Entities as Delusions?

[PowerfulMedicine]

I'm not appealing to authority. I'm just pointing out an interesting and relevant quote. He may have been an astronomer but he was a well informed scientific mind. It would only be a fallacy if I said that DMT is a psychotommimetic because he would have presumably thought that it was.

*Edit: I realize that the last sentence in my last reply could be interpreted as appealing to authority, but I ensure that it was not my intent.

 

[Anarkid]

PowerfulMedicine you are absolutely correct in stating that contact with entities would be considered a delusion by ACCEPTED scientific facts. Let us not forget that it was once accepted that the Earth was flat. It was once accepted by many that the God Zeus ruled the heavens. It was also once accepted that the Earth was the center of the universe. Many fallacies have been accepted as fact by many people throughout humanity's time. This is a trend that will continue for quite some time, I believe. But the plain and simple fact is that no one can be sure of the experience besides the one experiencing it.

Imagine you have your home full of guests. All of you stand in front of a window looking at a man outside. Someone tells everyone that it is cold outside. Without much debate, the "fact" that it is cold outside is accepted. The man outside hears this and informs you, through the window, that it is rather hot outside. Well since everyone inside believes that it is cold, the man outside is now considered "delusional". Now an easy way to determine if he is telling the truth or not is to go outside. Unfortunately, this is impossible with a DMT induced trip. So someone can tell you that what you have experienced is not real. They can try and convince you. Ultimately, no one can be sure of what you experienced but you. It is up to the experiencer to determine if what they experienced is real or not.

I'm not stating whether I believe these entities are real or not. Just stating that just because something is accepted does not make it truth. But for argument's sake, you are correct. Accepted modern science would call entity contact a delusion.

 

[Global]

First of all, your entire argument from start to finish is an appeal to authority fallacy. This bold undertaking you've gone on in trying to establish what the scientific consensus thinks is one grand appeal to authority fallacy. It follows the formula of "they all think something, so ergo it must be true."

This use of delusional seems to be falling under the archetype of calling "heresy". When valid experiences are presented that go against the orthodoxy of the "primary paradigm" as you call it, they are discarded. I can understand if something doesn't make sense to you (or the mainstream scientific community) but that doesn't render it illogical, or if it does, it is only relative to you. You equate your inability to understand with being illogical.

Finally, as has been pointed out a superfluous amount of times, no one has been arguing that entities are real in this thread, only that your argument is flawed from start to finish. You keep asking for evidence, and so I will provide you with my personal evidence for why they might be real or valid. Is it "scientific" evidence? No. I'm a sample size of one. As has been repeated a handful of times, science does well at what is repeatable and retestable, but DMT can be quite unpredictable. It can be regular and consistent, but you can't simply reconjure the same experiences so this holds science slightly at bay in considering the experiences. If you take a look at my article in the Nexus e-zine (page 33), I provide three solid examples that demonstrate a certain validity to some of the DMT phenomena (including but not limited to entities). You'll notice I maintain an open stance throughout however.

 

[The Meddling Monk]

Unlike the Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Psychotomimetic Hallucinogens doesn't exactly have a lot of solid measurement behind it.

Based on some of the arguments here then as Nen said dreams are delusions, or as Orion said, love.

A discussion of entities would have been far more helpful.

 

[DesykaLamgeenie]

Just to clarify - he has stated at least once that this isn't his opinion/belief that is being discussed. He seems to be trying to make a point that there IS a certain commonly held belief among the majority of scientists that these experiences are (or would be classified as) delusional.

Acknowledging that, this seems like a pretty unworthy topic to funnel a bunch of energy in to.

The obvious fact of the matter is that there is a paradigm shift constantly happening. (if you zoom out of your/our personal tiny time scale a little bit) There always has been, and as long as there is physical life as we know it, there probably always will be.

A debate on where the majority of scientists sit on this issue is about as useful as a debate on whether the majority of leaves are still green on any day of autumn.

(unless you carry around a bag of opinions/beliefs that are dictated by the views of others - in that case, sure, go on ahead; 'figure it all out' :lol: )

 

[PowerfulMedicine]

Acknowledging that, this seems like a pretty unworthy topic to funnel a bunch of energy in to.

I honestly agree with this to an extent. In case people weren't aware, I didn't even start this topic. A moderator did, using a post that I made in a different thread.

I doubt I would have even have ever made this thread since it has become clear to me that anything that goes against the common beliefs of people on this forum in any way is going to be attacked and marginalized.

But once the thread was started, I wasn't going to abandon it. That would be like abandoning my own child, lol.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

there IS a certain commonly held belief among the majority of scientists that these experiences are (or would be classified as) delusional.

Except there's not...at least not when discussing opinions (or beliefs) based on the scientific evidence at hand. Then, as many people have already acknowledged in this thread, the jury is out.

And if we're discussing the personal beliefs of scientists, based not on scientific evidence, but personal beliefs, then at best it's an appeal to authority fallacy and at worst it's completely irrelevant.

To illustrate...

"Of all the scientists that have carried out government-sanctioned DMT research, 100% of them believe that DMT can connect the user to God and, to at least some degree, associates that God with the God of Abrahamic traditions. Therefore, there is a commonly held belief among scientists who have carried out government-sanctioned DMT research, that DMT connects us to the God represented in the Judaic texts."

