Neuroscience and the self

[gibran2]

Regarding my earlier post, let me restate the idea in a more logical manner:

A materialist might dismiss the claim that the realm visited during a DMT experience is real, and this is reasonable and understandable. The reason for the dismissal might go something like what you’ve said: “The mind is easily fooled. Experiences can seem very real, yet not be real.”

So the question then becomes, “How do we distinguish between reality and illusion?” Since we do make such distinctions, it’s worth exploring.

You might say, “A visited realm is judged to be real if”:

· Objects have stability and permanence.
· There is a consensus among “self” and “others” that what is being experienced is real.
· The realm of experience follows inviolable laws – laws of physics which can be investigated using the Scientific Method.
· There is a flow of time, and discernable laws of cause and effect.
· The experience “feels” real.
· etc…

Now here’s my thinking: Suppose we could create a “psychedelic experience” that met all of your criteria for a “real” experience. Would it be real?

If you answer yes, you’re contradicting your claim that psychedelic experiences are nothing more than the product of a drug-addled brain.

If you answer no, then you are acknowledging that it is possible that experiences which meet all “reality tests” are not necessarily real. You would then be forced to acknowledge that sober, everyday reality may itself be illusory.

If this is the case, it seems hypocritical for a being experiencing one illusion to call it real, yet condemn other beings for calling their illusions real. The hypocrite claims to know something which can’t be known, and criticizes others for claiming to know something which can’t be known.

You can’t have it both ways – you can’t say the mind can easily fool us into thinking that illusions are real and at the same time say with confidence that what you insist is real is anything more than illusion.

 

[Citta]

Ooh, good one gibran. Let me get back to (this very interesting) discussion tomorrow. I need some sleep!

 

[Citta]

If it fits those criteria and other ones to that effect, then I would in light of new evidence humbly step down and accept the phenomenon as an occurence we can investigate under scientific inquiry. I wouldn't say that I would contradict myself, because in light of all current evidence the drug induced visits to other realms seems to be nothing more than a brain going haywire, again analogous to coupling electrical signal pathways in a computer at will. Of course, I could be wrong, but it really is nothing that hints to that these experiences (or realms) are more than hallucinations, and, call me whatever you want, I place my bets on the lack of evidence rather than my personal wish that they are more or my feeling of evidently realness I experience when I visit them myself.

For the record, we know everyday reality to be illusory. We can see a ridiculous little part of the electromagnetic spectrum for example, there are frequencies of sound we can't hear and the workings of the atomic world seems completely anti-intuitive to us - we can't even experience this realm even though it it is responsible for everything we perceive around us.

The universe is a strange and silly place, but the fact that we can't know for sure that what we perceive and experience is absolutely real doesn't open up for the blind acceptance of all kinds of experiences and beliefs people have. For pragmatical reasons, and to not have a total chaos, the line has to be drawn somewhere, don't you agree? We can't seriously go around saying that "everyday reality may itself be an illusion from a metaphysical considerate perspective, we don't really know, so the experience of the cake monster is just as real or just as illusory as everything else. Therefore, our investigations of whether or not the cake monster is actually there or not is worthless".

As I've said earlier, a metaphysical speculation about whether or not everything is a superconsistent collective hallucination is interesting, but it is a whole different game with a whole different meaning than when we ask ourselves the pragmatic questions of whether or not ghosts, gods, DMT realms, gnomes in the shed or Santa Claus really exists or not.

 

[gibran2]

As I’ve been saying all along, I agree with you that there is no way to show if psychedelic experiences are anything more than hallucination and illusion. But I suggest treating those who claim that illusions are real with respect and compassion, since it’s clear that what we insist is real – our everyday sober reality – may itself be illusory. It seems hypocritical to use information gathered in one illusory experience as evidence for proof that something is illusory in another experience. The pragmatic questions we ask, for example, about whether or not Santa Claus is real, are questions we may very well be asking from within the “confines” of an illusion. So what we really may be asking is “Does Santa Claus exist within this illusion, given the observed rules of the current illusion?” We may be asking if it’s OK for one illusion to exist within another!

