The case against the spirit world model of psychedelic action.

[ThunderIdeal]

[woof woof woof]

Long and tiring thread. Come one peoples,... it's all more simple then discussed above..... unconditional love and understanding + K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid!) Stick to the basics. Touch base with yourself one or 2 times a day... more if you feel like it. Use a psychedelic if you feel rusty or meditate for a few days... fast if needed...

Basics > everything is energy.... < we can not boil it down any further then that... beyond that it is a mystery... shure there might be beings in sub perceivable realms and you will meet them,.... but it is your core principle adherence that will get you through surviving an encounter,... because you see them for what they are... an amorph energy field,... and they are useless for personal freedom,... you can get tangled in if you decide to do magic with them.... don't get stuck! The whole point of spirituality is to be free and healthy and grow spiritually.... to live a full/magical life.... with magical I mean... that you see the miracle that life is.

In all this,... be safe!

#1 Catholic. Never did much with Catholisim. All that Jesus this Jesus that fed to me in school was the best they could do for me I guess. In some ways I am very thankfull for that. I DID NOT BELIEVE MUCH OR ANYTHING AT THAT POINT.... maybe just the white bearded man on the cloud surrounded by angels concept.

#2 Haha,... Actually,.. you can say,.. when I stopped believing is when I started putting my brain to use and shaping my ideas of the world. Psychedelicacies helped tremendously to break through and condition myself to preceive the world as it is. BUT MY REAL BREAKTHROUGH CAME WHEN I HAD THIS FACINATING CHAT WITH A PERSON THAT WAS VERY DICIPLINED IN KEEPING HIS CHANNEL CLEAN. All he said was all is one and everything is energy.... my perception was shaped a great deal after that by reading Carlos Castaneda's books and The Bavagath Gita and Buddhism. All I can conclude now is..... God excists (depending how you look at it - I see it in a very abstract way. which is perhaps the reason Buddhists say he doesnt excist).... I am therefore a monotheist.

#3 I had encounters in sober life all the time,... hahaha... everyday... haha,... the spirits are everywhere and are somuch a part of us that we do not recognize them due to the hustle and bustle of daily life.... and of course many people were never taught to recognize them.

#4 Just turned 34,.... If i remember correctly I broke through in 1998. Although I was on psych's,.... it was not the psyche's.... it was was that talk I had with this guy... and the comb with psyche's wich made it become an extra deep impression. The creative part in my brain was painting a very colorfull picture. But even without the psyche's it would have had a big impact. 100% sure of that!

[Gunter]

The Rational Argument

1. Psychedelics are hallucinogenic drugs, which by definition means they make you see things that aren't real.

 

What evidence is there that psychedelics are hallucinogenic? I am not aware of any. Nor is there a consensus to that effect, most people familiar with them disagree strongly with the proposal that they cause hallucinations, and several psychedelics do not affect vision at all, but are still active. This first argument is in blatant error.

2. Psychedelics are about the self; they are a form of self-exploration.

This is a pointless and meaningless argument without the concept of what self is being explained in a meaningful way, psychedelics do affect the senses, but one might say that everything in life pertains to self experiencing, thus to say that anything in life, let alone a specific category of experience is about self is utterly meaningless and not a valid basis for any argument.

3. Simply because you heard voices or saw gods or met elves does not mean that the experience has any deeper meaning beyond your own imagination.

ok then... the other edge of this sword is that just because you didn't perceive them, or just because you perceived them to not exist does not mean they don't exist. there really isn't any meaningful content to this aspect of the argument either way, it is totally subjective and so cannot be the basis of any rationality or conclusive deduction.

 

1. The human brain perceives reality on a very narrow spectrum of visible light and audible sound waves, this is how external information enters into waking thought.

this seems to suppose that there is an aspect of reality that is corroborated without employment of the brain, but the truth is that the brain does not perceive nor is the brain self, the brain is no more an instrument than the eye, the eye does not see, nor does the brain see, rather there is an aspect of mind that is involved, but what is mind? Is mind simple a brain? this seems rather absurd, like saying that an eye by itself sees, or that a brain by it self is self, it simply fails to make any meaningful sense. Does a camera by itself take a picture? Is a tongue the same as tasting? is a brain the same as experiencing? are there organisms that have some degree of experience and yet lack a brain? do we say they have no self? absurd, for if we cannot experience what they do it does not entitle us to claim that we perceive their lack of or existence of perception. again there is just no sense at all to this concept that self is brain activity, does a computer have a sense of self too? after all it can be said to "perceive a narrow spectrum of reality"

the brain does not perceive light, or sound rather it processes a signal, but that processing does not equate to mind, to damage the brain is much like poking out an eye, stop the heart and the experience ends, does that mean that reality is an aspect of the function of the heart? if no then reality cannot be the function of any organ that is vital, let alone the brain

2. If there are autonomous spirits and a spirit world that the human mind can perceive, then these spirit formations must be made out of something.

we should reject postulates that cannot be empirically verified? is that the crux here? so then before the invention of the radio, did radiowaves not exist? since we cannot perceive the origin of gravity does gravity not originate?

shall we reject all outside what has been called a narrow spectrum? if so then we must reject a large degree of accepted science and physics

I'd like you to look into experiences of telepathy and shared hallucination, and why governments have put so much money into remote viewing, the truth is that many people have experiences that can be verified and proven to be accurate but cannot be explained or shared.

