The way things look

[SnozzleBerry]

So, obviously, I have to ask...are you interested in having a discussion or just showering us in assertions of things that you've declared to be true?

 

[mr peabody]

Before addressing anything, I'd like to point out that you are still speaking in single sentence assertions. You shared a story, yes, but as far as "original thought" you appear to have only presented the assertion that "Science will never explain consciousness."

All I'm saying is that I've worked the equation, and that is the answer. I employ brute force reasoning to address problems like this, meaning, aggregate analysis of all surrounding datum (available and unavailable).

Psychedelics inexorably collapse the scientific paradigm.

I can see some vague relation between this question and the excerpt, but I don't feel as though the excerpt explains, validates, or justifies this assertion. Especially not in the light of the body of scientific psychedelic research conducted over the past 60+ years.

The excerpt is only intended to make the point that science has no explanation of consciousness, and will not have, because that would require psychedelic introspection, and even then, there is no "proving" what consciousness is or is not, employing the scientific method.

So, obviously, I have to ask...are you interested in having a discussion or just showering us in assertions of things that you've declared to be true?

Yes sure, I am very happy to find ANYONE interested enough in what I have to say to comment. I know these ideas may seem far-fetched, but I am unaware of other attempts to condense them into a single PRACTICALLY USEABLE cosmology.

As for who we are, why we are here, and what's next, I believe the answers are self-evident and perfectly straightforward for all those using psychedelics to journey inward.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Before addressing anything, I'd like to point out that you are still speaking in single sentence assertions. You shared a story, yes, but as far as "original thought" you appear to have only presented the assertion that "Science will never explain consciousness."

All I'm saying is that I've worked the equation, and that is the answer. I employ brute force reasoning to address problems like this, meaning, aggregate analysis of all surrounding datum (available and unavailable).

Except, thus far, you have displayed no reasoning...at least none that I can discern, only declarations, which you declare to be true based on your declaration of such.

Even in this quote, you reference some equation that you've "solved" via "brute force reasoning"...yet you've already been asked and declined to answer:

1) What is the equation you're referencing?
2) What is the solution?
3) What is brute force reasoning?

So far, to me, it appears like you've used a lot of words but really have not said much beyond declaring that somehow you know what is possible or impossible to know in the future (e.g. science will never...).

 

[pitubo]

All I'm saying is that I've worked the equation, and that is the answer. I employ brute force reasoning to address problems like this, meaning, aggregate analysis of all surrounding datum (available and unavailable).

Would you mind sharing the intermediate equations with us? That would make the answer so much more valuable. I am also becoming more and more curious about your "brute force reasoning", can you supply me with a few instructive examples of that?

there is no "proving" what consciousness is or is not, employing the scientific method.

But is there any more proof in making bald statements, only qualified by "things I know" and "50 years of deepest psychedelic reflection"?

 

[mr peabody]

All I'm saying is that I've worked the equation, and that is the answer. I employ brute force reasoning to address problems like this, meaning, aggregate analysis of all surrounding datum (available and unavailable).

1) What is the equation you're referencing?
2) What is the solution?
3) What is brute force reasoning?

1. The equation, meaning, whether science will ever be able to explain consciousness.
2. The solution, according to everything that I know, is that it will not.
3. Brute force reasoning, meaning, aggregate analysis of all surrounding datum (available and unavailable). This ability is native to me, not learned. I can only describe it by saying that regarding certain solutions I might characterize as self-evident, to me, no other condition would make sense. Highly subjective and theoretical yes, but for me it works. IMO, it is not necessary to be able to answer every sub-question one might encounter in arriving at a solution. Being able to scientifically "prove" what psychedelics reveal has no relevance, to me at least.

There are, apparently, two schools of thought:

1. Science is the end-all be-all definitive last word on all things.
2. Science hasn't the slightest idea what to make of consciousness.

I happen to belong to the second school.

 

[pitubo]

3. Brute force reasoning, meaning, aggregate analysis of all surrounding datum (available and unavailable). This ability is native to me, not learned. I can only describe it by saying that regarding certain solutions I might characterize as self-evident, to me, no other condition would make sense. Highly subjective and theoretical yes, but for me it works. IMO, it is not necessary to be able to answer every sub-question one might encounter in arriving at a solution. Being able to scientifically "prove" what psychedelics reveal has no relevance, to me at least.

So what are you trying to share with us?