And when I say illusion or illusory, I don’t mean that reality is different from what we perceive due to the limitations of our perceptual apparatus, although this is also the case. I mean that everyday reality may not even exist in the way we think about existence. Of course, there’s no way of knowing, but our everyday reality may be more similar to a hallucination than some would care to contemplate.

One point I was making was that the way we define “reality” is very strange when you begin to examine it closely: We establish criteria, and then proclaim that things/experiences satisfying those criteria are “real” and things/experiences not satisfying those criteria are not real. Do you see the problem with this?

The criteria we use to establish if things are real or not are somewhat arbitrary – change the criteria and you change what we call real and what we call illusion. And it’s interesting, understandable, and not a coincidence that the criteria we have selected to define what is real matches the sorts of experiences we have most of the time in our sober awake state. I imagine that if we were suddenly and permanently transported to a realm where beings communicated telepathically and took on the form of floating orbs of light, we’d quickly adjust our reality-testing criteria to include these new features of experience.

So in some sense, the term and the idea of “reality” are abstractions created by us to explain the different mental states we find ourselves in during the course of our lives (waking state, sleeping state, drug-induced states, naturally occurring mystical states, etc.) If the idea of “reality” is an abstraction, then can we say that anything is actually real? Reality seems to be much too arbitrary for there to be an “ultimate” reality or an “absolute” reality. “Ultimate” reality is just an abstraction determined by another set of arbitrary reality-testing criteria. We test an experience and if it satisfies the “ultimate reality” criteria, we proclaim it to be part of “ultimate reality”. If not, we call it illusion.

So does “real” mean anything more than “something which passes a test using arbitrarily established reality-testing criteria”?

 

[tele]

I feel like anything that enters ones consciousness is real(that is everything experienced), just sometimes in different dimensions and states of mind. If one wants to limit real only to the sober conscious everyday life, that's fine with me.
If you can perceive something, how can it not be real, even if it's a dream?

It all depends on how one defines "real".

 

[Citta]

But I suggest treating those who claim that illusions are real with respect and compassion, since it’s clear that what we insist is real – our everyday sober reality – may itself be illusory.

I suggest otherwise. People kill eachother because they suffer from delusions. Should we treat them with respect and compassion, rather than holding them accountable for their actions and treat them thereafter? The list on what people do because of their delusions is pretty long, as I am sure you are aware. Having your attitude in our legal system, science and so on would be on the verge of ridiculous, not to say dangerous. Your arguments, or your alternative "definition" of reality as being illusory, can be used to justify horrible actions, gibran. This is an unacceptable situation. When a psychotic person receives orders to kill someone from his waffle we can't just say that we must abstain from labeling this as a dangerous delusion because everyday reality in a metaphysical principle can be illusory, and we don't wanna be hypocritical. That's crazy talk!

One point I was making was that the way we define “reality” is very strange when you begin to examine it closely: We establish criteria, and then proclaim that things/experiences satisfying those criteria are “real” and things/experiences not satisfying those criteria are not real. Do you see the problem with this?

No, I don't necessarily see a problem with that, neither do I see it as strange but totally necessary in able to say anything about anything at all. Proposing that heavier objects falls faster than lighter ones in a vacuum is either right or wrong. Through experiment we know this is wrong, and this can be done without dealing with metaphysical considerations we can't say anything about anyway. Again, metaphysical considerations around reality is interesting, and from these considerations sure as hell everything can be a big joke and we're all just as wrong or just as right I agree, but it serves a whole different purpose than when we are dealing with everyday life, and can't seriously be used to justify this or that.

So in some sense, the term and the idea of “reality” are abstractions created by us to explain the different mental states we find ourselves in during the course of our lives (waking state, sleeping state, drug-induced states, naturally occurring mystical states, etc.) If the idea of “reality” is an abstraction, then can we say that anything is actually real? Reality seems to be much too arbitrary for there to be an “ultimate” reality or an “absolute” reality. “Ultimate” reality is just an abstraction determined by another set of arbitrary reality-testing criteria. We test an experience and if it satisfies the “ultimate reality” criteria, we proclaim it to be part of “ultimate reality”. If not, we call it illusion.

