The Remaining Mysteries

[psygnisfive]

What do you think the remaining mysteries are in the universe? What problems do you think we have yet to even begin to explain or describe, and why?

[Szifers]

As Terence McKenna said, true mysteries cannot be reduced to unsolved problems. Noone said that talking monkeys can know the truth anyway. As for unsolved problems: as the circle of understanding grows, the surface of ignorance neccessarily grows as well. The more we know, the more we see of the surface of the unknown. Our ability to transcend ourselves is key to our ability for development. As we know more and more, there will be more and more unsolved problems, and we will percieve more and more into the irreducable mystery.

[psygnisfive]

The question is two part. :P Mysteries AND problems, not mysteries/problems.

[max_freakout]

What do you think the remaining mysteries are in the universe? What problems do you think we have yet to even begin to explain or describe, and why?

the psychedelic experience :D

[psygnisfive]

the psychedelic experience :D

Oh you. :P

So you believe that hallucinations of very strange things, and experiences of various psychoemotional sensations, are a mystery.

Anyone else? I'm curious and noone seems to answer. :(

:P

[Oldbay]

I am not going to take this post into a religion debate, but I do have great wonders about the secrets that are locked away or lost forever in the Vatican archives or related history washing. What traditions, or "heresies", were silenced but graced the reaches of the earth, having lessons and understandings, cultures, rituals, pastimes, holidays etc... that have been silenced in the past several hundred years that we never learned about. I think the great mysteries are about the histories of ourselves. What were all the pagan's, savages, and wicked humans up to before history was washed and rewritten. I know that basically a lot of the modern western holidays were "adjusted" to fit the stories of the church such as Christmas being on/around the winter solstice where lighted candles and celebrations were already taking place. What did we already know that was taken to the graves of our family trees.

The imagination runs wild thinking about it, but to me it is one of the remaining mysteries.

[psygnisfive]

We were having outrageous amounts of buttsex and getting high by sticking our heads near volcanic vents. :P

[Little Elf]

The intro to the first Psychonautica is amazing, I love it:D

[Szifers]

Oh you. :P

So you believe that hallucinations of very strange things, and experiences of various psychoemotional sensations, are a mystery.

Anyone else? I'm curious and noone seems to answer. :(

:P

What's the problem with reducing the psychedelic experience to just hallucination, just "various psychoemotional sensations", right? Why were you reducing out the meat of truth from it by putting it into your reductionist box? I won't try to help you open up the intellectual closure for you, because last time we discusse something of that depth it ended in you calling me mad and just full of it, and I am not stubborn enough to ignore the obvious. But I'd like to tell you that in my opinion your quoestion is a valid question.

[psygnisfive]

What's the problem with reducing the psychedelic experience to just hallucination, just "various psychoemotional sensations", right? Why were you reducing out the meat of truth from it by putting it into your reductionist box? I won't try to help you open up the intellectual closure for you, because last time we discusse something of that depth it ended in you calling me mad and just full of it, and I am not stubborn enough to ignore the obvious. But I'd like to tell you that in my opinion your quoestion is a valid question.

I can barely understand what you just said. I'm not sure why you framed "various psychoemotional sensations" in that way, seeing as how that's precisely what he was talking about.

[Oldbay]

We were having outrageous amounts of buttsex and getting high by sticking our heads near volcanic vents. :P

:D:D:D

We're still doing that, just modified the volcanic vents a bit.

[Xochipilli2012]

Oh you. :P

So you believe that hallucinations of very strange things, and experiences of various psychoemotional sensations, are a mystery.

Anyone else? I'm curious and noone seems to answer. :(

:P

The very question precludes it.

But the question(s) remain(s) very interesting.

[Xochipilli2012]

But all that aside, it occurs to me that I could give a more detailed response.

"Unsolved Mysteries" (What are the "solved" ones by the way?)

The two biggest ones:

1. How or why are we here?

2. Why do we care (about #1)?

In terms of "problems"

There are none. Everything is unfolding perfectly. We can play the "game" and indulge in the leela of existence and talk about war, disease, climate change, awakening humanity, etc.

And certainly, on an individual level, we might imagine there are "problems" that we can "solve." Getting a job. Picking up our kids from school. Fixing the leaky roof, etc.

Oh? That's not quite what you had in mind? Hmmm....well, as my Zen mistress SatPriti once told me: Tough Titties!

Watch out if you think you know how to throw sand. Be sure you know what you're dealing with first.

[psygnisfive]

1. How or why are we here?

2. Why do we care (about #1)?

Hm. I definitely think the latter is a huge mystery. I can't fathom why anyone would even care why they exist (animals sure as hell don't, they just live their lives).

The first is another matter. :)

In regard to #1, why does there need to be a reason for the existence of sentience, outside the generally accepted answer (excluding religious answers)?

[druidude]

One of the biggest mysteries to me to be explored is the function or utility of loss of ego/self.

Most of our functioning as humans occurs through thought, our psycological self that is our experience or memory.We see the world through our conditioning for example when we look at someone we see them through a screen of thought.

For example if we look at a woman there is a stream of often sub concious thoughts eg,she's pretty ,she reminds me of so and so those clothes are the same colour as etc A constant internal dialogue maintains our perception of the world according to our culture and experiences.

We all see things differently, because of this, a native amazonian Indian is going to see the TV set differently to me if you want a gross example.But there are shades of differance that often go unnoticeable between us all.

Through psychedelics and meditation etc it is possible to remove this conditioning and perceive directly without the censor of ego/thought so we deconstruct our conditioned perception of the world.We perceive more clearly (or do we?)

What use does this have if any what is its utility?

Some commentators say that the dominace of the ego is a recent phenonemon and has moved from its place as a survival strategy to one of overiding controller causing many of the problems in our current human world.

I personally find this fascinating the action of the ego is a main cause of our misery as humans it has its place otherwise we wouldn't remember how to get home or build machines but it does limit our experience of the world.

I may be disappearing up my own a*se but to me the greatest mystery is ourselves and until we understand that our understanding of anything else is always going to be limited.

[Steeldiehard]

One of the biggest mysteries to me to be explored is the function or utility of loss of ego/self.

...to me the greatest mystery is ourselves and until we understand that our understanding of anything else is always going to be limited.

May I ask, do these statements refer to the same mystery?

Peace,

Steel

[Steeldiehard]

The mystery of The Matrix...when will it be revealed? Will it take the blue or red pill? ;)

Seriously...I've come to the realization that there are things I think I know and things I don't know. I think I know that there is no mystery for those who live life with unquestionable faith. Conversely, everything is a mystery for those who question.

Peace,

Steel

[max_freakout]

So you believe that hallucinations of very strange things, and experiences of various psychoemotional sensations, are a mystery.



a talking mushroom is pretty damn mysterious to me

and the fact that eating a mushroom can radically alter the way you think about the world forever after a single trip

id like a scientist to explain it all to me :eek:

[max_freakout]

In regard to #1, why does there need to be a reason for the existence of sentience, outside the generally accepted answer (excluding religious answers)?


there's a 'generally accepted answer'???? :confused: Please fill me in!!!

and imo the 'reason' doesnt have to explain sentience, it has to explain existence in it's entirety, why does/should anything exist? Why isnt there just nothing? It's the ultimate existential question, and i would be amazed if there was a generally accepted answer

it seems to me to be the purpose of thought/sentience to explore that question

[max_freakout]

I can barely understand what you just said. I'm not sure why you framed "various psychoemotional sensations" in that way, seeing as how that's precisely what he was talking about.

hey that was your words, not mine, i do not think that the psychedelic experience can be reduced to anything like what you suggested, for me it is an experience of divine mystery that penetrates right to the core of being

[psygnisfive]

a talking mushroom is pretty damn mysterious to me

and the fact that eating a mushroom can radically alter the way you think about the world forever after a single trip

id like a scientist to explain it all to me :eek:

And what if the explanation seems incomplete to you? I mean, people want deep explanations, and scientific explanations tend to be shallow. I can see a very clear explanation for those supposed "mysteries", but I doubt that, say, McKenna would like them, even if they're correct; as with fundamentalists who can't accept evolution, I worry that preconceptions, made all the more powerful by mind altering substances, will be hard to satisfy without "speaking the language", even if the labguage is inadequate.

[Steeldiehard]

...scientific explanations tend to be shallow...as with fundamentalists who can't accept evolution

Sup psyg,

May I ask, in what way are they shallow and which fundamentalists are you referring to?

Steel

[psygnisfive]

May I ask, in what way are they shallow

Shallow in the sense that F = ma or F[g] = Gm[1]m[2]/r^2 isn't in any way meaningful to people in the sense of answering those deep yearning questions that seem to elude us. They're not "deep" in the sense of being insightful.

McKenna, in his Syntax talk, commented that the things science is currently describing very well aren't the sort of thing that real people with evryday lives care about.

That's what I mean by shallow; it's unprofound. Now, I think that the reason thus is true is that the so called important things are massively complex systems of interacting information. Describing in full precision why such and such is experienced by a person would require way too much data for modern theories to even begin to use, so science approximates.

I don't think those things are beyond the realm of real scientific inquiry, I just think that they're currently out of our reach for technical reasons.

and which fundamentalists are you referring to?

Hardliner christians who, despite countles examples, explanations, and demonstrations of evolution, will always find some reason to say that its not evolution at all.