 

1. While there has been no satisfactory objective proof demonstrating that a spirit world exists, there has been an abundance of proof demonstrating that psychosis exists,

there has been no correlation of psychosis with psychedelics, all experiments meant to illustrate this have failed drastically. there was once no objective proof that DNA existed, that radiowaves existed, that heavier than air flight was possible. one can apply the same psychosis argument to these elements and in their day such arguments were applied to these things, such an argument is now as worthless as it was, science does not waste time addressing questions it cannot answer, if one cannot confirm or deny something it is foolish to argue for or against it, but to argue against the experiences of others is absurd

doubt and skepticism are more tools of faith than of science

2. While psychedelics may give some people insights and an expanded consciousness, they can also lead to irrational behavior and the degradation of reason.

While a car can get someone to where they are going, it can also get them lost, to say that experiences are ambiguous is meaningless.

the claim was made previously in this paper that with regard to psychedelics people get out what they put into them, if we are to believe this then the argument that they give some people insights while providing delusions to others is meaningless, because that would not be a result of the psychedelic but rather a result of what the person contributed. the logic of the presenter of the argument (mr kent) is deeply flawed

1. If we are to throw out all the arguments posed so far and concede for a moment that psychedelics offer some access to the wisdom of the spirits, there are still a few problems. In order to prove the autonomy of the spirits encountered on a psychedelic trip, various tests have been proposed to see if new information can be gleaned in the spirit dimension.

lets pretend that these tests have not been taking place for thousands of years, and that before the last century people were just too stupid to know better,

what evidence is there that experience is unreal in some cases and real in others? is that to say that there is some non-subjective experience that we may have? does that not entirely contradict the argument that our reality is a narrow and subjective perception? again the logic of the presenter is deeply flawed

According to traditional lore, shamen are able to use psychedelics to diagnose and cure disease, divine the use of plants, find missing objects, and perhaps even see the future.

does this mean that the active ingredient is not mind? does this mean that psychedelics are not tools that affect mind?

one genuine look into the history of ayahuasca blows this out of the water, so to speak, when it was a tool for remote viewing for warfare for tribal peoples for many centuries and the first discoverers of it in terms of western culture named it telepathine for the effects that it induced, there is no validity to the argument that psychedelics are not spiritual because a human can be spiritual without them, it is like saying that a car does not work because we can walk where we are going, it is stupid

2. If information is actually received from the spirit world during the psychedelic session, then it has become patently obvious that much of the information from the spirit world is not to be trusted.

if the last argument was that psychedelics are not spiritual tools because people can do spiritual things without them, then this argument is silly because if a person can be mistaken without psychedelics, then they can be mistaken with psychedelics. if people can be wrong, be mistaken, then why pick on people that are wrong and tripping? are they just an easy target because we can call them high? again there is no meaningful content to the argument against the spirituality of psychedelics that is being presented here. As is the case with all science, including the science of the use of psychedelics as tools, testability is crucial, as it has always been. If a scientist can get a theory wrong and science is still valid, then why would shamanism be invalidated because shaman was wrong? it is just stupid...

I am going to stop now, this whole paper was garbage, unscientific and worthless, i feel dumber for having read it and think that anyone who feels that it makes sense should think about it more.

I do not actually believe that psychedelics are spiritual, nor do i believe that they are not spiritual, it would be stupid for me to presume i can know that they are or aren't, but that doesn't mean they can or can't be

Mr. Kent, wherever you are, please do the world a favor and stop writing about this topic. there are too many suckers out there who are just as willing to believe your drivel as they are to believe that of a lying shaman

[t st tantra]

in a universe made of god what is not spiritual ?

t s t .

everything is holy ,wholly ,holey !

[The Dude]

Kent is a disinfo agent, drugs are baaad mckaaay. And all those amazing insights you experienced while high.. they're bullshit, you were high you moron!

@Botanika

An approximation of the truth is far better than a complete distortion of the truth. Science is not perfect, it never will be and it openly admits so, but compared with religion, for example, at least it does evolve and is not afraid to do so. It’s far less absolute in its systems that spirituality.

I think that a mythological/symbolic/religious interpretation of the truth is not a complete distortion, and although it contains constantly similar archetypal motifs, they are as stable as the cosmos itself and do not need constant revision. It's just another approximation using another language, where the same words are used but there are cyphers to be used if you want to get any closer to understanding their meaning and functions.