So does “real” mean anything more than “something which passes a test using arbitrarily established reality-testing criteria”?

It is not arbitrary that we have objective observations, consequent observations, technology and so on and so forth. Our reality criteria are not arbitrary, we adapt them to how our universe works, and the science that brings about these things are concerned with exactly that - how the universe works - not about what we think, want to think or believe or want to believe about it. I would argue that this converges to something that is evidently more real and plausible than the gnome in the shed. As I've said, a proposal of how the universe works is either right or wrong - metaphysical considerations aside. Let's not get completely out of our minds here!

 

[gibran2]

I suggest otherwise. People kill eachother because they suffer from delusions. Should we treat them with respect and compassion, rather than holding them accountable for their actions and treat them thereafter? The list on what people do because of their delusions is pretty long, as I am sure you are aware. Having your attitude in our legal system, science and so on would be on the verge of ridiculous, not to say dangerous. Your arguments, or your alternative "definition" of reality as being illusory, can be used to justify horrible actions, gibran. This is an unacceptable situation. When a psychotic person receives orders to kill someone from his waffle we can't just say that we must abstain from labeling this as a dangerous delusion because everyday reality in a metaphysical principle can be illusory, and we don't wanna be hypocritical. That's crazy talk!

Once again, you seem to be reading more into what I’ve written than is there.

People who engage in acts that are harmful to others should be restrained from carrying out such actions and prevented from engaging in such actions in the future – in other words, we should lock up violent criminals. Whether or not they are delusional is irrelevant. Also, are you suggesting that delusional people are more violent than others and that they are more likely to cause harm to others than people who are not delusional? This seems reminiscent of the outdated notion that schizophrenics and other mentally ill people are more dangerous and violent than the general population, and these ideas have been shown to be false. As far as I know, most perpetrators of violence aren’t delusional, and delusional thinking doesn’t automatically lead one to violence. There is no positive correlation between delusional thinking and violence that I am aware of.

Regardless, I wasn’t talking about delusions. I was talking about beliefs some people may have regarding their psychedelic experiences. Believing that entities encountered during a psychedelic experience are “real” is delusional only if evidence can be presented that they aren’t real.

Proposing that heavier objects falls faster than lighter ones in a vacuum is either right or wrong. Through experiment we know this is wrong, and this can be done without dealing with metaphysical considerations we can't say anything about anyway. Again, metaphysical considerations around reality is interesting, and from these considerations sure as hell everything can be a big joke and we're all just as wrong or just as right I agree, but it serves a whole different purpose than when we are dealing with everyday life, and can't seriously be used to justify this or that.

You are confusing the laws of physics with reality-testing criteria. Reality-testing criteria are much more general than and independent of particular physical laws. For example, one criterion for reality-testing might be “objects have permanence”. Another might be “observed physical laws are locally inviolable”.

Do you see the difference?

Even scientists don’t use particular physical laws as reality-testing criteria: If a scientist in an experimental setting observes something that violates a known physical law, he doesn’t say “I must be hallucinating or delusional”! He instead might investigate his measuring apparatus or even consider the possibility that a new phenomenon is being observed.

It is not arbitrary that we have objective observations, consequent observations, technology and so on and so forth. Our reality criteria are not arbitrary, we adapt them to how our universe works, and the science that brings about these things are concerned with exactly that - how the universe works - not about what we think, want to think or believe or want to believe about it. I would argue that this converges to something that is evidently more real and plausible than the gnome in the shed. As I've said, a proposal of how the universe works is either right or wrong - metaphysical considerations aside. Let's not get completely out of our minds here!

Physical laws are not arbitrary. I didn’t say they were. Once again, you seem to be conflating physical laws and reality-testing criteria. They are very different things. Maybe this will help you understand:

Let’s imagine I have a vivid and very long dream, and within this dream, I conduct a series of experiments using the Scientific Method, and deduce certain physical laws from my experiments. Let’s also say that these laws, although internally consistent, are not the same as our ordinary waking-life physical laws. Now the question I have for you is: Does the fact that my dream world had reproducible, consistent, and inviolable physical laws mean that my dream was real? According to your reality-test criteria, “predictable physical laws imply reality”, then you’d say the dream world is real.