Their conviction that god-did-it is so strong that it biases them to discount anything contrary to that belief.

I feel that there's a similar sort of trend in the pychedelics community where the unspoken gospel is that the mind and psychedelic experience CAN'T be described by physical processes (ignoring the logical impossibility of this), and so no matter what explanation you give, no matter how good of an example you can provide, no matter what you can demonstrate in person, people will insist that there's still something else that is unexplained, even if they can't say what it is.

I see this merely as a continuation of the trend of anti-explantory reactionism that you see throughout history whenever humanity was moved off the highest pedastal and made equal with something else. First we were the center of the universe, but soon we find this wrong and were just like everyone else. But oh! We're CREATED by god himelf. And then we're found to have evolved like all other animals. But mind! That's something we can99't explain away! Mind is the last grand pedastal of human specialness and to say, no, were quite thoroughly explainable is an affront like all the rest.

[max_freakout]

And what if the explanation seems incomplete to you? I mean, people want deep explanations, and scientific explanations tend to be shallow. I can see a very clear explanation for those supposed "mysteries", but I doubt that, say, McKenna would like them, even if they're correct; as with fundamentalists who can't accept evolution, I worry that preconceptions, made all the more powerful by mind altering substances, will be hard to satisfy without "speaking the language", even if the labguage is inadequate.

an explanation is an explanation, it's job is to explain. If it explains, then it is deep enough for me, whether it is 'correct' or not is a matter of whether or not it adequately does it's job of explaining

and in my experience, psychedelic substances dissolve preconceptions, they dont strengthen them

and what do you mean by 'the language'?

[max_freakout]

I don't think those things are beyond the realm of real scientific inquiry, I just think that they're currently out of our reach for technical reasons.


Personally im not holding my breath for science to explain the psychedelic experience, i dont think they will vere even address the question, and even if they did i think it is highly likely that it would be beyond the explanatory power of their methods to explain

but as we stand here in 2007, science hasnt even begun to attempt to explain the psychedelic experience

[Steeldiehard]

Thanks for clarifying, psygnisfive. :)

Is anyone asserting that scientific formulas are developed to answer those "deep yearning questions"? I'm absolutely not trying to be argumentative...just trying to understand your position. Could you clarify what "deep" means for you? Because my perception of "deep" is focused insight (or better yet, introspection).

I'm not certain which McKenna talk I heard this from (Lorenzo has so many posted), but I recall that McKenna has said something along the lines of "just because everyone isn't a (insert any field of study), doesn't relieve us of the responsibility of knowing" (or something like that). :) I'm certain there is a lot of research being conducted out there in many fields that the "everyman" would not care about daily. However, who knows when information becomes relevant for the "everyman". I find information each day that is now relevant to my search for self, but I assure you that that when that research was being conducted, I did not find any relevant value.

How do you base your definition of something being profound? For me, profound is as profound does. (thanks Forest Gump) If you find something to be profound, who am I to say it is or isn't unless it rings true for me too?

Regarding the "harliner Chrisitian" (fundamentalists), so what. There are those fundamentalists who are of the line of thinking, that life should be live by their beliefs in God or else be condemned to death/hell/persecution. These folks have no problem violating my personal right to think and live for myself and may want to do me harm. There also other fundamentalists who choose to live and believe what they want...they many not approve of how I live, but they don't want to harm me...they just pray they could save me. It's all about choice, right?

Why are you against those who won't entertain your beliefs in evolution, and hold on tight to their FAITH? For these folks, FAITH helps them be happy and gets them through each day...isn't that what is most important?

I agree with you that our mind (spirit/energy/chi) is the core of who we are and it can't be explained by anything we know now. Perhaps you can accept the everyone is different, and if opinions differ, so be it. We choose.

Peace,

Steel

[psygnisfive]

there's a 'generally accepted answer'???? :confused: Please fill me in!!!

I mean that the psychedeic experience is a manifestation of the mind, consciousness is xyz, etc. Those theories have significantly less unknowns than a mystical explanation does. Not that the mystical explanation is wrong, but I have no inclination to accept it over a non mystical explanation.

and imo the 'reason' doesnt have to explain sentience, it has to explain existence in it's entirety, why does/should anything exist? Why isnt there just nothing? It's the ultimate existential question, and i would be amazed if there was a generally accepted answer

THAT is a far more interesting question. :)

My general view on that goes something like this:

If there's nothing, then there's no rules, no restrictions on what could be, etc. Anything is possible. And so everything that is possible is realized. Some things are interactive with other things and form one universe or another, or they form different forces, or whatever.

The view proposed by Brian Green, tghe string theorist, is that the universe is the way it is because its the only self consistent non-self-destructing design, or that it's one of multiple mutually independent consistent designs which all play out separate from one another.

[psygnisfive]

hey that was your words, not mine, i do not think that the psychedelic experience can be reduced to anything like what you suggested, for me it is an experience of divine mystery that penetrates right to the core of being

I think my use was perhaps not fully communicative of what I meant.

When I say psyhoemotional blah, I meant that all of human experiences are ultimately merely perception, whether its perception of sight and sound, perception of psychosomatic states (perception called feeling, i.e. feeling emotions), or perception of our own brain's expectations and beliefs (e.g. that something is profoundly important, that something is divine, etc.).

It's all perception, all psychological and emotional sense data, and the question I always want to ask is, when we have experiences of the divine, how do we distinguish between genuine experiences of an actually divine entity and ingenuine experiences of having part of our brain stimulated in particular ways? We have no absolute knowledge of reality, we only have experience, so we can never "know" that something is or isn't the actual divine, which is why I will not accept the divine as necessary explanation without god reason.

This is all starting to sound very Derrida-ish tho.

[psygnisfive]

Personally im not holding my breath for science to explain the psychedelic experience, i dont think they will vere even address the question, and even if they did i think it is highly likely that it would be beyond the explanatory power of their methods to explain

but as we stand here in 2007, science hasnt even begun to attempt to explain the psychedelic experience

But that's /precisely/ what I mean. you already have a preconceived notion about the explainability of the psychedelic experience! You're ALREADY predisposed to discount a scientific account, which makes it difficult for you to recognize a good explanation. You're already convinced that science can't do it, just like the fundies are. That's what I worry about, because it means that the truth is no longer the object of the seeking, it's the reaffirmation of convictions that is, and that's counterproductive to any real understanding. Psychedelics didn't open your mind, they closed it, by giving you such powerful experiences that you MUST accept their realness; the possibility of the experiences simulationality is not even present in your account.

[Steeldiehard]

I'm not sure I understand, psyg. Are you saying that it's impossible to have a true psychedelic experience because we have empirical knowledge of science & religion and are our minds are tainted?

Steel

[psygnisfive]

No, I'm saying that psychedelic experiences must not be automatically understood in some way, REGARDLESS of how much it FEELS such.

It's a matter of epistemology and has nothing to do with psychedelics:

Believing something to be true doesn't make it true. No matter how real a psychedelic experience seems to you, it's wholly irrational to believe that it was in fact real _just_ because it seemed real. The same applies to every day experiences, but that's a topic for a different forum, which is why I'm not going in depth about it.

Max said that his psychedelic experiences were of the divine mystery that ~. Well that's all good and well, but it's an EXPERIENCE. You must always see it as such; conviction that it was an experience of an actual divine mystery is not enough to say it was such, it's merely enough to say that you had an experience that seemed such.

The sense that something is true, wholly and utterly, and that it's divine and mysterious and whatever, does not mean that it actually is. It merely means that something made you have the sense that it is.

[psygnisfive]

Think of it this way:

Suppose we find out precisely how psychedelic experiences are induced, and we discover that they ARE merely activations in the brain. In that situation, all convictions contrary to it are merely _wrong_. Convictions, therefore, have no place in any account of "what really happened". They only have a place in accounting for what the person experienced in the subjective sense.

I'm not sure if this is McKenna-ish or not, because he did seem quite happy about the notion that some of these things _are_ manifest in every day life, which is precisely the thing that I think needs to be observed. But just because I experienced something in psychedelic space does not mean I should take that experience as gospel truth, I would instead have to hold back any hypothesizing about the realness and merely describe it in terms of experiences.

This is what I think is lacking in the psychedelic community; there seems to be a made rush to uphold the psychedelic experience as True with a capital T, simply because "I FELT it! I KNOW it's true! I just KNOW IT!", and that's a purely religious blind-faith stance. It's blind faith in your senses and in your own mind.

Ironically, it's hard-core empiricism! It's absolute conviction that if you saw it with your own eyes, it _must_ be real, if you feel it, it MUST be real, discounting the possibility that your eyes or your mind can be wrong or broken or deceived by malicious cartesian demons or matrixian robots.

[Steeldiehard]

Thanks for all that, psygnisfive. :) I'm grateful for you taking the time to elaborate. I apologize if I'm oversimplifying or being obtuse about your thoughts ...are you saying that nothing we experience in our conscious or unconscious mind can be described as being real, but rather must be described as experiences we frame based on empirical reference?

[psygnisfive]

Thanks for all that, psygnisfive. :) I'm grateful for you taking the time to elaborate. I apologize if I'm oversimplifying or being obtuse about your thoughts ...are you saying that nothing we experience in our conscious or unconscious mind can be described as being real, but rather must be described as experiences we frame based on empirical reference?