Science is useful for practical and mechanical reasons, it is not the almighty arbiter of truth however, as it seems to be. The sad thing is that the technology as savior myth has drained the west of all it's enchantment, that's why we watch movies like lord of the rings and avatar 'en masse.

Whether consciously or not, our myths inform our realities. The profit driven, efficient, production line - that drains our souls to repackage them into imitation happiness - machine is a myth that must be tempered by the always novel, spontaneous freedom and chaos of the infinite imagination, which is untested and unproven and therefore unlimited. It's also 100% fictitious for now.

Edited February 11, 2011 by The Dude

[strangebrew]

A recent interview with James Kent -

http://www.realitysandwich.com/discussion_james_kent

[mutant]

Archaea some of your arguements are so naive that they are not even funny to deconstruct. In fact saying something is absurd or that something doesn't mean anything is not an arguement, especially when trying to support an absurd idea. That's why I didn't bother with all of your post.

What evidence is there that psychedelics are hallucinogenic? I am not aware of any. Nor is there a consensus to that effect, most people familiar with them disagree strongly with the proposal that they cause hallucinations, and several psychedelics do not affect vision at all, but are still active. This first argument is in blatant error.

Yes what a silly arguement, how could he make such a mistake. What an idiot would think psychedelics are hallucinogens?? LOL. Of course they are hallucinogens man, they can make you see things bluer, brighter, they can make you hear things that are not there etc. Yes they can. Like, f.e. elves, spirits and hostile alien mantis, among other things...

This , even though I am not the type that get lots of visuals. But are they hallucinogens?? fuck yeah!! Are they capable of producing illusions, particularly in big doses or in mentally unstable individuals??

FUCK YEAH

your train of thought explains why belivers also hate the very appropriate IMO term "psychotomimic" for psychedelics, but also do not really like the term psychedelic and most particularly what psychedelic means...

something you eat and your psyche expresses? no, gosh no. psychs are 'entheogens' : they create the god within. Psychedelic believers hate the concept of self, it seems. Therefore, if something important is revelated from psychedelics then it's because of the medicine, of the universe or the spirits brought it, but never an expression of self, but of the whole, the god.

theism anyone?

there has been no correlation of psychosis with psychedelics, all experiments meant to illustrate this have failed drastically. there was once no objective proof that DNA existed, that radiowaves existed, that heavier than air flight was possible. one can apply the same psychosis argument to these elements and in their day such arguments were applied to these things, such an argument is now as worthless as it was, science does not waste time addressing questions it cannot answer, if one cannot confirm or deny something it is foolish to argue for or against it, but to argue against the experiences of others is absurd

no, let me tell you what is absurd: absurd is having people who believe in absurd things tell you about your point of view being absurd

which is MY point of view? Well, my point of view is that believing and seeing spirits as such, might be helpful, but to be honest, it's not true, the spirits are not real, that is ...

what's YOUR point of view?? that these spirits exist, like microwaves, we just haven't been able to measure/trace them. Your opinion [and dude's for that matter] is gnosis, the real and complete picture, but the naysayers are being absurd and are illusioned and really missing something that they don't believe/experience the spirits.

I ASK : Missing what?? Noone from those so anxious to protect their holy spirits from the naysayers have even got to answer this.

lets have that scientific evidence for your claim that psychedelics and psychosis are totally not related!!!!!

BTW, what is messiah syndrome in your opinion or a paranoid bad trip for that matter ?? [btw, most bad trips seem to be more or less full of paranoid symptoms, including these 'bad trips' their reporters are trying hard to suggest "they were not bad trips, but knowledge and insight, only of the negative kind". This usually goes along with the 'there's no bad trips' concept.

lets pretend that these tests have not been taking place for thousands of years, and that before the last century people were just too stupid to know better, what evidence is there that experience is unreal in some cases and real in others? is that to say that there is some non-subjective experience that we may have? does that not entirely contradict the argument that our reality is a narrow and subjective perception? again the logic of the presenter is deeply flawed

the experiences are always real, if the reporters are honest. But what are the reporters? Who are those people who will try so hard [as you did] to supposedly bash Kent's solid and fine arguements?

The only way you can explain this is by talking about yourself, who you are and why you believe these stuff , why you came to see them [spirits] , where you come from and so on. But, like dude stated he would not, you won't. You won't talk about the real deal, you will argue in logic [what an irony!!] , to prove that believing in something irrational is more rational than the obvious scepticism that the visions from psychedelics are visions and not real external forces. Just like a theist uses logical arguements to prove god exists!

LOL

 

am going to stop now, this whole paper was garbage, unscientific and worthless, i feel dumber for having read it and think that anyone who feels that it makes sense should think about it more.

I on the other hand am getting the feel you're trying too hard to bash it, and also that you didn't do so much good job in that either.