 

[Citta]

I did nowhere intend to imply that delusional people are more prone to violent acts, I just used it as an example to discuss with you. I know that in general they are not =)

And I am not really confusing laws of physics with reality-testing-criteria, again I was only using it as an example to discuss with you and point out that something is either right or wrong when it comes to the workings of our universe. And I guess we can both agree that science, in our culture, has the monopoly of what is generally considered as actual phenomena and what is not - this because of the objective convergence science has towards the workings of the universe, whereas for example religion is based on beliefs without evidence. Consider another example; if some phenomenon is proposed to exist, and the existence of this phenomenon requires that it violates known physical laws, then this is in general a big alarm bell for the likelihood of the given phenomenon and it will probably be disregarded as an unsubstantiated belief, hallucination (ghosts for example) etc.

Your example with the scientist in the lab I am well aware of. I am a physics student myself, and have done countless experiments

Furthermore, your example with the dream is flawed, because your dream is only experienced by you. There is no way to set up experiments in different parts of the world with different sets of scientists to check up on your dream - it was all in your head, and your head only.

As far as entities encountered in DMT states, it is impossible to falsify unless you are forming a hypothesis something like "these encounters are a result of chemical influence on the brain, and as a consequence the distortion of the brains perception of the world around it". With this hypothesis the only thing needed to be done is receive concrete information from them that you could not have otherwise. There is no scientific test we can do to prove whether or not Elvis has resurrected either, or that the universe was created by a waffle, but there is no reason to believe that this should be the case. I talked about this in my first reply to you in this thread.

 

[gibran2]

Your example with the dream is flawed, because your dream is only experienced by you. There is no way to set up experiments in different parts of the world with different sets of scientists to check up on your dream - it was all in your head, and your head only.

It isn't flawed - it just doesn't satisfy ALL of your reality-testing criteria. For example, one of your criterion is probably "phenomena must be observable by more than one person to imply reality".

And suppose you observe something out in the woods all by yourself in a sober, awake state of mind. Do you question the reality of what you experience when you’re alone – when no one else is around to validate and form consensus regarding the reality of your experiences?

 

[Citta]

Your example with the dream is flawed, because your dream is only experienced by you. There is no way to set up experiments in different parts of the world with different sets of scientists to check up on your dream - it was all in your head, and your head only.

It isn't flawed - it just doesn't satisfy ALL of your reality-testing criteria. For example, one of your criterion is probably "phenomena must be observable by more than one person to imply reality".

Fine, and yes, the one criterion there is a pretty neat one when we try to figure out what takes place in our reality. Your dream failed that, and makes it just a dream experienced by you. Now, the dream itself was real of course, but the contents of it not quite so.

 

[Citta]

And suppose you observe something out in the woods all by yourself in a sober, awake state of mind. Do you question the reality of what you experience when you’re alone – when no one else is around to validate and form consensus regarding the reality of your experiences?

I would not doubt the reality of the experience itself, but depending on the nature of the phenomenon experienced I would certainly either disregard it or take it to be some real occurrence. If I took it to be some real occurence, I would investigate it, and if it were some real occurrence, a phenomenon of nature, then it should be reproducible, observable by others in controlled settings, it should be able to be explained within the known laws of physics (or the ones to be known with further experimentation, investigation and theoretical work), or perhaps it actually have been explained already?

Many observations and breakthroughs in science have been done by people alone, without anyone else there to validate it in the present moment and form consensus. But consensus and validity is formed afterwards, once the observation or whatever is presented and confirmed to be an actual occurence or a matter of fact of nature.

In general, I always question the reality of what I experience - I think that is called a healthy dose of skepticism =)

 

[gibran2]

I would not doubt the reality of the experience itself, but depending on the nature of the phenomenon experienced I would certainly either disregard it or take it to be some real occurrence. If I took it to be some real occurence, I would investigate it, and if it were some real occurrence, a phenomenon of nature, then it should be reproducible, observable by others in controlled settings, it should be able to be explained within the known laws of physics (or the ones to be known with further experimentation, investigation and theoretical work), or perhaps it actually have been explained already?