It's like a ferris wheel or merry go round. :P

No, what I'm saying is that perception is not reality. It goes back to Descartes and to Berkeley et al. When we have the experience of the color red, or when we look at a flower, we're experiencing mental constructions. Even if we assume that the experience is an unaltered experience of the sense data hitting our retinas — which is demonstrably false: for example, becoming so engrossed in a story that you literally stop being conscious of the world around you — we're still perceiving the photons reflected off the object, not the object itself. This extends even to pure emotions, which are merely your conscious perception of something in the brain — consider people who have all the sensory experiences of pain but none of the suffering and anguish that results, because they have had damage to parts of the brain responsible for manifesting pain as a conscious entity. Or consider the notion of memories, which can be false or which disappear: your perception of your own history is itself merely perception not direct access.

What I'm saying, then, is that we cannot be certain about the genuineness of the contents of an experience, whether that experience is a perceptual one, an emotional one, or a psychological one such as remembering or being convinced. We can ONLY be certain of the form of the experience, i.e. you can be certain that you "believe X" or "perceive X" or that "X seems like Y", but that's different than "X is true" or that "X exists" or "X exists as Y".

[Szifers]

One of the more typical psychedelic lessons is that one should conceptually remain as well rooted in direct experience as possible. Because if you wander away into the field of the loosely rooted abstract concepts, you can easily become self-defining and thus meaningless in your conceptions.

An experience being "real" in the sense of lacking some kind of hidden "simulationality" is hardly a well rooted concept. There is no way imaginable to find out that there is no further simulationality. When you realize that there is a deeper layer of content behind a perception, that's deeper understanding. It doesn't mean that there is nothing your shallower concept was referring to. It doesn't mean that it's not real. Or that it doesn't exist. "There is no spoon" is just playing with words. Of course there's a spoon. And of course you can call it a spoon. YOu can call it anything you want as long as you can use that word for contentful communication.

Saying that an experience is "not real" is absurd. YOu can name it, you can talk about it, and you can deepen your understanding of it. And through that process it wont stop being real.

As for explanations, there is a special case of non-material content that can be explained by physical phenomena. And that is sensual perception. We explain that with a concept of physical interaction with the physical outside world. But other than that, believing that the non-material plane can be seen as deriving from the material plane, and being fundamentally physical in its substance is only believed by the extreme hardcore materialists. Reality manifests iself in the form of thoughts, sensations, and other non-material forms. Believing that the imaginary meaning of our abstract conceptialization is the fundamental substance and the non-material reality that is directly present is secondary,is an upside down perspective. It doesn't really correspond to experience.

[psygnisfive]

One of the more typical psychedelic lessons is that one should conceptually remain as well rooted in direct experience as possible. Because if you wander away into the field of the loosely rooted abstract concepts, you can easily become self-defining and thus meaningless in your conceptions.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't remain conceptually rooted in direct experience, I'm merely saying that the experiences should be accepted for what they are: Experiences, not omniscience.

An experience being "real" in the sense of lacking some kind of hidden "simulationality" is hardly a well rooted concept. There is no way imaginable to find out that there is no further simulationality. When you realize that there is a deeper layer of content behind a perception, that's deeper understanding. It doesn't mean that there is nothing your shallower concept was referring to. It doesn't mean that it's not real. Or that it doesn't exist. "There is no spoon" is just playing with words. Of course there's a spoon. And of course you can call it a spoon. YOu can call it anything you want as long as you can use that word for contentful communication.

Agreed.

Saying that an experience is "not real" is absurd. YOu can name it, you can talk about it, and you can deepen your understanding of it. And through that process it wont stop being real.

I never said the experience was not real, I said the content should not be automatically assumed to be real. There's a difference, and you twist words and manipulate the focus of what I said to make it seem like I made no such difference clear, when I did the exact opposite.

As for explanations, there is a special case of non-material content that can be explained by physical phenomena. And that is sensual perception. We explain that with a concept of physical interaction with the physical outside world. But other than that, believing that the non-material plane can be seen as deriving from the material plane, and being fundamentally physical in its substance is only believed by the extreme hardcore materialists.

You make a fundamental error in this judgment: The unquestioned belief that there is a non-material plane in the first place. Second, you make the assumption that there is a true distinction between between "material" and "non-material" in a meaningful sense.

Reality manifests iself in the form of thoughts, sensations, and other non-material forms. Believing that the imaginary meaning of our abstract conceptialization is the fundamental substance and the non-material reality that is directly present is secondary,is an upside down perspective. It doesn't really correspond to experience.

I never said anything about abstract conceptualizations of anything. Further, by the same reasoning, believing that hallucinations seen while on a mind altering substance are as real as anything experienced naturally is ALSO an upside down perspective, given that the consumption of the substance should then be clearly seen as the _cause_ of the hallucinations, which does indeed correspond to experience.

But this is all completely irrelevant to the point that I was making, and you know that.

The fact remains, just because you see something and believe something doesn't make it real. And this fact is too frequently overlooked by the psychedelic community as a whole.

Furthermore, the belief that materialist or scientific explanations simply cannot explain some things predisposes people who hold those beliefs to discount any such explanations, regardless of whether or not those explanations do in fact explain things.

You yourself are a prime example of this; you read what I say but instead of seeing in it what I write, you see in it what you get from it, clouded by your stated anti-materialist conception of the world.

This is WRONG. It is blind, unthinking faith! You cannot claim that materialism is incapable of describing the universe because _you_ _don't_ _know_. You are neither god nor creator, and to do what you do is a matter of pure irrationality and childlike naivety. You believe your conception of the world is infallible and that YOU are infallible by denying the possibility that you are wrong.

This is precisely why the psychedelics community is not the vanguard of knowledge: Because people like you are insistent that they know The Truth, and that everyone else is wrong. You, Szifers, are nothing more than a fundamentalist and your religion is the religion of the inexplicable. You don't want understanding, you want dogma. You don't seek truth wherever it may be found, you seek only what you already believe: The idea that the world is mystical and ineffable now and forever in precisely the way that you think it is. You seek nothing more than the complete erasure of understanding, to replace it with blind faith in every single experience you have, regardless of context or the rest of your experiences. You are BAD for the community because you seek to destroy the pursuit of knowledge and replace it with a cult of ignorance.

[max_freakout]

But that's /precisely/ what I mean. you already have a preconceived notion about the explainability of the psychedelic experience! You're ALREADY predisposed to discount a scientific account, which makes it difficult for you to recognize a good explanation. You're already convinced that science can't do it, just like the fundies are. That's what I worry about, because it means that the truth is no longer the object of the seeking, it's the reaffirmation of convictions that is, and that's counterproductive to any real understanding. Psychedelics didn't open your mind, they closed it, by giving you such powerful experiences that you MUST accept their realness; the possibility of the experiences simulationality is not even present in your account.


It makes no difference that i am 'predisposed' to disxcounting a scientific explanation, given the fact that science as a whole is totally ignoring the phenomena of psychedelic experiences, and i think a large part of the reason why i might be predisposed in that way is simply because of the sheer inability of the scientific establishment to address the issue, they have to at least try and explain it before i can judge if it's a good explanation or not, and there is no indication that they are ever going to do this, since research into psychedelics practically disappeared in 1967. I cant discount a scientific account, if there is no scientific account to discount can i?

My mind was closed before i got into psychedelics, because i tacitly assumed that i had it all worked out, without ever really thinking abouyt it, i had an implicit model in my head of what the world was, and i was completely relaxed with that model, then psychedelics came into my life, and they shattered all my tacitly preconceived notions about what the world/life/existence was, and made me realise that anything could be true, if that means they closed my mind, then yes they closed my mind, but it certainly doesnt feel 'closed' to me as i am now in a position to accept anything that is revealed to me, i no longer feel that i 'know' anything and now i take all apparent knowledge to be merely provisional uintil it is shown to be false, is that really a closed mind? :confused:

The experiences forced me to accept their realness, because they are real, they are repeatable, and intersubjectively verifiable, and that is as real as real gets as far as i can tell

I havent decalred that i am certain that science will never be able to explain the psychedelic experience meaningfully, i just have a very strong hunch that this is the case, but as i just said, im open to anything that comes along, if a scientist did one day explain it, then that would be great, but until it happens, until scientists actually start to try and explain it, i am not going to hold my breath

and i think you are wrong to say that truth is not the object of the seeking, i think that truth is precisely the object of seeking, it always has been, but science is clearly not interested in trying to discover the truth about the psychedelic experience

[max_freakout]

I mean that the psychedeic experience is a manifestation of the mind, consciousness is xyz, etc. Those theories have significantly less unknowns than a mystical explanation does. Not that the mystical explanation is wrong, but I have no inclination to accept it over a non mystical explanation.

To say that the 'psychedelic experience is a manfestation of the mind' doesnt explain anything, it is a trivial truism, it's like saying an x is an x, and i dont know what you mean by a 'mystical explanation'

[max_freakout]

Max said that his psychedelic experiences were of the divine mystery that ~. Well that's all good and well, but it's an EXPERIENCE. You must always see it as such; conviction that it was an experience of an actual divine mystery is not enough to say it was such, it's merely enough to say that you had an experience that seemed such.

The sense that something is true, wholly and utterly, and that it's divine and mysterious and whatever, does not mean that it actually is. It merely means that something made you have the sense that it is.