Merely stating what is self-evident to you has very little communicative value.

 

[mr peabody]

Merely stating what is self-evident to you has very little communicative value.

Given the virtual unavailability of PRACTICAL information concerning psychedelics and their use, my fondest wish would be to present some fresh ideas on the subject, and I am delighted if anyone finds them interesting enough to want to know more,
or to even comment.

Best wishes now and always.

 

[pitubo]

Mr peabody,

There is never enough good practical information concerning psychedelics. The dmt-nexus is a place where a lot of practical information regarding safe and responsible use of psychedelics can be found and discussed, you are very welcome to learn, share and expand the knowledge found here.

So far, you have not given very much practical information yourself. I don't count complaining about perceived shortcomings of the scientific method, along with declarations that you do not feel the need to explain your insights in terms that enable a sensible discourse, as useful practical information. Perhaps I judge too soon and all the goodies are still forthcoming.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

At this point, I am going to refer you to the Attitude, specifically the "Quality of information and discussion" section:

Quality of information and discussion

If you post something as a fact, you have to be able to provide a reliable source for your argument. This depends contextually, but a peer-reviewed publication is an example of what could be a good source, and a random unknown website or what “someone said” could be an example of an unreliable source. If you state something as your opinion then please support that opinion with good reasoning. If you cannot do that then don't state your opinion at all since it's useless for others. This is not Facebook with like/dislike.

 

[mr peabody]

So far, you have not given very much practical information yourself. I don't count complaining about perceived shortcomings of the scientific method, along with declarations that you do not feel the need to explain your insights in terms that enable a sensible discourse, as useful practical information. Perhaps I judge too soon and all the goodies are still forthcoming.

Thanks a lot for your comment. It seems to me that science and psychedelics are like apples and oranges, that many of the insights we gain from psychedelics are not explainable in scientific terms. Maybe psychedelics offer us a new way to explain phenomena which science cannot, and I am grateful for the chance to be involved in that discussion.

 

[hug46]

1. Science is the end-all be-all definitive last word on all things.
2. Science hasn't the slightest idea what to make of consciousness.

I happen to belong to the second school.

I am sure that there are plenty more schools of thought than the two mentioned above. One being that science doesn't know what consciousness is but, given time, it could work it out.

Yeah, I think science is much better in answering questions related to how things happen rather than why things happen.

Science will never explain consciousness.

Could it not be that the reason science has trouble in answering as to why things happen is that there is no "why". It just is.
And that the desire to find meaning in everything is a product of our ability to reason. And that one of the by products of taking psychedelics is to enhance the act of finding meaning in everything. Thereby fooling us, allbeit in a very nice and interesting way (most of the time). And this enhances our desire to complicate what consciousness actually is.

Perhaps consciousness is simply a reaction to our environment. We are just sunflowers following the sun across the sky and the complexity of our physical make up further enhances our reactions to incoming information. Perhaps consciousness is simply the interaction of information.

 

[mr peabody]

1. Science is the end-all be-all definitive last word on all things.
2. Science hasn't the slightest idea what to make of consciousness.

I happen to belong to the second school.

Could it not be that the reason science has trouble in answering as to why things happen is that there is no "why". It just is.

Yes, just exactly! Science is obsessed with chains of cause and effect, with labels, with symbols. Psychedelics take us beyond this, to a place where things simply are as they are.

pb

 

[hug46]

Yes, just exactly! Science is obsessed with chains of cause and effect, with labels, with symbols. Psychedelics take us beyond this, to a place where things simply are as they are.

pb

Ok then if we have the "whys" taken care of surely working out how something works is the next best thing..I am not sure you could call the use of symbols and labels as an obsession. Labels and symbols are just a way of universally explaining something. And it could be argued that cause and effect is the basis of consciousness.

 

[The Traveler]

This silly conversation is now closed and the OP has been shown the door.

Since the DMT-Nexus is a site where we share and discuss knowledge it is paramount that its members are able to engage questions and to clarify their viewpoints on a reasonable scale.

If you want to evade hard questions and/or just want to vomit out some esoteric ideals then this is not the site for you.

Anyone can make up baseless claims about anything. So knowing that, it is important to differentiate between the people who are just making stuff up and people who are actually doing real research and base their hypothese on empirical evidence that is testable.

The DMT-Nexus embraces the group that does the real research.

Kind regards,

The Traveler