Mr. Kent, wherever you are, please do the world a favor and stop writing about this topic.

yes please, lets only have BATSHIT CRAZY people like McKenna write books on psychedelics that will be regarded as gospels by the hordes of psychedelic theists....

there are too many suckers out there who are just as willing to believe your drivel as they are to believe that of a lying shaman

the sad truth, Archaea, is that most of the 'suckers' are believers, like yourself. It's noobs and naive people that believe in mumbo jumbo shit, not sceptics. The naysayers do not believe in the their opinion. They just use common logic and regard these experiences just experiences and not proof, f.e. that god is such cool guy..

You're making it sound like a religious war which is pretty cool and funny, because this is what it is in fact.

Just like religion is loosing its power while rationality prevails, more people will have rational opinions on psychedelics and mentalities / writers as Leary and McKenna will stop from being considered the real 'true visionaries'.

Psychedelic theism is going down or better, healthy psychedelic scepticism is going up. The old skool dude would better stay aside and not try to oppress the emerging rational point-of-views, as opposed to the old and tired [irrational and theistic] glorifying of shamanism and current hippy-new agey-mumbo jumbo ideas....

I really appreciate your cacti knowledge and opinions, though....

CHILDREN WILL SURVIVE!

Edited February 14, 2011 by mutant

[ThunderIdeal]

you don't get strong visuals cuz you're a cat-dick

not getting sucked into this generalisations, assumptions, us vs them, typical "mutant the provocateur" fair.

seems to me like you're the one that can't wrap your head, or should the be unwrap your head (?) around the idea of not knowing. you're the believer here man, that's why you have this crusade.

Edited February 14, 2011 by ThunderIdeal

[mutant]

Well TI, I did not mean this ^^^^^^^^

by making the discussion more personal, it was about each one talking about oneself's background along with giving his typically strong opinion.

I am not into the "us VS them" thing you accuse me of. I don't see you believers as the same nor are we the nay-sayers the same. But for practical reasons we can refer to the two camps. I don't see anything bad in that, other than, by discussing our differencies and perhaps their causes, might allow us know something more about ourselves or psychedelics and maybe just maybe come a bit closer to each other finding out stuff that might unite us.

Once in a while you in particular pop in those threads and state you won't bother anymore with my bullshit. You seem to be mistaking my affinity for a good conversation as an obsession to .... to do what? to try and persuade you? Heck I am not doing that. I am in no crusade, what are you saying??!?

You, for example are of no interest to me, not because you nay-say me, but because even though your stir the drama with your posts [and this is lulzy], you seldom have contributed to this discussion you have repeatedly stated you don't like [especially my posts]. Yet you continue to post only to state how shitty my posts are, or whatever you think of me.

So maybe you yourself contribute more than what you currently think to this "us VS them" thing or "mutant VS them" or whatever. Maybe it would be good idea to talk in PM sometime.

I dont get strong visuals , I think because i was never after them, I am not visually inclined. You know, when my first pals started smoking cannabis, they used to look at the sky and clouds and seeing stuff in there. Well some of them. They loved it. I was never interested in that.

I learnt from years of talking with drug users and reading their opinions, that 'seeing nice colours, strange shapes and visual distortion' is one of the main reasons kids and young people wanna try lsd / psychedelics. And, what do you know, it's often the reason they keep repeating them! Well not me. It's part of the 'expectations, psychedelia' thing of psychedelics, which indeed makes them so personal, I think.

PS: Yeah, I am a believer though, I told this before. I believe in psychedelic's powers and potential, for good or worse.

Edited February 14, 2011 by mutant

[Gunter]

psychcotomimetic was rejected as a term because it was shown that the experience of those under psychedelics was nothing like those with psychosis

i don't know of any psychedelics, which engender hallucination in any definitive sense

mutant, you seem to think i presented a counter argument, i merely pointed out that Kents argument was garbage

i have several objections to the term entheogen, unless god is recognized as an experience or perception and not as an entity

what's YOUR point of view??

it would take more time to get into than i want to spend on it, but it largely involves the study of shamanism, like with the Wana, that does not involve the use of any psychoactive chemicals, as well as documented cases of the acquisition of information outside of explainable contexts. In other words there is evidence both for the valid perception of information in a manner attributed to spirits, as well as evidence for the deception and manipulation of self and others in a manner attributed to spirits, the two can co-occur and are not mutually exclusive.

I can tell you that certainty is often the hallmark of fraud, regardless of context, even science has no certainty, rather it deals in probability and theory by employing a testing method

i also don't want to write a full report on psychosis and psychedelics, but the basic opinion i have is this, psychosis in not caused by nor does it resemble the state which we call psychedelic, however individuals with underlying psychosis can have psychotic events and episodes triggered by the use of psychedelics, the same way rational individuals can have rational experiences on psychedelics. that does not mean that psychedelics resemble the so called rational state either, it isn't a mutually exclusive dichotomy according to my own perception

in the course of many years of research into peyote and ayahuasca use, in long term studies, no association with psychosis or mental illness was found, rather the opposite was found, that people using these in a specific religious or theistic context were happier, healthier and brighter and more mentally sound than controls (controls=average people) in fact these studies found that the users of these things had greater mental health in general for having used them and many reported that said use had bettered their quality of life and helped them resolve mental issues.