EVERYTHING is an experience, you can phenomenologically categorize absolutely everything, the computer in front of me is an experience, im not saying anything in particular is 'true' because im saying it's all a mystery, and the psychedelic experience seems to me to be at the heart of the mysteriousness of that mystery

[Szifers]

Psygnisfive, if you agree that there is a spoon and that it is a spoon even if deeper understanding reveals some underlying level of deeper reality, I don't understand what you mean when you're talking about the experience vs. the content. What's the experience if not content?

"[...]the belief that materialist or scientific explanations simply cannot explain some things [...]"

Heh :) You mean that I shoud believe that maybe they can explain everything? Erm... Does that mean that the development of science is over? Everything is explained? Who knows what science will and will not be able to explain? Who knows what "science" will mean in the future? Maybe we will go back to chicken guts. I can't see into the future, so I don't know.

"you make the assumption that there is a true distinction between between "material" and "non-material" in a meaningful sense."

I'm not assuming that. I know that. I understand English well enough to know that most of the people can tell if something is material or not, and most of the time they agree on that with each other. That's meaningfulness.

The "non-material plane" is simply a name for all the non-material phenomena. It's not a question of belief. It's a question of language.

And I'm not anti-materialist. I love materialism. The greatest stuff for science fiction. It's a grand celebration of human artifice. A universe made of an infinitely intricate network of very simple mathematical expressions. A typically modern projection of the machine-like virtual reality of city life during the last couple of centuries. That's what we are. Makers of machinery. I just think that it's not a good idea to actually believe that the artificial conceptual machinery of scientistic materialism is true.

[max_freakout]

I never said the experience was not real, I said the content should not be automatically assumed to be real.

what is the difference between the psychedelic experience,. and the content of the psychedelic experience?


The fact remains, just because you see something and believe something doesn't make it real.

What does make something real?


Furthermore, the belief that materialist or scientific explanations simply cannot explain some things predisposes people who hold those beliefs to discount any such explanations, regardless of whether or not those explanations do in fact explain things.

perhaps, but the fact is that materialist science doesnt even attempt to explain the kind of phenomena you encounter in the psychedelic experience, so there is nothing to discount and from the way science treats psychedelics, it doesnt look as if there ever will be


This is precisely why the psychedelics community is not the vanguard of knowledge


who is the vanguard of knowledge? Is there a vanguard of knowledge?

[Ostritt]

Yea the fact that something needs to be verified by two perceivers in order to be real is simply an arbitrary distinction that fits into the prevailing paradigm. How is objective experience more 'real' than subjective experience? No two people observe things in exactly the same way anyway, even mathematics, and in a way the only thing you can say for certain is "I saw this". The fact that you didn't see it doesn't make it any less real imo. Effectively, science seems to want to say nothing is real until their priests say it is.

[max_freakout]

Yea the fact that something needs to be verified by two perceivers in order to be real is simply an arbitrary distinction that fits into the prevailing paradigm. How is objective experience more 'real' than subjective experience? No two people observe things in exactly the same way anyway, even mathematics, and in a way the only thing you can say for certain is "I saw this". The fact that you didn't see it doesn't make it any less real imo. Effectively, science seems to want to say nothing is real until their priests say it is.



but even the psychedelic experience is to a large extent intersubjectively verifiable, you can see this from readin trip reports, especially salvia, people seem to be perceiving the same thing, it's just hard to say WHAT it is that's being perceived, and that leads to difficuilties comparing different people's accounts, but over a brad range of truip reports, it is clear imo that it is the same phenomena being described

but you have to take the drugs to perceive it, it isnt something that appears in public 3 dimensional space, but it does appear to anyone (roughly speaking) who takes the drug

[Szifers]

but even the psychedelic experience is to a large extent intersubjectively verifiable, you can see this from readin trip reports, especially salvia, people seem to be perceiving the same thing, it's just hard to say WHAT it is that's being perceived, and that leads to difficuilties comparing different people's accounts, but over a brad range of truip reports, it is clear imo that it is the same phenomena being described

but you have to take the drugs to perceive it, it isnt something that appears in public 3 dimensional space, but it does appear to anyone (roughly speaking) who takes the drug

The obvious fantasy is that we must be able to develop our technology and science to the level when we can model the human brain with good accuracy. And then we will surely be able to understand the brain and to answer questions like that. I wouldn't mind that. But I suspect that a total understanding of the biological brain is a few epochs away in the future. We will surely have some fundamental revelations before that happens.

[max_freakout]

The obvious fantasy is that we must be able to develop our technology and science to the level when we can model the human brain with good accuracy. And then we will surely be able to understand the brain and to answer questions like that. I wouldn't mind that. But I suspect that a total understanding of the biological brain is a few epochs away in the future. We will surely have some fundamental revelations before that happens.


i think it may well be a fundamentally erroneous assumption, which science seems to have made unquestioningly, that the way to understand the mind is by poking around in the brain to see how it works, it may well be the case that this is ultimately fruitless approach, because the mind isnt an object and it does not conform to the same rules that objects conform to

the best scientifically derived insight into the psychedelic experience seems to be the observation that it is the serotonin receptors that are affected by psychedelics, this was discovered in the sixties, then in kmo's interview with Charles Nichiols, Nichols repeated it, indicating top me that science has made no progress whatsoever in 50 years

[Szifers]

the best scientifically derived insight into the psychedelic experience seems to be the observation that it is the serotonin receptors that are affected by psychedelics, this was discovered in the sixties, then in kmo's interview with Charles Nichiols, Nichols repeated it, indicating top me that science has made no progress whatsoever in 50 years

Heh yeah well, they obviously alter the brain chemistry under neural patterns that are somehow related to the highest functions of the mind. It's not easy. The brain is a really complex thing.

[Steeldiehard]

Hey psyg, I echo Max's request for you to provide an example of something that is real to you.

Obtusely on the merrygoround,

Steel
;)

[psygnisfive]

and i think you are wrong to say that truth is not the object of the seeking, i think that truth is precisely the object of seeking, it always has been, but science is clearly not interested in trying to discover the truth about the psychedelic experience

I didn't say that truth isn't the object of seeking, I said that if you close yourself off to an entire realm of explanation then you're no longer seeking the truth.

Psygnisfive, if you agree that there is a spoon and that it is a spoon even if deeper understanding reveals some underlying level of deeper reality, I don't understand what you mean when you're talking about the experience vs. the content. What's the experience if not content?

What is a flavor if not the food? What is the music if not the instrument? What is the painting if not the subject?

If you don't see the difference between the experience and the thing you're experiencing then we have nothing more to discuss.

Heh You mean that I shoud believe that maybe they can explain everything? Erm... Does that mean that the development of science is over? Everything is explained? Who knows what science will and will not be able to explain? Who knows what "science" will mean in the future? Maybe we will go back to chicken guts. I can't see into the future, so I don't know.


Can and Has are two different things. I don't think you should believe science has explained everything or anything, I merely believe that it is foolish to decide that science cannot explain a phenomena based just on feelings and whims.

what is the difference between the psychedelic experience,. and the content of the psychedelic experience?

See above. It's the same difference between the signals streaming from your retina to your brain, or light streaming through space, and the object that the light reflected off of.

In an ironic twist, I shall quote you saying the same things I've said, but in a different, less controversial, context:

"The insight that psychedelics gave me into this, is they made me realise the 'representational' aspect of perception, the world that you 'see' isnt the real world, it is a mental representation of something which is hypothesized to be real, but which is never directly perceived. Consciousness is not 'directly' aware of reality, it is 'intermediately' aware, through the intermediate mental constructs"

Do you see now what I've been saying? This is no less true of the experiences had during trips. All experience is thus. Psychedelics just have the advantage of simultaneously including the experience of _conviction_, which makes the whole all the more convincing.

What does make something real?

That's a good question, and there is no good answer right now, atleast none that's generally accepted. My usual response is that if something depends on my experience of it, then it's not real, rather it's a psychological or mental phenomena.

perhaps, but the fact is that materialist science doesnt even attempt to explain the kind of phenomena you encounter in the psychedelic experience, so there is nothing to discount and from the way science treats psychedelics, it doesnt look as if there ever will be

The problems of government legal issues are not the fault of the people affect by them.

who is the vanguard of knowledge? Is there a vanguard of knowledge?

Well you can't be the vanguard of knowledge if you're not seeking knowledge. Monks living in a monastery seek nothing but what they already believe in. They don't seek truth, they seek their version of reality.

The psychedelic community risks being monks in monasteries by not exploring as many possibilities as possible. If it merely sits on a single belief about how-and-why then it's become dogmatic and no longer seeks truth.

Hey psyg, I echo Max's request for you to provide an example of something that is real to you.

I maintain the position that I have NO knowledge of the real, only knowledge of my experiences, and I refuse to assert that anything I experience is real just because I experience it.

My problem is that people people like Szifers make the assumption that experiencing something is a demonstration that it's real, rather than just another experience that needs to be considered. My problem is that people like Szifers don't seem to grasp the difference between experience and experienced.

[Szifers]

The thing you experience is not the content of the experience, Psygnisfive. The thing you experience is the object of your experience. So are you saying that one shouldn't believe that the object of the psychedelic experience really exists? Or that it's real? And real is something that is independent of your experience of it? What are you talking about? If you want to talk about a certain quality of an experience, it's "real"-ness, then start by finding out what you mean by that. I suspect that it's some kind of a mythical absolute truth, that cannot be known, but it's there somewhere, an invisible absolute, the root and measure of all truth, or something in that general monotheistic direction. But it's hard to tell, because you haven't defined the central concept of your energetic yet unfocused criticism of I don't even know what.