So what?

The point is the evidence does not exist, one way or the other. The jury is out...the door is open...this is the frontier of this sort of research. Proclaiming that there is a consensus, based on scientific evidence, is wrong.

 

[PowerfulMedicine]

Unlike the Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Psychotomimetic Hallucinogens doesn't exactly have a lot of solid measurement behind it.

Based on some of the arguments here then as Nen said dreams are delusions, or as Orion said, love.

Dreams are not really considered delusions. This is well accepted. Although it would be considered a delusion, as far as science can show, to think that your dreams were prophetic or that they had occurred in real life. And I'd love to hear how love is a delusion. How can an emotional response be a delusion? It might lead one into delusions or it could be the result of a delusion. But would anyone say that you are delusional if you said you were sad or happy?

 

[Redguard]

Acknowledging that, this seems like a pretty unworthy topic to funnel a bunch of energy in to.

I honestly agree with this to an extent. In case people weren't aware, I didn't even start this topic. A moderator did, using a post that I made in a different thread.

I doubt I would have even have ever made this thread since it has become clear to me that anything that goes against the common beliefs of people on this forum in any way is going to be attacked and marginalized.

But once the thread was started, I wasn't going to abandon it. That would be like abandoning my own child, lol.

Well, you got to look at it this way. Because of dmt's popularity and the nexus' popularity this forum will reflect a crossection of this world's population. The good, the bad, and the ugly. So naturally anything that goes against the status quo will be met with hostility.

 

[PowerfulMedicine]

First of all, your entire argument from start to finish is an appeal to authority fallacy. This bold undertaking you've gone on in trying to establish what the scientific consensus thinks is one grand appeal to authority fallacy. It follows the formula of "they all think something, so ergo it must be true."

What don't you get. I'm not trying to say that the paradigm is necessarily right or wrong, just that it exists.

Let's say I could survey every scientist in the world. If the majority said that this is their belief based on the current scientific facts, then it would be sufficient evidence, would it not? And if it wouldn't be sufficient evidence, then that means that any scientific study that relies on surveys is completely invalid. Are you willing to say that?

Well I can't survey every scientist, so I have to rely in the literature. At this point, no one has cited any literature showing that any scientists wouldn't consider DMT to be a psychotomimetic while I have quite a few papers for my argument. Let the literature speak for itslef and stop misinterpreting my argument.

This argument does not follow the formula that you claim it does. Here is the formula: "they all think something, so they all think something". Of course I'm not claiming they all think this. Only the relevant majority.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Well I can't survey every scientist, so I have to rely in the literature. At this point, no one has cited any literature showing that any scientists wouldn't consider DMT to be a psychotomimetic while I have quite a few papers for my argument.

...Of course I'm not claiming they all think this. Only the relevant majority.

:roll:

Sampling bias, anyone?

See also: cherry picking fallacy

 

[DesykaLamgeenie]

Except there's not...at least not when discussing opinions (or beliefs) based on the scientific evidence at hand. Then, as many people have already acknowledged in this thread, the jury is out.

Exactly - Don't get me wrong; I wasn't saying that there IS a commonly held belief that it's all delusional. I was just stating PowerfulMedicine's case/stance to clear up what looked like muddy waters to me.

And if we're discussing the personal beliefs of scientists, based not on scientific evidence, but personal beliefs, then at best it's an appeal to authority fallacy and at worst it's completely irrelevant.

Yep - that is along the lines of what I was saying. Useless topic to funnel energy in to.

The point is the evidence does not exist, one way or the other. The jury is out...the door is open...this is the frontier of this sort of research. Proclaiming that there is a consensus, based on scientific evidence, is wrong.

Agreed.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

DesykaLamgeenie, thanks for clarifying

 

[PowerfulMedicine]

How about we let the literature speak for itself Snozzle. You have expressed your opinion. I understand that you disagree. Why don't you show some evidence that I'm wrong? All you want to do is sling mud and say my logic is false. Well I think that you're logic is false and that you are only trying to protect your biased opinion.

I'm not cherry picking because you haven't provided any evidence besides your opinion.

 

[a1pha]

How about we let the literature speak for itself Snozzle. You have expressed your opinion. I understand that you disagree. Why don't you show some evidence that I'm wrong? All you want to do is sling mud and say my logic is false. Well I think that you're logic is false and that you are only trying to protect your biased opinion.

With this the topic is locked. Reason: argumentum ad nauseam

PowerfulMedicine, please enjoy your break from the DMT-Nexus.

 

[DesykaLamgeenie]

PM the issue is that, the way I'm seeing it right now, is that it just doesn't work to base this argument on the literature and supposed scientific data because this literature and any so-called evidence is evidence of a consensus in the realm of personal beliefs/opinions of scientists - not true scientific evidence. All so-called evidence is arrived at by interpretations of data that are already skewed by personal belief/opinion about what certain things/situations/contexts within the subject and its related topics mean.

The evidence that you believe indicates a consensus arrived at by way of legit scientific processes resulting in accumulated evidence is actually evidence of those scientists' personal views/interpretations of the data in relation to these topics. The rest is just words, definitions, etc that are really no more than cards comprising a house.