As for the mode of action of psychedelics in relation to belief sets, ergo ontology, i believe them to be ontological evocative agents, taking them does not tend to affect a persons belief system in a manner other than re-enforcing it, regardless of the belief, it is not like an atheist believes in god because of LSD, or that a theist becomes an atheist because of mescaline etc, rather people tend to feel that their beliefs are validated by their (psychedelic) experiences, regardless of the nature or accuracy of those beliefs. In other words psychedelics do not prove or disprove any theistic arguments, despite countless voices on both sides of the issue claiming otherwise.

I really don't have an answer to the theistic argument, however my experiences lead me to believe that there is a profound aspect to being, which can be thought of in terms of significance beyond the capacity of rationality to be able to explain

my personal belief is that there is a higher power, so to speak, and that it is commonly perceived, but that it is without form, without intent, and without differentiation, that it can be thought of as an underlying cause, as well as an energy source, which affects us through our own direction of the energy through our own attention and will, regardless of how said will and attention is focused.

I believe that because of the nature of the energy, to label and define it is in error, and that over time the nature of the word and meaning of the term spirit has been increasingly interpreted to mean entity, when it is more akin to the term energy, as in school spirit, team spirit etc, again things in the context of attention and will

to ascribe a meaning, a purpose to this energy seems to me to be missing the point, to say that it is a god, which has for example a chosen people, race or plan, seems to me to be projecting human psychology onto this energy in a limiting way.

the difference however, between rationality and irrationality is an amusing one to me, for i cannot differentiate between the two as function of mentality, to me they are identical but we try to divide them based on the conception of validation, but to obtain the objectivity, which a proper validation requires; means to transcend the limitations, which naturally, individually and collectively are a part of our existence

i can ultimately only state that it is my belief that a human mind cannot answer the question of theism any more than it can function outside of mind itself, that to state we know, one way or another, or that to state that we can know, is nothing more than the inherent folly that being human clearly entails

however in regards to the use of psychedelics, and the human mind which is to me the active ingredient in life and psychedelics; as tools, clearly there are some testable aspects to this, which are not at all missing from the scientific literature on the topic of LSD and ayahuasca, the history of the name telepathine relates to this where people had visions of real and verifiable events in real time, which is how it got its name.

I have had several experiences, which can only be described as telepathic, both with and without the use of psychedelics, and involving multiple people over the course of nearly 20 years. I cannot explain them, nor can i deny them.

perception is real, even if what is not real is perceived, because perception takes place in the psychical world, nothing occurs which is not in the real world any more than the mind is itself outside of reality when it perceives what we term as unreal, in other words for the subjective to exist in a consistent way implies objectivity, otherwise it would not be consistent because it would be self subject to subjectivity, but the experience is objectively subjective, ergo it is termed maya or illusion, or we say a veil exists.

where is the empty mind?

answer me that and i will be enlightened

Edited February 14, 2011 by Archaea

[mutant]

Thanks for thorough and relative reply.

Well, sorry if I projected something on you, but you were and still are absolute on bashing Kent's scepticism as garbage. But it's quite obvious Kent's scepticism, Kent arguement about deception by psychedelics is something you don't deny.

You stated:

In other words there is evidence both for the valid perception of information in a manner attributed to spirits, as well as evidence for the deception and manipulation of self and others in a manner attributed to spirits, the two can co-occur and are not mutually exclusive.

Now you talking.

I personally 'diversify' from the typical sceptics/atheists/rationalists dependence on science and scientific consensus, to prove stuff, to be 100 % scientific right cause I don't think science and rationality are the only ways to find truth, wisdom, whatever. I believe in the insticts, emotions and even intuition.

I personally do not object to the possibility telepathy and/or even more weird phenomenons do occur. I don't even deny that those are real phenomenons, and not just coincidences , that there are real physical / ???? happenings. I admit I was impressed about Stamet's prophetic vision he narrates in Psilocybin mushrooms of the world, because I value his credibility.

I don't even object to your personal view of this energy {"god"], actually I like this god, and I agree that psychedelics are entheogensin this concept. And that this is no real god, as you said.

a god in the head is physically, electricity actually. i like this point of view.

*****

About psychedelics, psychosis and the term "psychotomimic"

You're right it's a big chapter. Like you used the example of "telepathine", which obviously was named like that because someone experienced [or thought he experienced] telepathy. So, psychedelics, especially in specific situations can really be psychosis-mimicking - that's why they were named like this in the first place - like with telepathine !