[psygnisfive]

The thing you experience is not the content of the experience, Psygnisfive. The thing you experience is the object of your experience.

Yes. As I said.

So are you saying that one shouldn't believe that the object of the psychedelic experience really exists? Or that it's real?

I'm saying that you cannot maintain any assertions about the object of experience, only about the experience itself.

And real is something that is independent of your experience of it? What are you talking about?

What do you mean what am I talking about? It's right there. A thing is real if it's not dependent on being experienced, otherwise it's imagination.

If you want to talk about a certain quality of an experience, it's "real"-ness, then start by finding out what you mean by that. I suspect that it's some kind of a mythical absolute truth, that cannot be known, but it's there somewhere, an invisible absolute, the root and measure of all truth, or something in that general monotheistic direction. But it's hard to tell, because you haven't defined the central concept of your energetic yet unfocused criticism of I don't even know what.

I've defined it perfectly well and perfectly focused. I find my words repeated by you and by max only in different contexts, which is the most ironic thing I can think of.

You, on the other hand, haven't defined a single thing no have you critiqued anything I've said, you've merely closed your eyes and typed, without reading, and then you repeat things I say as if I had never said them.

[Szifers]

No, Psygnis, I haven't critiqued anything you said. Why would I?

I just don't understand. You said that you agreed with what I said in #35 about the illusionary spoon of the virtual world really existing and really being a spoon. But now you say that you "cannot maintain any assertions about the object of experience".

[psygnisfive]

No, Psygnis, I haven't critiqued anything you said. Why would I?

I just don't understand. You said that you agreed with what I said in #35 about the illusionary spoon of the virtual world really existing and really being a spoon. But now you say that you "cannot maintain any assertions about the object of experience".

There is no inconsistency there. The experience is real, and to talk about the spoon-as-experience as being real is completely valid, but to talk about the spoon-as-experienced as being real is complete fallacy.

You simply cannot make assertions about the object of perception without falling into the realm of pure fantasy. You can only talk about your experiences. Everything else is pure conjecture. This applies across the board, from every day life to he psychedelic experience.

[Szifers]

Maybe I should ask it directly.

When you're thinking of the "remaining" mysteries, do you imagine it like science explaining all mysteries one by one, until all mysteries go away? As the sphere of understanding grows, the surface area of total cluelessness will diminish?

[psygnisfive]

My suspicion is that the more we explain, the more we will have to explain. Or the harder the remaining unexplained things will become.

And I don't think this is limited to what we now call science, as I see no true distinction between use of psychedelics and the traditional scientific approach. I think this will be true regardless of mode of explanation.

That question was far more on topic than the rest of the conversation. :p

[Steeldiehard]

All I can I say is...Damn...I must not have experimented with enough psychedelics yet. psygnisfive, Good luck on your journey to find truth/reality/whatever...may you be happy the entire way. I'm not certain how you maintain sanity with your conviction that nothing you have experienced is real. How do you stay grounded? :)

It is entirely possible that you may not find what you seek until your time as a human comes to end. May that time come many happy years from now.

Peace,

Steel

[psygnisfive]

All I can I say is...Damn...I must not have experimented with enough psychedelics yet. psygnisfive, Good luck on your journey to find truth/reality/whatever...may you be happy the entire way. I'm not certain how you maintain sanity with your conviction that nothing you have experienced is real. How do you stay grounded? :)

It's not that I don't comport myself as if it's real, I just don't make any claims that tomorrow I'm not going to be pulled out of the Matrix or something. When considering philosophical and scientific matters I approach the world with the understanding that I might not be seeing reality. The simple fact that there are crazy people with delusions and hallucinations should be enough to convince anyone that you can't simply assume that anything you see is real, otherwise they would _have_ to accept that a crazy person too _should_ be completely convinced of the realness of his or her hallucinations. I mean think about it, if you believe your senses and your mind are infallible, than you're saying you're immune from a) insanity, and b) trickery or other externally induced non-real experiences. You're saying you're God, basically; that you're omniscient. I don't spend my day worried that nothings real, but I don't make the claim that I _know_ that it is. I approach it for what it is: the world of experience.

[psygnisfive]

I mean it's nothing new, what I'm saying. This was the basis of Descartes' skepticism before he added God into the equation, and it was the basis of Berkeley and Hume's ideas about "sense data", etc. The idea that you never experience things-in-themselves, but merely sense data or mental constructs, is nothing new at all. The only thing I'm doing is extending what they said to the whole of human experience, namely the psychedelic experience, which they had no knowledge of afaik. Just like your experience of a cup isn't direct knowledge, neither is your experience of _anything_. That's all. It's just that simple.

[Szifers]

Or you could simply give up your belief in your invisible, unknowable absolute truth, Psygnisfive, and then you wouldn't feel the need to judge other people's beliefs in order to be sure of yourself.

You changed your mind or totally misunderstood me when you said that you agree that there really is a spoon. And that it is a spoon. Reality may be an illusion, but then that illusion is reality. That illusion is what reality means. I didn't say that I really experience the sight that I usually call the sight of a spoon. I said that there really is a spoon and that it is a spoon. I don't know how you could misunderstand that.

By introducing your abstract, invisible and unknowable absolute truth, you cannot see crazy people as living in their own reality. You must believe that you must be able to judge the crazy person in order to be intellectually honest to the Truth. This is a superfluous and meaningless hypothesis. The idea of an unknowable absolute truth has some kind of phylosophical appeal to it, but I think that it's one of those totally unrooted concepts.

Your emotional rants about how others see it all wrong show that you take the question too seriously. Yes, it's indeed ironic that you claim to represent mental freedom, but get criticised for being annoyingly dogmatic. And you speak against religious fundamentalism, but at the same time you insist that others should not believe this or that, based on your idea of an invisible and unknowable absolute truth. Ironically monotheistic idea.

When people say that there is a spoon, the spoon is real and it really is a spoon, they don't mean that there is no undelying simulationality. And they don't say that they experience the sight that they usually call the sight of a spoon. They mean that there is a reality, and in that reality there is a thing that is a spoon. Even if that reality is an illusion. Illusions are realities too. Hell, it's even possible that all realities are illusionary, in the sense that there is an underlying deeper level which makes it secondary and illusionary.

That's the adult way of relating to the mystery. Not waiting for the day when we find real reality, and until then not believing anything. You cannot preserve a word for the time after history. Use it for what it's used for, and then you will be able to communicate using the word. If I say that I saw God in the LSD trip, I am not saying that there is no further understanding, or that there is no underlying level of simulationality about it. I just say, just like when I say that there is a spoon, that there is something that I call God. Of course I wouldn't say such things, but that's just an example. The first step in dealing with the mysterious is to accept it as mysterious. And then, without trying to fit it into existing frameworks, it can unfold its content, which is neccessary for deeper understanding.

Psychedelic experiences are sometimes like awakenings. Awakening from the matrix. And we can talk about that underlying transcendental reality if we can find the common words. Saying that someone shouldn't believe that it's real or shouldn't believe that science as we today know it can not possibly be able to grasp it, is just proof that one hasn't really looked around out there. Of course there always can be a further level of understanding. Neurological or otherwise. But that doesn't change the realness of the object of the experience.

[psygnisfive]

You say that I'm being dogmatic and holding to the existence of an unknowable truth (which ofcourse is on a the whole obviously absurd, since I have not once argued for anything other than a plurality of ways to understand things in attempt to find the best ways), and then you turn around and proclaim that experience isn't unreal or capable of being unreal, which is itself a dogmatic assertion completely denying the possibility of wrongness.

I'll say this one last time, Szifers, and that's it: Just because you believe it doesn't mean it's true. Beliefs have no place in any explanation, and if you don't agree, I believe you're wrong and so you are according to your own judgments on the role of truth of beliefs.

Q.E.D.

Discussion about _that_ topic over, thanks to Szifers.

Anyone care to actually continue with the original topic of what actually _are_ the remaining mysteries? :p

[Szifers]

I didn't say that it's true because I believe it is true, or anything similar.

"That topic" is not independent from your original question. Your question is what we are talking about. What do you mean by "remaining" and what do you mean by "mystery"? You insist that no, the psychedelic experience is not a mystery. And now you are waiting for the next so called mystery to debunk with your sharp dramatization, ending in "q. e. d" and in stating that you are not willing to discuss it any further?

What are the remaining mysteries, Psygnisfive?

[psygnisfive]

I didn't say that it's true because I believe it is true, or anything similar.

"That topic" is not independent from your original question. Your question is what we are talking about. What do you mean by "remaining" and what do you mean by "mystery"? You insist that no, the psychedelic experience is not a mystery.

I don't think I ever claimed that psychedelic experiences are not mysteries (tho my recollection isn't perfect and I'm not going to go back and read all these posts), I was merely skeptical of the particular way in which the mystery was approached.

And now you are waiting for the next so called mystery to debunk with your sharp dramatization, ending in "q. e. d" and in stating that you are not willing to discuss it any further?

What are the remaining mysteries, Psygnisfive?

From my perspective? What it means for something to exist. Why the laws of physics are the way they are — i.e. what determined them. What determined what determined physics, etc. What time is.

And, ofcourse, if the content of the psychedelic experience can be shown to be more than just experience, what is it, why is it, how is it.

