking about an external thing, or contents of my mind?

It's mostly McKenna, actually, that I find a lot of this mysticism, with talk about natives-and-their-drugs seeing insight into the true spiritual nature of the cosmos blah blah blah. And it's like, no, they're not getting insight into the cosmos, they're getting insight into what the drug does to their experience.

psychedelics teach you about the world by giving you a higher dimensional view on life, they give you all kinds of crazy insights into the cosmos, the psychedelic experience is an experience of being taught, a strong mushroom trip is like a semester's philosophy course crammed into 5 hours

I'll have to dig up a specific example if you want, but suffice it to say, my issue is with the notion that the internal experience is induced by an external phenomena that's the content of the experience, in the same way that (we suppose) the experience of a chair is induced by an actual chair. I take no issue with the idea that the experience is an internal phenomena, just the automatic assumption that its representational of the external.

i think you are getting it precisely the wrong way round, the internal experience isnt indced by external phenomena, nobody ever claimed it was,

But, the psychedelic experience shows you about the connection between your perception of the chair, and the 'real' chair, the real chair might not even exist

Now, I don't rule out the possibility that it's an experience of something external, and I think it'd be pretty damn cool if it were, as it'd open up whole new avenues of research and provide new insights into fundamental physical theories.

Of course it isnt something external!!!! How could it be? you take the drug and it's chemicals in your brain, if it was external then other people would be able to see it too

Ostritt

12-19-2007, 09:16 PM

First just want to clarify Max, I should have written that all we can say with 100% certainty is "I believe I perceived this". However, as you are the only perceiver in the equation this is slightly tautalogical; it's implied you believe you've perceived it if you say "I perceived this".

pygnis5:
The question of why all trips would be so fucking similar is like asking why all dog prints, despite 40,000 years of dogs making prints in the ground, should look the same, and the answer is trivial: because all dogs have (roughly) the same shaped paws.

Again I need to clarify. I'm not talking about entoptic phenomena like wavy lines that are part of the anatomy of our brains. I'm talking about motifs like the wounded man, entity encounters, abductions and implantations, gnosis relating to plant usage. These are consistent throughout history (from Fairy stories to UFO abduction stories) How do you explain the fact that ayahuasceros managed to take two plants out of 80,000 plant species, put them through a complicated process of brewing in order to combine DMT with an MAO inhibitor? When they're asked they say the plants told them.

I hope I've established that because all these experiences have occured around the planet since human history began, they are not based on one culture or on specific environmental influences. You could argue that since all humans have similar psychological urges they project these during trips. I think this is a convenient and gross understatement that negates a huge amount of information, as well as common sense. The experiences are so varied and so complex that I don't think they can be reduced to psychological text book explanations (any attempt to place them in models like this still leaves countless things unexplained) No one person is the same, no group of people are the same and while many may suffer from, say, feelings of isolations, this really doesn't explain thousands of years of entity contact. The entites take different forms; fairies and djinns in one era, then UFOs as technology becomes ingrained into the collective consciousness.

However, let's assume for a second that the above experiences are also part of our anatomy. This is very well possible, possibly locked in whatever language is in the non gene-coding sections of our DNA. If we assume this to be the case, the question becomes "why the fuck do we have this information written into every cell of our body, unchanged after millions of years of evolution? Crick (the scientist who unlocked the secret of DNA - during an acid trip no less :D) suggested that DNA must have originated somewhere apart from Earth. I think this notion is widely accepted. He wrote a book in which he expressed a pan-spermia theory and suggested that our DNA was engineered by another species.

My stance is that the content-of-experience, e.g. the chair you experience as you look into the world, isn't a real chair if it's not external, it's just an image-of-a-chair in your brain. That's the distinction I make.... That's what I mean by real/not-real. The real thing exists external to the experience, but the unreal exists solely in the experience.

As Berkeley argued, the chair may not even exist independently. Indeed, you can't prove it exists because all we have to go on is our perception of it. It seems like you're suggesting that "tableness" exists in some independent realm and would still be there if we weren't there to see and define its colour, texture, shape etc. Taking Idealism into account, what I'm arguing (and I think what Max is arguing) is that the real thing does not only not exist external to the experience, it does not exist independently at all. Nothing exists external to our experience, it's all illusory.

I see the brain as the receiver and not the generator of consciousness. It evolved on this planet and in a primate body so it is structured in a certain way. However, the "holy grail of neuroscience" as McKenna termed it, is figuring out how we experience subjectively as a result of the physical happenings in our brain. As far as psychedelics go, science has absolutely no idea. To me it doesn't really matter why it's happening, what matters is what I'm perceiving as a result of it happening. Spirituality is about feeling, not explaining. Also I believe everything is one, so really it is irrelevant if I'm experiencing something "internal" or "external" because both of these labels are distinctions made by me or my culture. I believe that in reality there is only oneness.

psygnisfive

12-20-2007, 01:22 AM

what do you mean 'neurological cascades'? Nobody really knows the precise mechanism by which psychedelics work

No, noone knows precisely how, but I think we're in agreement that it involves triggering some activation in the brain.

Of course it isnt something external!!!! How could it be? you take the drug and it's chemicals in your brain, if it was external then other people would be able to see it too

Since we basically agree on the point, I'm going to skip right to here and mention one idea that I've heard mentioned, context escaping me at the moment. I've heard some propose that the psychedelics might induce some states of consciousness in the mind-not-brain that allows the mind to experience other dimensions or other parts of reality like the "astral plane" and such. It wasn't your "higher dimensional thinking" sort of talk, where you merely gain a different perspective, it was the sort of "I'm literally experiencing another place" sort of thing.