Many observations and breakthroughs in science have been done by people alone, without anyone else there to validate it in the present moment and form consensus. But consensus and validity is formed afterwards, once the observation or whatever is presented and confirmed to be an actual occurence or a matter of fact of nature.

In general, I always question the reality of what I experience - I think that is called a healthy dose of skepticism =)

Although you may “always question the reality of what you experience”, I doubt very much that you follow up every question with investigation – you don’t investigate every experience you have to ensure that it is reproducible and observable by others in a controlled setting. If you did, I think you’d have little time left for anything else.

And even if you did, all you would be doing is showing that your experiences satisfy two additional reality-test criteria: “the experience is reproducible” and “the experience is observable by others in a controlled setting”.

 

[gibran2]

Your example with the dream is flawed, because your dream is only experienced by you. There is no way to set up experiments in different parts of the world with different sets of scientists to check up on your dream - it was all in your head, and your head only.

It isn't flawed - it just doesn't satisfy ALL of your reality-testing criteria. For example, one of your criterion is probably "phenomena must be observable by more than one person to imply reality".

Fine, and yes, the one criterion there is a pretty neat one when we try to figure out what takes place in our reality. Your dream failed that, and makes it just a dream experienced by you. Now, the dream itself was real of course, but the contents of it not quite so.

No, my dream didn’t fail that test – I just neglected to mention this: In my dream, I shared my findings with others in many different parts of the world and they were able to reproduce identical results.

 

[Citta]

No, my dream didn’t fail that test – I just neglected to mention this: In my dream, I shared my findings with others in many different parts of the world and they were able to reproduce identical results.

Haha, no shit! Well then I guess we would have a scientific breakthrough, however unlikely the scenario you have drawn is to actually occur!

But does this unlikely situation really constitute a real argument?

 

[Citta]

Although you may “always question the reality of what you experience”, I doubt very much that you follow up every question with investigation – you don’t investigate every experience you have to ensure that it is reproducible and observable by others in a controlled setting. If you did, I think you’d have little time left for anything else.

And even if you did, all you would be doing is showing that your experiences satisfy two additional reality-test criteria: “the experience is reproducible” and “the experience is observable by others in a controlled setting”.

Of course I don't follow up my every single experience with an investigation and so on, that would be meaningless and unecessary. What is your point?

 

[gibran2]

No, my dream didn’t fail that test – I just neglected to mention this: In my dream, I shared my findings with others in many different parts of the world and they were able to reproduce identical results.

Haha, no shit! Well then I guess we would have a scientific breakthrough, however unlikely the scenario you have drawn is to actually occur!

But does this unlikely situation really constitute a real argument?

What I’m saying is quite simple: If you have a dream (or a psychedelic experience, or any other non-ordinary experience) that satisfies all the reality-test criteria you apply to your sober, waking everyday life, then you would call it real. But it isn’t real – it’s a dream. So if we’re able to mistake a dream for reality, how can we say that reality isn’t a “dream”?

All we can really do is apply reality-test criteria to our experiences, and then place the experiences in a “real” or “not real” category based on the results of the test. There is no way to prove that anything is real.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

No, my dream didn’t fail that test – I just neglected to mention this: In my dream, I shared my findings with others in many different parts of the world and they were able to reproduce identical results.

Haha, no shit! Well then I guess we would have a scientific breakthrough, however unlikely the scenario you have drawn is to actually occur!

But does this unlikely situation really constitute a real argument?

Well..another way to look at it might be:

What if you encountered beings within the dream who appeared entirely real and autonomous within the dream-reality. As far as you could discern, within the apparent absolute reality of your dream world, these people were real and were experiencing the same reality as your dreaming self. You would have no way of knowing that these people within the dream were illusions until you woke up from the dream.

what then?

 

[endlessness]

Whenever gibran gets into a discussion regarding dreams and reality, what I always wonder is: "If so, then what? "

What difference does it make?

I think its important to have this part of us that questions and doubts everything, that is humble enough not to make absolute affirmations about the Real.