But of course psychedelics soon proved to be way more than this. Psychedelics symptoms only sometimes do they bare some resemblance with psychotic like symptoms, but it's just a resemblance like I said.

I am not saying psychedelics can be a direct causative agent, and I don't suggest, f.e. pot is less dangerous in that vein. But it's a known all kinds of psychedelics and stimulants are capable of bringing to surface underlying symptoms and conditions.

What I am saying, f.e. is that it happens, some dude trips and for whatever reasons [bad setting is 95% the case] the trip goes bad and the tripped experiences terror and / or paranoia, in a mixture that strongly resembles a psychotic break. Its impact is pretty strong, enough to keep a person from touching a psychedelic again, and the 'trauma' depends on the person. It's just like having a psychotic episode due to too much speed and/or lack of sleep. I am taking about people non-predisposed to psychotic like symptoms. A good indication of someone being predisposed to such tendencies is being exposed to lots of weed. If he does and is predisposed in some way, some signs will definately show after some abuse of the herb.

So clearly, returning to psychs, these drugs effects vary so much, that in a single setting they are a bliss and a unite with the universe and mother earth and in another , bad , rushy or negative setting be a full blown 12 hour paranoid trip which does resemble psychosis.

So in that vein and only did I link psychedelics with psychosis, in that they sometimes, rather rarely, they have 'common symptoms'.

In general though, I do think there's a more general link between cannabis, psychedelics and paranoia.

Cannabis brings in on potential for paranoia, for some people otherwise not prone to paranoia during on trips. And since people who trip usually smoke a lot of green, usually a lot, I am not really sure if psychedelics play the major a role in paranoias like that.

Hmmm

but even then, cannabis doesn't really cause psychosis to a person who isn't inclined. Is this inclination a black or white parameter? Probably not, it's possibly quite more complicated than that.

And of course psychedelics used in the right context they can be therapeutical and promoting mental health, even in said predisposed individuals.

I also agree with the perception = real statement. What I wanna say that this kind of spirituality or any kind for that matter is a choice. Atheists are not void of spirituality. The spirituality is of another brand and honestly, this obsession in science makes me sick. People have wits, imagination, spirituality is what should be taught in schools, not religion which should be included in the lesson of the former.

I do believe there is a 'plan' or dataprint in our heads. For me the great wonder is in the form of a god circuit, simplyfying it. I am fascinated by it. I am fascinated by what people experience and what different people experience.

So, in a forum with so intelligent i would expect people to maintain their healthy scepticism and not bash it all as science-politically-correct stuffz, not take everything we read or hear as granted, sure.

Everyone is different and illusion can and does occur.

know yr self

Peace

[Gunter]

i find that skepticism is antithetical to science altogether and that the two are in fact mutually exclusive

people like Kent and Dick Dawkins, as well as Pat Robertson and T. McKenna strike me as a plague on the intellect of humanity as a whole

that is my opinion, nobody has to agree with me

i agree with you about cannabis and paranoia

as far as science, there is no macro-science, no scientific community with an established consensus, science is method and little else, not opinion, not political or religious position

to say that such exists (i am not accusing anyone of saying it does) is akin to saying that all religions think the same thing, or agree about the same stuff

science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive, because spiritual methodology is science and relates strongly to the scientific method itself, religion is not concerned with explaining the universe, nor is science, rather they are concerned with methodology, otherwise testing and falsification would be meaningless

in the case of ayahuasca the story of telepathine is remarkable, a man took the drink and had a vision of his mother and sister dying, he was told this was no vision, but it was in the 1870's or so, he traveled out of the jungle and verified that what he had seen did in fact take place

there are many documented cases of such things, but no satisfying explanations

the faithful doubt all but god, skepticism is their domain, they deny evidence, which is unto itself the very nature of skepticism, the catholic church was skeptical about Galileo, for example, science is about an open mind and being willing to consider evidence and having enough of an imagination to consider possible explanations and reasons, it really has little if anything to do with skepticism.

the pseudoscience of these times is rife with denial in the absence of evidence, something no self respecting scientist should engage in, but something that is classically the domain of religion itself

are not both being employed as a means of social control?

the truth about the truth is that it is largely unknowable, those who say otherwise have an agenda, and many are just authors trying to sell books, like Hancock, Dawkins, Mckenna etc

and i am not afraid to be an asshole with an opinion, but then all humans are ignorant, myself included

[ThunderIdeal]

love ya work archaea

As for the mode of action of psychedelics in relation to belief sets, ergo ontology, i believe them to be ontological evocative agents, taking them does not tend to affect a persons belief system in a manner other than re-enforcing it, regardless of the belief, it is not like an atheist believes in god because of LSD, or that a theist becomes an atheist because of mescaline etc, rather people tend to feel that their beliefs are validated by their (psychedelic) experiences, regardless of the nature or accuracy of those beliefs. In other words psychedelics do not prove or disprove any theistic arguments, despite countless voices on both sides of the issue claiming otherwise.