But I make no claim to know the answers, or even the validity, of the questions as posed.

[Szifers]

But how are they "remaining" mysteries, if we don't know anything about reality anyway?

[psygnisfive]

Whether or not we know something about thing-as-experienced is irrelevant to the point of explaining them.

[Szifers]

Okay. I see. That's interesting.

[Steeldiehard]

I understand, psygnisfive. :) Do you see any parallels between yourself and the fundamentalist "Christian hardliners"? You subscribe to philosophy which intimately resonates with you...Awesome! Others have their own beliefs, regardless of how those beliefs were formed...and that's awesome too!

For me, as long as people who believe differently don't want to harm me (or others) for not believing as they do...it's all good. I appreciate your position, as well as the others who have posted their positions...and it's healthy to debate in order to gain understanding.

Later,

Steel

I mean it's nothing new, what I'm saying. This was the basis of Descartes' skepticism before he added God into the equation, and it was the basis of Berkeley and Hume's ideas about "sense data", etc. The idea that you never experience things-in-themselves, but merely sense data or mental constructs, is nothing new at all. The only thing I'm doing is extending what they said to the whole of human experience, namely the psychedelic experience, which they had no knowledge of afaik. Just like your experience of a cup isn't direct knowledge, neither is your experience of _anything_. That's all. It's just that simple.

[max_freakout]

I don't think I ever claimed that psychedelic experiences are not mysteries (tho my recollection isn't perfect and I'm not going to go back and read all these posts), I was merely skeptical of the particular way in which the mystery was approached.


You said that it was closed-minded to think that science might be fundamentally unable to 'explain' the psychedelic experience

please acknowledge the fact that, until science at least attempts to explain it, it is at least possible that they might not be able to

and also acknowledge the fact that they havent even attempted to explain it, they have completely ignored it

[psygnisfive]

You said that it was closed-minded to think that science might be fundamentally unable to 'explain' the psychedelic experience

please acknowledge the fact that, until science at least attempts to explain it, it is at least possible that they might not be able to

I already explicitly stated as such. My problem was not with the idea that science _might_ not, but that it _cannot_, merely because people _feel_ it can't.

and also acknowledge the fact that they havent even attempted to explain it, they have completely ignored it

I don't deny that, but then, there are two very good reasons why the scientific community hasn't looked indepth into psychedelics:

1: On the surface it seems like nothing more than mere hallucination, and there's no reason to think otherwise yet (easily rectifiable with exploratory experiments, I hope),

and

2: It's illegal (much harder to rectify, what with jail and all).

[max_freakout]

1: On the surface it seems like nothing more than mere hallucination, and there's no reason to think otherwise yet (easily rectifiable with exploratory experiments, I hope),


Please explain what you mean by this, ie what does 'mere halucination' mean? :confused:
and how would experimentation help?

[psygnisfive]

Please explain what you mean by this, ie what does 'mere halucination' mean? :confused:
and how would experimentation help?

The psychedelic experience, by itself, affects only the one experiencer and only psychologically (as far as anyone can tell), so the easiest thing to assume is that it's "all in your head". What I'd like to find is evidence to suggest that it's not just "all in your head" but instead something that's as much not in my head as you or Szif or steel, etc. (assuming you're not in my head. ;))

Even if no such information is forthcoming as of yet, there might be other things that could be found to be useful. But thats another issue.

[max_freakout]

But what kind of 'evidence' is going to suggest that?

[psygnisfive]

But what kind of 'evidence' is going to suggest that?

It's not a specific kind of evidence. It's any kind of evidence.

[max_freakout]

It's not a specific kind of evidence. It's any kind of evidence.

the psychedelic experience is a subjective xperience, im asking you what kind of scientific experiement could possibly show anything about it


ie what would need to be done experiementally to shed light on the psychedelic experience?

[psygnisfive]

the psychedelic experience is a subjective xperience, im asking you what kind of scientific experiement could possibly show anything about it


ie what would need to be done experiementally to shed light on the psychedelic experience?

Assuming that the content of the experience /isn't/ just mental construction, you'd expect to have some ability to verify it.

Case 1: The content can only be accessed through psychedelics, and contains no connection to the "real world". Implies: We'd expect the content of the visions to remain accessible to multiple experiencers in isolation of one another.

Case 2: The content can be accessed through multiple means, and contains no connection to the "real world". Implies: ??

Case 3: The content has some connection to the "real world". Implies: We'd expect to be able to gain knowledge of the "real world" that should theoretically be off limits to the person engaged in a trip. For instance, "telepathic" abilities, "clairvoyance", etc. Anything that shouldn't be accessible to the person.

Those are just what I can tell. I think case 3 is plausible if the contents of the psychedelic experience are "real", because there's obviously some connection through the mind to the psychedelic realm, so there has to be some physical connection from matter/energy to psychedelic "stuff".

Cases 1 and 2 are also plausible, but harder to demonstrate because it would require some means of leaving a sign of ones presence in the psychedelic realm, which would have to be located by a second party. Without a proper description of how the psychedelic realm works, there's no assurance that a second party can find whatever embellishment you've made.

[max_freakout]

Assuming that the content of the experience /isn't/ just mental construction, you'd expect to have some ability to verify it.

Case 1: The content can only be accessed through psychedelics, and contains no connection to the "real world". Implies: We'd expect the content of the visions to remain accessible to multiple experiencers in isolation of one another.

Case 2: The content can be accessed through multiple means, and contains no connection to the "real world". Implies: ??

Case 3: The content has some connection to the "real world". Implies: We'd expect to be able to gain knowledge of the "real world" that should theoretically be off limits to the person engaged in a trip. For instance, "telepathic" abilities, "clairvoyance", etc. Anything that shouldn't be accessible to the person.

Those are just what I can tell. I think case 3 is plausible if the contents of the psychedelic experience are "real", because there's obviously some connection through the mind to the psychedelic realm, so there has to be some physical connection from matter/energy to psychedelic "stuff".

Cases 1 and 2 are also plausible, but harder to demonstrate because it would require some means of leaving a sign of ones presence in the psychedelic realm, which would have to be located by a second party. Without a proper description of how the psychedelic realm works, there's no assurance that a second party can find whatever embellishment you've made.


the psychedelic experience is a subjective experience, it isnt a 'realm' in the sense of a physical place, it is a stream of conscious phenomena of a special kind, that is a 'psychedelic'/mind-manifesting kind. So it sounds to me totally absurd to suggest a kind of scientific enquiry into the psychedelic experience which would require leaving some kind of 'token' inside the psychedelic 'realm' :confused:. You cant equate the psychedelic experience with some kind of objective space, because tht isnt what it is, it is inherrently and fundamentally subjective

There is no big suprise to say that psychedelic phenomena are accesible to multiple experiencers in isolation, to deny that would be senseless, just read the book 'DMT - the spirit molecule', or peruse the libraries of trip reports at erowid, to confirm this for yourself. The miraculous, healing insanity of the psychedelic experience is available to every human mind

i am asking you what kind of scientific experiment could possibly yield the kind of objective results that you seem to be demanding, and you seem to be ignoring the question. I suggest to you that there is no conceivable objective 'result' to be obtained from the psychedelic experience. If you disagree with this, then please answer my question

my contention is, that science couldnt possibly deal with, and explain the psychedelic experience, because subjective experience falls radically outside the domain of scientific enquiry. The description and categorization (and ultimately perhaps explanation) of the phenomena of subjecticve experience is the domain of phenomenology and philosophy of mind (in particular philosophy of perception). Another way of saying this is perhaps to say that subjective experience is to be explored by means of meditating on/thinking about subjective experiencing, and scientific results are obtained by poking around physical matter, these are 2 radically different methodologies to explore 2 radically different domains of enquiry

[psygnisfive]

I think I see where this is.

I understand and wholeheartedly agree with the notion that science isn't, afaik, equipped to explain subjective experience, but that's not my aim. My aim is not to explain anything, firstly, but rather to find evidence of somethings existence, which is a prescientific task. And secondly, the object of inquiry isn't the subjective at all, but the objective; the task I would for is to find out if the content of the psychedelic experience really IS subjective or not. Purely subjective things are insightful only with respect to the subject, they can't tell you anything about the world at large (excluding the insights the subject might have, since the subjects thinking about the world would itself be reflected in the content in some cases). But if the content of the experience IS in some way objective and not the manifestation of the mind of the subject, that would be major, and would be revealed as described previously. But this is if your idea of the purely subjective nature of the psychedelic experience is wrong. If you're right, we would expect those three situations to show nothing.

[psygnisfive]

Let me put that more succinctly:

If the psychedelic experience is nothing more than subjective (the current scientific view), then I agree that contemporary science is hard pressed to explain it.

If it's not just subjective, contemporary science may or may not be able to explain or describe it.

My desire is to find out which if is applicable (i.e. is it subjective or objective), and if it's objective, how can we describe it.

[max_freakout]

But of course it is subjective, it is an experience, and experiences are subjective, an experience isnt an object

[London Eye]

So are you in agreement that all the talk of DMT elves, et al, existing in some alternate universe is fiction or delusion? For sure?

Are you saying there is no alternate world and that, definitely, the experience is going on in the subject's head and that that head and experience has no connection with the outside world?

Are you suggesting there is no outside world?

This looks like a fascinating topic for discussion and at the focal point of the whole discussion of psychedelic experience and spirituality.