But still we seem to most often go back to this 'consensus reality', so we have to make the best out of it. Its also of benefit to "do our best" with dreams and psychedelic states, but there is an advantage in considering the consensus reality "more real" at least in the sense for example that one could attempt to fly in a lucid dream without serious consequences, but I wouldnt advice you to do that in consensus reality (at least take off from the ground first, you know )

Who knows if there is another life or if this is a simulation with many tries. You could even use a fancy argument about a simulation where doing unhealthy things will actually get you 'points' for your future life... But are you gonna base your daily decisions on that philosophical thought? Personally I rather try to do my best in this life as if its the one and only reality. Sure I explore other states of mind such as dreams or hyperspace/psychedelic realms, and I wont make absolute claims about what they are, but I certainly use them always in relation to the 'consensus reality' and will have criteria from this realm as the basis of my own particularized and limited mode for whats reality.

I will use science as a great tool for exploring this reality, knowing its not the end-all but its very important together with all other sources of knowledge, each with their relative weight. Also try to be healthy and regardless of how convincing some experience is, if it doesnt lead to my and other's general health and development, I will not follow it.

And I would do this all regardless if our universe is a simulation or if it would fit the materialistic world view. So you see why for me it always makes me wonder what is the point of those arguments in the first place ?

 

[gibran2]

Whenever gibran gets into a discussion regarding dreams and reality, what I always wonder is: "If so, then what? "

What difference does it make?

I think its important to have this part of us that questions and doubts everything, that is humble enough not to make absolute affirmations about the Real.

But still we seem to most often go back to this 'consensus reality', so we have to make the best out of it. Its also of benefit to "do our best" with dreams and psychedelic states, but there is an advantage in considering the consensus reality "more real" at least in the sense for example that one could attempt to fly in a lucid dream without serious consequences, but I wouldnt advice you to do that in consensus reality (at least take off from the ground first, you know )

Do you believe your psychedelic states or dreams equally as valid and truthful or 'real' as 'consensus reality' gibran?

I usually bring this up when a materialist discounts someone’s claim that the realm(s) visited during a psychedelic experience are real. The materialist will arrogantly say “That’s ridiculous. Psychedelic realms are products of a drug-addled brain.” (I’m not suggesting that anyone in this thread has behaved arrogantly.)

My argument is a long-winded way of saying this to the materialist: “You seem very sure of yourself that psychedelic realms aren’t real. What makes you so sure? You can’t even say if what you consider to be self-evidently real – your everyday reality - is in fact ‘real’!”

What people generally mean when they say something is real is that it satisfies the generally agreed-upon reality-test criteria. It does not mean that something is indeed real. As I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, I don’t believe that there is such a thing as an “ultimate reality” – even “ultimate reality” is defined by a set of reality-test criteria.

Regarding the final question – it depends on how you define “valid”. But without getting too deep into semantics, I’d say yes – dreams and psychedelic states, within the confines of the dream and the psychedelic state, are valid and truthful.

Lately, I have deliberately avoided saying that some of the DMT realms I’ve visited are “real”. Instead, I say that they’re “as real as everyday reality”, meaning that they pass the reality test for many significant criteria.

And regarding the whole “flying in a dream vs. attempting to fly in consensus reality” – why would you attempt to do in consensus reality what you do in a dream? The physical laws in a dream are obviously not the same as they are in consensus reality, so whether in a dream or in consensus reality, it is wise to adhere to the laws of the current illusion.

 

[endlessness]

Sure its important to go into a psychedelic experience with an open mind and surrender to the relative reality of that realm, but I dont think thats the same as considering it equally real. What if its a mixed experience, like an oral psychedelic where consensual reality is there but there is an overlaying or breaking of boundaries with the psychedelic world, and very convincing entities tell you to kill someone? Wouldnt you have a hierarchy of what world is more real, at least to some extent?

Also please also read my last post again I made an edit. I agree with the value of exposing weakness in the materialist world view but essentially I dont see what difference either way it makes in my life, and also I do see the importance of science as well as the benefit of some kind of hierarchy in terms of reality without any pretension of knowing ultimately what existence really is...