 

IME this is so true. however, it's a bit more than just "oh, okay, i was correct in my thoughts", and no i don't mean to say that when the trip validates ones previous thoughts that it sets them in concrete.

what happens IME is that the trip does more or less conform to one's previous notions, except it adds depth and extra dimensions, and colours it in and animates it and shows it back to you, and adds depth, previously unimagined depth, DEPTH! so that you are left thinking "okay, i already thought along those lines, but HOLY SHIT i had no idea it could be that full on, i am truly awed, i am truly rocked".

i wonder if this is what was meant be 'mind manifesting'. even though, like everyone, i have my own indescribable idea of what "psychadelic" means, i never really understood why the chosen word actually means 'mind manifesting'. does anyone have any thoughts about that?

[mutant]

Fuck I lost what I just wrote... it was a lot, a good post too, fuck

Archaea, you seem to be taking the worse possible definition of scepticism, that of scepticism of facts and proof . There is a healthy scepticism of course and it's a vital tool for science.

I wrote a fuck lot about McKenna, Dawkins and all , the resume was this: I don't fancy a lot with McKenna and Dawkins myself, for rather the opposite reasons, I guess, but I can appreciate their input. McKenna I do find him pleasant philosophically and his rants are awesome sometimes.

Is Kent so evangelical man? I admit I don't know a lot about this dude, cause they only reason I can think of you put it with the other three is the messiah-evangelical syndrome or something....

nature of reality is unknowable, yep, but some people really fancy on the details, and think that the more details we gather up, we maybe sometime figure it out!!! Let the man dream.

I also told a lot about the consensus. The current attitude, the over-sceptical or scientifism attitude as I call it in most scientific fields is that consensus is used all the time and often very agressively to outplace other alternative theories in scientific dialogue, even in fields that no final consensus is reached, but rather two or more theories that might be true. The danger in using that temporary consensus as a temporary conclusion is existing.

I don't see where Kent's arguements are antithetical to yours, I just imagine he would be sceptical of you telepathy experiences. Or maybe not..

Thunderideal this is exactly what psychedelic means. And it's because that's what psychedelics do best in a most characteristic way , well in normal doses. In the same general vein are other drugs psychedelics, like alcohol, dissociatives etc.

And althought they indeed don't proove anything about the question about god and all, they are perfect tools to study the 'god', spirituality, 'the other' and people's stance towards them , just like some of these drugs might be valueable tools for psychiatrical diagnosis and therapy.

Well, this is the short version. peace

[synchromesh]

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=sWm6uO6bG5A

[Gunter]

i do not find doubt to be healthy, skepticism is a closed mind

science requires an open mind

an open mind doesn't doubt, it merely considered possibilities

a skeptic doubts, they close their mind

[ThunderIdeal]

thats a good vid synchro. familiar with the fisherman analogy but i hadn't heard him put it quite like that, i think those are wise words. i tend to catch the leviathin, and/or go more for personal experience, but it would be great to share more fish.

[synchromesh]

[ThunderIdeal]

oops

Edited February 16, 2011 by ThunderIdeal

[herbal_hindsight]

Personally I don't seen psychedelics as hallucinogens. They create an abstraction of reality; not a delusion of reality.

A true hallucingoen would be found in the tropane family - SOLANACEAE... belladonna, datura, brugmansia, etc... creating distortions of reality which you can't recognise as being not real and not part of reality.

Not to say psychedelics don't possess halucinogenic effects as we all know here they most certainly do.

But not for everyone and not in every experience.

That's why I disagree on them being sloppily 'labelled' as hallucinogens.... the same could be said for the term Entheogen as they don't always contain a theistic experience/encounter and certainly not for some people. Entheogen is like a sub-category like hallucinogen.

I love visuals but it's not the main reason for the journey - merely the icing on the cake... it's the personal insights; new ideas and 'mind trip' as opposed to visual or audial distortions that interest me. Altering the usual states of the mind to trigger new thoughts; re-surface old memories and switch on your creativity ten-fold!!! - This can hardly be defined as hallucinating as the definition generally implies a visual or auditory stimuli.

Of course I expect dis-agreement but that's the beauty of variety of thought... if we all agreed on the same things life would be shit!

[herbal_hindsight]

i do not find doubt to be healthy, skepticism is a closed mind

science requires an open mind

an open mind doesn't doubt, it merely considered possibilities

a skeptic doubts, they close their mind

 

Wow! I strongly disagree with you here Archaea... in fact in my experience I have found the EXACT opposite to be true!

I know many people who I like to refer to as science whores... people who CLOSE their minds off to alternative views that science cannot explain or prove with evidence using the scientific method. This to me is stronly narrow-minded...

As an example Acupuncture wasn't accepted into Western Medicine at first; until the energy flow [meridians] could actually be scientifically proven.