But listen, since we're in agreement this is an irrelevant point.

Again I need to clarify. I'm not talking about entoptic phenomena like wavy lines that are part of the anatomy of our brains. I'm talking about motifs like the wounded man, entity encounters, abductions and implantations, gnosis relating to plant usage. These are consistent throughout history (from Fairy stories to UFO abduction stories) How do you explain the fact that ayahuasceros managed to take two plants out of 80,000 plant species, put them through a complicated process of brewing in order to combine DMT with an MAO inhibitor? When they're asked they say the plants told them.

I can think of any number of ways in which "encounters" can be generated by over-stimulation of the brain in the right areas. Never heard of the wounded man motif. As for gnosis relating to plant usage, I'd love to see some proof that this actually occurs. Yeah, the plants told them. And how many generations ago was this? Not recently, since they already know how it works. Nevermind that they wouldn't have the explanatory framework for accounting for how they could come to the answers. These drugs are demonstrably capable of inducing enhancements in abstract reasoning and problem solving skills. Give this to a person who doesn't understand even the slightest about how the brain operates and he'll think the planet "told him" because he consumed the plant then had a vision. But that's merely lacking the conceptual framework. That's ofcourse assuming that's if-and-how.

In regard to the rest of this, I've discussed this with Max and Sziffers, this question of externality, etc. It's an age old discussion and to say that nothing is external is at least in one case false simply by questioning the externality of things. I'm not going to go over the issue again.

Ostritt

12-20-2007, 12:27 PM

How is that any different from saying the plants told them? The plants allowed them to see, so the plants told them. It seems you are taking a Western materialist and reductionist view of shamanism in general, which used to be my impulse but due to personal experience and research I've changed my perspective. I'm not suggesting that either of us knows any more or less about the psychedelic experience, but it's interesting (and good) how there is such a variety in the psychedelic community.

I don't understand what you meant by your last line to say that nothing is external is at least in one case false simply by questioning the externality of things. I think you mean that by questioning whether something is external we affirm it's existence... that is a logical fallacy imo. I can question the existence of a purple space monster that I've heard about and that someone has reportedly seen, but this questioning in itself does not make it exist independently of perception in some external environment.

As far as gnosis relating to plant usage, I'm surprised that you need an example of this having taken entheogens!

What do you think are the implications of universally shared experiences of incredible complexity and purpose that remain constant throughout the entheogenic experience and the small percentage of people who undergo spontaneous trance states all appearing to be the same phenommenon? Common sense says that the experience is somehow independent of time and culture and has some purpose. Science says it is all the workings of an overactive imagination (in a brain they barely understand) and that millions of people over history were simply crazy.

If you haven't already, I would recommend reading Supernatural by Graham Hancock. It's very indepth and incredibly well researched, also an invigorating read. Peace!

psygnisfive

12-20-2007, 01:29 PM

How is that any different from saying the plants told them? The plants allowed them to see, so the plants told them.

Because saying "plants told them" implies the plants are a) agents, b) capable of possessing knowledge, and c) that the plants transmitted said knowledge through unknown means.

If you're incapable of seeing the difference, imagine this: A person can tell you something. If you kill the person, then make a steak out of him, get a bad stomach ache and hallucinate, he's not telling you anything because he's fucking dead. There's no telling going on.

It seems you are taking a Western materialist and reductionist view of shamanism in general, which used to be my impulse but due to personal experience and research I've changed my perspective. I'm not suggesting that either of us knows any more or less about the psychedelic experience, but it's interesting (and good) how there is such a variety in the psychedelic community.

It's got nothing to do with shamanism and everything to do with the validity of the assertion. I'm fine with the general IDEA, I'm NOT fine with YOUR stupid "They say it so it must be true, I have COMPLETE faith!" attitude. The world doesn't care about what you believe, the world does what it does.

As far as gnosis relating to plant usage, I'm surprised that you need an example of this having taken entheogens!

Why, because I'm not as gullible as you? Because I've actually thought about it rather than accepting my experiences at face value? Because I'm critical about even my own subjective experiences? I'm not a religious nut like you, Ostritt. I don't simply have faith.

What do you think are the implications of universally shared experiences of incredible complexity and purpose

Show me a purpose.

that remain constant throughout the entheogenic experience

Already discussed, move on.

and the small percentage of people who undergo spontaneous trance states all appearing to be the same phenommenon?

Already discussed, move on.

Common sense says that the experience is somehow independent of time and culture and has some purpose.

No, common sense says that they're all coming from a single underlying cause. Time and purpose don't enter into it. YOU added those.

Science says it is all the workings of an overactive imagination (in a brain they barely understand) and that millions of people over history were simply crazy.

No, science says they're all the workings of drugs acting on systems that are fairly WELL understood in a large sense but not fully understood at a lower precise detail level, and that millions of people over history are experiencing precisely what you'd expect of a drug that alters the operation of the brain.

If you haven't already, I would recommend reading Supernatural by Graham Hancock. It's very indepth and incredibly well researched, also an invigorating read. Peace!

Graham Hancock is also known for his inability to do correct calculations. He's also not even remotely an authority on anything related to how the mind works.

If YOU haven't already, I would recommend reading V. S. Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain. That's about ACTUAL neuroscience and ACTUAL cognitive science, which is the topic of discussion. Add to that Jeff Hawkins' On Intelligence.

Until you can describe with fair accuracy any five regions of the brain involved in cognition, or any theories of how cognition works, functionally, you're just talking out of your ass. Your inability to discuss this topic without resorting to faith is indicative of your ignorance. I cannot continue this discussion as you're ill equipped to talk seriously about it.