Maybe the scientific method, as it stands, does not have the tools to verify the psychedelic experience, but to say that science (very loose definition - enquiry into knowledge) cannot explain the subjective experience does not concur with eastern science, eg yoga, that does have a language to explain the subjective experience.

But anyway, off to a gig to subjectively experience an objectively (as in many would agree) beautiful female (scout niblett), playing music drawn from her subjective experiences.:rolleyes:

Two days to go Max. Get your podcast ready :D

[psygnisfive]

But of course it is subjective, it is an experience, and experiences are subjective, an experience isnt an object

The experience is subjective, ofcourse, but the content of the experience may not be, which is more the point.

[psygnisfive]

So are you in agreement that all the talk of DMT elves, et al, existing in some alternate universe is fiction or delusion? For sure?

What I'm saying is I don't know but I want to find out

Are you suggesting there is no outside world?

Good question. :) More important is, is there no inside world? Do both exist? I'd answer that both must, which is the core thing to address.

[London Eye]

Sorry, Psygnisfive, the question was addressed to Max. Was in a bit of a rush so didn't make myself clear. Now am a bit stoned so probably gonna make less sense. :)

I think your questions are legitimate ones. To say that the subjective experience cannot be empirically verified, which seems to be what Max is saying (correct me if I'm wrong, of course), is wrong as I see it, because, as I said, eastern philosophies have been doing so for thousands of years.

They use a different way of observing correlations between people, of the "internal" experience we all have, but they nevertheless have developed means to map this internal experience (come to think of it even the near east/west with the sephiroth in kabbalah has done the same, not to mention the cultures of south, central and north america and, in fact, all religions around the world, from animist to fully fledged churches).

But the scientific revolution, in casting out all metaphysical thought, has yet to develop a replacement, a language that can communicate the internal experience in an external language that can be agreed upon (and this thing we call language must be acknowledged as an external phenomenon, or else we are saying there is no such thing as the external, and then we are back to metaphysics).

So, either way the jury is still out, but I definitely agree that the question is a valid one and has the possibility of being definitively answered.

But then, I suppose that's just another belief :rolleyes:

[max_freakout]

The experience is subjective, ofcourse, but the content of the experience may not be, which is more the point.

the content of the experience is subjectively experienced content

[max_freakout]

So are you in agreement that all the talk of DMT elves, et al, existing in some alternate universe is fiction or delusion? For sure?

:confused: No, it is as real as anything else, it is an experience



Are you saying there is no alternate world and that, definitely, the experience is going on in the subject's head and that that head and experience has no connection with the outside world?

the experience is certainly going on inside the subject's head, that is obvious, you take a drug, and you have an experience


Are you suggesting there is no outside world?


it is impossible to know that, by any means, the outside world is a hypothesis, it always has been


Maybe the scientific method, as it stands, does not have the tools to verify the psychedelic experience, but to say that science (very loose definition - enquiry into knowledge) cannot explain the subjective experience does not concur with eastern science, eg yoga, that does have a language to explain the subjective experience.

:confused: yoga cannot be called 'eastern science' :confused:

and science, as we know it, completely lacks the explanatory power to explain subjective experience, and they havent even tried to explain it

[max_freakout]

psygnisfive are you ever going to answer my question? Ive asked it a few times and you have repeatedly ignored it, what kind of scientific experiement could possibly yield the results that you are after?

[psygnisfive]

psygnisfive are you ever going to answer my question? Ive asked it a few times and you have repeatedly ignored it, what kind of scientific experiement could possibly yield the results that you are after?

I did anwer:

The kind that either has the experiencer accessing information they shouldn't be able to access without being present to the thing experienced (e.g. Something based on reports of telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, etc.), or has the experiencer leaving a mark on the content of the pychedelic world that someone else can discover. This would be quite conclusive, for me atleast, and for the scientific establishment.

If you want the DESIGN of such an experiment, that different, but design is for the most part irrelevant right now.

[psygnisfive]

the content of the experience is subjectively experienced content

Ceci n'est pas une pipe. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a pipe that was portrayed in the painting.

[Szifers]

>>Are you suggesting there is no outside world?

>it is impossible to know that, by any means, the outside world is a hypothesis, it always has been

It's not a hypothesis, Max. How is it a hypothesis? It's a conceptual framework. A model. A linguistic construct. There is no real question of the existence of reality. They mean the same thing. That's what existing means. You cannot tell the difference between the hypothesis being right or wrong, therefore it is not a hypothesis. Or have I already said that? Soz, me stoned badly :D

[Samwise Ganja]

What do you think the remaining mysteries are in the universe? What problems do you think we have yet to even begin to explain or describe, and why?

I find the following mysteries to be the eternal questions/problems of philosophy and being human:

Who am I?
Why am I here?
What is the meaning of life? (it´s not 42 by the way)
Where are we going / Where is the universe going?

Sometimes during altered states of consciousness, we understand the answers to these questions, but then normal consensus reality and the ego kicks in.

I´m interested in the process of Death & Dying (or the death of the ego and return back into ego self) for I suspect the answers become clear once we come to the realisation of our connection to the cosmos.

[max_freakout]

I did anwer:

The kind that either has the experiencer accessing information they shouldn't be able to access without being present to the thing experienced (e.g. Something based on reports of telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, etc.), or has the experiencer leaving a mark on the content of the pychedelic world that someone else can discover. This would be quite conclusive, for me atleast, and for the scientific establishment.

If you want the DESIGN of such an experiment, that different, but design is for the most part irrelevant right now.

Sorry yes you did answer :o

but as i said, what you are demanding of this experiement is ridiculous, you cannot leave a 'mark' inside an experience :confused:, it isnt like a room where you can leave something, it's an experience, it's like saying you could leave a mark inside happiness, it doesnt make sense, so you are precluding a scientific discovery from being made yourself, imo, because you have set absurdly high standards for the objectivity of the evidence that this scietific enquiry could possibly reveal. It wpuld be impossible to design such an experiment

[max_freakout]

>>Are you suggesting there is no outside world?

>it is impossible to know that, by any means, the outside world is a hypothesis, it always has been

It's not a hypothesis, Max. How is it a hypothesis? It's a conceptual framework. A model. A linguistic construct. There is no real question of the existence of reality. They mean the same thing. That's what existing means. You cannot tell the difference between the hypothesis being right or wrong, therefore it is not a hypothesis. Or have I already said that? Soz, me stoned badly :D



It is the existence of the outside world that is the hypothesis, it is a belief or assumption that there exists such a thing as externality

'outside world' is a linguistic concept, used to refer to something which is hypothesized to be real/existing

There is a real question of the existence/non-existence of external reality, epitomised by materialism/idealism. It seems very apparent to me that experience is mediated by symbols, i am not 'directly' aware of the world

[Samwise Ganja]

I just realised that this thread is about 7 pages long. Whereas I thought it had only got to one page and no one had said what I wrote in my post. Sorry about that. But now that I read the whole thread (quickly, and with a headache and recovering eye infection) I realise how the questions of mysteries and psychedelic experiences can be a tricky thing to talk about.

Can I suggest that instead of trying to use a spoken language, that we use images/art to share our understanding of these mysteries? Even if it means refering to something like Alex Grey´s art?

[max_freakout]

Can I suggest that instead of trying to use a spoken language, that we use images/art to share our understanding of these mysteries? Even if it means refering to something like Alex Grey´s art?

I wish i could paint like Alex Grey!!!

I only have words to express what's in my own head

[London Eye]

:confused: yoga cannot be called 'eastern science' :confused:

Yes it can, and it has been for centuries, Just because the western colonialist paradigm decides it is the sole arbiter of the definition of science doesn't make it so.

yoga is an empirical method of observing the phenomenal world. of course it is a science.

[London Eye]

it is impossible to know that, by any means, the outside world is a hypothesis, it always has been

this is a metaphysical statement, at odds with the western scientific paradigm. you can't have it both ways max, can you?

do you follow the western scientific model, sans metaphysics, or do you subscribe to metaphysical models of reality? if you do, you must accept yoga, buddhism, ayurveda etc as equally valid.

as far as the scientific model is concerned, there definitely is an external world. we can philosophise about whether there is, but that is metaphysical philosophy and thus western science has no room for it.

there are many questions that lead from this, but the one conclusion that can be drawn is that according to science (and our senses) there is an outside world. to suggest otherwise is supposition and theorising.

anyway, we might as well carry this on at greater length tomorrow. after a relaxing afternoon's entertainment!

[psygnisfive]

Sorry yes you did answer :o

but as i said, what you are demanding of this experiement is ridiculous, you cannot leave a 'mark' inside an experience :confused:, it isnt like a room where you can leave something, it's an experience, it's like saying you could leave a mark inside happiness, it doesnt make sense, so you are precluding a scientific discovery from being made yourself, imo, because you have set absurdly high standards for the objectivity of the evidence that this scietific enquiry could possibly reveal. It wpuld be impossible to design such an experiment

When I say mark I don't mean a literal mark. Not necessarily, anyway. The nature of the psychedelic realm will have its own peculiarities. All I mean is that if it's objectively real and there is a way to alter it that's persistent (i.e. "leave a mark") that can be detected by other observers, then thats sufficient proof for me. That doesn't mean that the psychedelic experience MUST be like this, just that _if_ it is, then that's what I consider proof. Further, I don't think that these experiments are exhaustive of the potential experiment space. I'm just giving some quick-and-dirty ideas that I'd consider acceptable.