Regardless of the fact TCM is 2,500 years old... science was SKEPTICAL! so in this respect it was close-minded!

In my humble opinion; a true skeptic is not just a fence sitter who is considered close-minded [ i can't even work out why you would think that ] but they are someone who doesn't lean one way or the other based on facts or trends etc etc...

I gladly consider myself a skeptic and proudly! I research a topic as thoroughly as I can on both arguments and then present my opinion based on what knowledge I have gained from my research.

I think it's sad and dangerous when people only rely on 'Scientific Journals' like some of my friends do.

Scientific Journals do hold a lot of merit but they have been known to be wrong in the past and continue to be... it's not something aiming for a right or wrong result, it's merely a result. It's merely - hypothesis, experiment, results, conclusion. Many factors are missed in a lot of scientific scrutiny. Science is not perfect and the way it is still currently influenced through politics, religion and corporate interests simply equates that it is indeed not TRUE science as true science has no boundaries.

So people who only depend on science are actually creating a boundary of their own in their own research that is already restrained by boundaries of it's own.

A great example is the discussion on the medicinal aspects of cannabis vs the damaging effects... i.e. cannabis causes lung cancer vs cannabis has been shown to shrink tumours by up to 50%.

I'm having this debate [turning into an argument where I am being personally attacked and dis-credited] with some friends at the moment... they claim they don't beleive it coz of certain sources not mentioning it and they haven't read any scientific journals that discuss it and that I have gone too far in making such claims. It took me 5 seconds to google "Scientific journals supporting cannabis fighting cancer" to find positive results. So yeh... at the end of the day.. people who only research one side of the coin are lazy scholars... I have been reading about the possibilities of cannabis fighting cancer for over 5 years now but had a hard time convincing anyone and finding "scientific proof" now the evidence is showing the US Government has known since the 70's.

So yeh clearly skeptics are close-minded... omg a statement like that is one of the most close-minded i've ever heard!

If you don't beleive me then doesn't that make YOU a skeptic? Go research it yourself and science will give you the same answer...

I am far from against science quite the opposite but I am against people who stop at science and don't think outside the square... nothing has all the answers; it's always a combination!

[The same could be said with pharmacology vs pharmacognosy but that's a whole other discussion in itself]

[botanika]

So yeh clearly skeptics are close-minded... omg a statement like that is one of the most close-minded i've ever heard!

 

[CβL]

There is far too much writing here to read all in one go. I'd hear the roosters before I was done.

I have a few things to say however.

One is a quote from Terence McKenna:

For all of its capacity to razzle-dazzle, Science has some serious drawbacks, some serious limitations that psychedelic experiences make more starkly evident. [...] Science works very differently from ordinary perception. [...] If we have a thousand people who go out on a starry night and see only the ordinary constellations, that is buried. But if one person goes out on a starry night and sees a rectangular black object a city block long with softly glowing yellow lights moving along the horizon, that's big news.

Science works exactly the opposite. If you want, for example, to carry out a scientific observation, and you measure let's say the electrical charge running through a wire, and you measure it a thousand times, and 999 times it's between 3 and 4 volts, but one time you get a measurement of 1,290 volts, a good scientist discards the aberrant measurement. He says, 'Well that can't be right, that's ridiculous. Get that puppy out of there. Now average the other 999.' A completely different way of doing intellectual business than the way it is done at the edge of human thought, where we seek the curious, the anomalous, the unusual...

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/research_chems/research_chems_article2.shtml

I personally think that a spirit world is unlikely. For one, while entheogenic (I use this term simply because of it's lack of negative connotations) your brain is not functioning rationally (but still is functioning). There are molecules interacting with your synapses randomly the entire duration. Their electrochemistry is different from your normal neurotransmitters and as a result each nerve impulse can produce slightly different effects. Your brain - being a network consisting of a multitude of feedback loops can amplify aberrant signals in a non-linear manner so as to produce greater effect elsewhere. The result? Your brain will not function as it did before you imbibed your sacrament. The short-circuit model (while not fully accurate) is a humble view to the content of your trip. In my voyages so far, I have not once come across phenomena which I would need spirits to explain. I have only met my own delusions. You may argue my mindset of thinking a spirit world unlikely, precludes me from having contact with it. Is this somehow different from me going on a hike and thinking it unlikely to find a bear (if I was in America again) - would this mindset stop me from meeting a bear? Why would the spirit world be any different?

[Gunter]

I know many people who I like to refer to as science whores... people who CLOSE their minds off to alternative views that science cannot explain or prove with evidence using the scientific method. This to me is stronly narrow-minded...

these people are narrow minded fanatics and not actually scientific in the least

[synchromesh]

"Science is the tool of the Western mind and with it more doors can be opened than with bare hands. It is part and parcel of our knowledge and obscures our insight only when it holds that the understanding given by it is the only kind there is."

- Carl Jung