[psygnisfive]

It is the existence of the outside world that is the hypothesis, it is a belief or assumption that there exists such a thing as externality

Precisely. Tho one thing I'd remark about is that if we assume that "other people" exist independent of our experience, then they would qualify as "outside world".

Now, whether or not the "real" outside world is what we perceive in everyday experience, or is something wholly other, is another matter, but like I've commented before, the truth is unknowable.

[psygnisfive]

Even if it means refering to something like Alex Grey´s art?

Alex Grey's art is to me the most wonderful epitome of the posthuman condition. But this is no doubt because of it's (likely unauthorized) use by the Orion's Arm people.

[max_freakout]

Yes it can, and it has been for centuries, Just because the western colonialist paradigm decides it is the sole arbiter of the definition of science doesn't make it so.

yoga is an empirical method of observing the phenomenal world. of course it is a science.

i disagree, 'science' has a very different meaning, and since it is a word created by Westerners, Westerners DO get to be the sole arbiter of it's meaning, in the same way that we are handed the meaning of the word ýoga' from the East. It would be no different to saying that science is the yoga of the East :confused: that would be a complete misuse of both words


and nowhere on the wikipedia page for ýoga does it mention this (and therefore it CANNOT be true :p)

[max_freakout]

this is a metaphysical statement, at odds with the western scientific paradigm. you can't have it both ways max, can you?

It is a statement of fact, we receive our image of the world as a stream of conscious data, and we assume/hupothesize that there exists something on the óther side' of those appearances. Forget about physics and metaphysics, just think about your experience of the world


do you follow the western scientific model, sans metaphysics, or do you subscribe to metaphysical models of reality? if you do, you must accept yoga, buddhism, ayurveda etc as equally valid.

Im not following any model, im observing the way that i am aware of a world around my body. It makes no difference which models are more or less valid, i am confronted by a situation, that there seems to be a big world around me, and i am trying to make sense of that situation. The conclusion i am inevitably drawn to, based on pure reason, and also insights from the psychedelic experience, is that the world in the way that it appears to me, isnt real

all models are provisional, but raw experience isnt a model


as far as the scientific model is concerned, there definitely is an external world. we can philosophise about whether there is, but that is metaphysical philosophy and thus western science has no room for it.

i dont care what science may or may not say, it is irrelevant, unless a scientist can 'show' that there is an objective reality, which they certainly cant.


there are many questions that lead from this, but the one conclusion that can be drawn is that according to science (and our senses) there is an outside world. to suggest otherwise is supposition and theorising.

That, in my opinion, is a naively mistaken opinion about what exactly our senses reveal to us. We do not perceive the outside world with our senses, the patchwork of colours in front of our eyes is a mental construct, which refers to a hypothesized external existence, the naivety lies in the conscious act of conflating the mental consructs that are apparent to consciousness with the external reality to which they are hypothesized to refer, ie "i take this appearance of a keyboard in front of me as being the real keyboard and not a mere appearance"

Science does not escape this issue of perception mediated by mental constructs, but they are guilty of ignoring its implications. To suppose that there is something real on the other side of our experiences is 'supposition and theorizing' and it goes beyond the evidence that is available to them



anyway, we might as well carry this on at greater length tomorrow. after a relaxing afternoon's entertainment!'

I think there's another Max-Seeker tagteam podcast on the way ;)

[max_freakout]

Precisely. Tho one thing I'd remark about is that if we assume that "other people" exist independent of our experience, then they would qualify as "outside world".


To lose that assumption is the position of solipsism, other people are no more than representations to me, they dont exist for-themselves or in-themselves


Do you believe that? Am I real?


Now, whether or not the "real" outside world is what we perceive in everyday experience, or is something wholly other, is another matter, but like I've commented before, the truth is unknowable.


the real world might be fields of human bodies inside virtual reality machines :eek::D

[max_freakout]

When I say mark I don't mean a literal mark. Not necessarily, anyway. The nature of the psychedelic realm will have its own peculiarities. All I mean is that if it's objectively real and there is a way to alter it that's persistent (i.e. "leave a mark") that can be detected by other observers, then thats sufficient proof for me. That doesn't mean that the psychedelic experience MUST be like this, just that _if_ it is, then that's what I consider proof. Further, I don't think that these experiments are exhaustive of the potential experiment space. I'm just giving some quick-and-dirty ideas that I'd consider acceptable.

And if you found out (as i believe) that the psychedelic 'realm' in fact isnt like this, that you cant leave anything behind in it for other people to see, that it exists purely in the realm of subjective experiencing, what would your conclusion be and what would be your next line of enquiry in seeking to explain it?

[psygnisfive]

To lose that assumption is the position of solipsism, other people are no more than representations to me, they dont exist for-themselves or in-themselves


Do you believe that? Am I real?

I believe that I can't be certain but that for practical purposes I assume you are. :p

And if you found out (as i believe) that the psychedelic 'realm' in fact isnt like this, that you cant leave anything behind in it for other people to see, that it exists purely in the realm of subjective experiencing, what would your conclusion be and what would be your next line of enquiry in seeking to explain it?

My conclusion would be that the nature of the psychedelic realm remains indeterminate. My next line of enquiry, would be to try and find some other way to find out what it is. Assuming I can't think of any, then it remains indeterminate as an objective entity.

[Szifers]

If there is a substantially non-material reality at all, then I think it is not very far fetched to suppose that the psychedelic realm is a reality like that.

The question of similarities and seemingly concrete connections between different people's psychedelic experiences is therefore a question of non-material channels of connectedness. And why would anyone be looking for exotic means for establishing that connection - like telepathy, for example - if there is a really functional means for that, namely language.

We can connect up the psychedelic dimension into a collective reality by talking about it. That's what made ordinary reality become a coherent ontological whole, after all.

And I suppose that that's what makes it real for the community in primitive cultures. That they have a certain amount of common conceptual matrix around it. More or less, of course.

[psygnisfive]

If there is a substantially non-material reality at all, then I think it is not very far fetched to suppose that the psychedelic realm is a reality like that.

The question of similarities and seemingly concrete connections between different people's psychedelic experiences is therefore a question of non-material channels of connectedness. And why would anyone be looking for exotic means for establishing that connection - like telepathy, for example - if there is a really functional means for that, namely language.

I'm going to take this in a direction slightly differently that what you intended, I think.

The question of similarities etc. between different people's experiences, as I see it, can only arise from two causes: The objective realness of the content of the experience that is instigated by the consumption of the psychedelic, or the sameness of cognitive structures that are affected by the consumption of the psychedelic. For instance, the sensation of gravity that's so typical with salvia trips is easily described (I'd argue better described) by the alteration of the cognitive (or less likely, your sensory) systems responsible for orientation and directionality, and the downward projection of those effects onto your brains expectations for other sensory experiences (similar to the downward projection you get from remembering pizza to "i can almost smell it! my god it's so real!").

So I think in that sense there are two possible things going on that have to be considered, and the kinds that are likely just manipulations of cognition are less interesting to me in a psychedelic/philosophical/whatever sense (tho they're quite interesting in the cognitive neuroscience sense). The stuff that I think is interesting is the stuff that's not merely insightful into how cognition works, but the stuff that's insightful into how reality itself works, etc.

We can connect up the psychedelic dimension into a collective reality by talking about it. That's what made ordinary reality become a coherent ontological whole, after all.

And I suppose that that's what makes it real for the community in primitive cultures. That they have a certain amount of common conceptual matrix around it. More or less, of course.

Right, but consensus is nothing more than belief-by-many, and belief is irrelevant to real.

[Lowlight]

Explaining consciousness, or the psychedelic experience, or the variety of mystical experiences, through purely materialist/reductionalist means, i.e. scientism (note - not 'science'), is most likely impossible for a simple reason...they are emergent properties/experiences. Its the same reason why physics cant 'explain' macro (or even micro) biology.

Theres no need to get hung up on this debate too much anyway as it is based on a false dicotomy of materialist/immaterialist distinction. The funny truth is that science for all its power has no idea what 'matter' actually IS.

[psygnisfive]

Explaining consciousness, or the psychedelic experience, or the variety of mystical experiences, through purely materialist/reductionalist means, i.e. scientism (note - not 'science'), is most likely impossible for a simple reason...they are emergent properties/experiences. Its the same reason why physics cant 'explain' macro (or even micro) biology.

Whether or not physics can explain biology really depends on what you consider physics, I suppose. The crucial thing that makes biology biology is that it's the study of self-replicating systems. Self-replication isn't really a principle of physics, so in that sense you're right. But physics + self replication sufficiently describes, nay, demands without relent, biology. But again this sort of drops it out of physics proper and into a question of systems design, etc. that results from physics.

[Szifers]

Psygnisfive,

If you are allowed to let your imagination run free without any restrictions, could you in theory come up with an experiment design for finding out if ordinary objective reality is similar to different people because of its objective realness, or because of the sameness of cognitive structure?

[psygnisfive]

I'm not sure. I'd have to think about it. I doubt any true certainty can be achieved at all, because again, experience is mere experience, so the "other people" might be mere delusion. But assuming they're not, and assuming they're not insane, I'm not sure if it's even meaningful to ask that question since the nature of experiences themselves are complicated. Qualia are the topic of heated debate.