• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Well-traveled non-believer and skeptic

Migrated topic.
davedaviddavidson

davedaviddavidson

Rising Star
There’s a lot of talk amongst the ‘’psychedelic community’’ of other dimensions, gods, beings, and various insights into the nature of reality. I have even heard of people leaving there atheism because of a psychedelic experience.
These are some of my personal feeling: I have had many very powerful experiences with LSD, DMT, magic mushrooms and various 2C’s, a yes I have experienced powerful feelings of revelations, heightened states of conciseness, telepathic connection between close friends, even some kind of divine presents. But ultimately I have never (at least not whilst sober) taken any of them to be real, or any kind of reflection on the true nature of the universe.
I do believe drugs such as these have a lot to teach us, and are an important part of the human experience, but I don’t believe one can gain a supernatural insight into reality. It seems very reasonable that these phenomenon occur, the mind is extremely powerful and very complicated and ultimately if you interfere with its normal function with foreign (or larger doses of already present) chemicals: powerful things will happen to your subjective view of reality, but to take them as any true insight into objectivity seems like an unwise fallacy that could even be dangerous.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic, looking forward to some feedback :d
 
Hey :)

Yeah its definitely an interesting question. Im personally a very skeptic person too. I also think it can be dangerous to equate psychedelic states to Objective Reality (what if entities tell you to kill someone?).

But I also will not go as far as saying its all "only a trip", because I think a lot of insights and information can be gained from it that are useful for daily reality. And who the hell knows what Reality is all about anyways, and how consciousness ties up to existence :D I think there are two threads which are quite interesting in this regard. Check them out and tell us what you think:


Btw, if you want to write a intro essay, I would be glad to read it :)
 
I believe true reality is to much for our brains to process/handle so as a surviving mechanism its chemically filtered down by our brains to a level we can function within, and when psychedelics are added to the equation it interrupts the signal sometimes mixing our filtered reality with another one. If one takes a high enough dose the one can cross over to another reality not necessarily the true one but one equally as true as this so called reality we live in.
 
Wow I can see this subject has been very well covered already.
There’s a lot of brilliant thought going on in these posts, Thanks endlessness,
Yes maybe it’s naive of me to think it’d purely illusionary, but I have to admit that’s the stand point which I feel is most reasonable, I’m going to do some more reading:wink:
 
ewok said:
I believe true reality is to much for our brains to process/handle so as a surviving mechanism its chemically filtered down by our brains to a level we can function within, and when psychedelics are added to the equation it interrupts the signal sometimes mixing our filtered reality with another one. If one takes a high enough dose the one can cross over to another reality not necessarily the true one but one equally as true as this so called reality we live in.
Click to expand...
Yes It is certain that our perception of reality is only through a fine filter of the senses, but whether bending and changing these carefully adapted filters allows true reflections on objectivity (with the ‘’assumption’’ it exists) through or whether it simply distorts them into a lesser perception of truth is a difficult question. I of course feel the latter is more reasonable. The only way I believe we can expand our knowledge of reality is through the testing of objective truths like through the scientific method. Do you think this is shallow?
 
Before you can "expand our knowledge of reality" you would need to know what reality is. There is the hurdle but can we jump it?
 
It’s a difficult thing to define but I would say reality is things or laws that are independent of observer’s perceptions. For example I would say that stars and planets, if they exist, they exist independently of my perception of them. And physical laws such as 1=1 also exists imbedded in reality. If one wishes to argue otherwise then the fact that these quality’s do not exist independently then becomes an objective characteristic of reality itself. But I am comfortable in the assumption that my subjective perception does not change the nature of the universe, just my perception of it. And only through scientific testing can we come closer to seeing the true nature of objective reality.
 
davedaviddavidson said:
It’s a difficult thing to define but I would say reality is things or laws that are independent of observer’s perceptions. For example I would say that stars and planets, if they exist, they exist independently of my perception of them. And physical laws such as 1=1 also exists imbedded in reality. If one wishes to argue otherwise then the fact that these quality’s do not exist independently then becomes an objective characteristic of reality itself. But I am comfortable in the assumption that my subjective perception does not change the nature of the universe, just my perception of it. And only through scientific testing can we come closer to seeing the true nature of objective reality.
Click to expand...
You might want to read this essay by the physicist Peter Russell. There’s also a video of a talk he gave on the same subject – it’s more involved than the essay and very much worth watching. To pique your interest, here’s a good quote from the essay:
The idea that we never experience the physical world directly has intrigued many philosophers. Most notable was the eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanual Kant, who drew a clear distinction between the form appearing in the mind—what he called the phenomenon (a Greek word meaning "that which appears to be" ) — and the world that gives rise to this perception, which he called the noumenon (meaning “that which is apprehended" ). All we know, Kant insisted, is the phenomenon. The noumenon, the “thing-in-itself,” remains forever beyond our knowing.

Unlike some of his predecessors, Kant was not suggesting that this reality is the only reality.
… Kant held that there is an underlying reality, but we never know it directly. All we can ever know of it is the form that appears in the mind—our mental model of what is "out there".
Click to expand...
Questions about the nature of the realms visited during psychedelic journeys are interesting, but it’s the questions they lead to concerning everyday reality that I find especially interesting.
 
"but to take them as any true insight into objectivity seems like an unwise fallacy that could even be dangerous."

The problem here is you can basically say the same thing about ANY insight into objectivity due to the fact that it is still comming from the exact same source..your brain. Scientific insight is not inherantly exempt here..it really is not any more or less dangerous than arriving at conclusions based on other methods.

Also you seem to have left out the part of the equation that is you. Are we not a part of the universe? Is insight into the inner nature of the human being not a relevant observation when attempting to formulate objective insight into the universe? If not I would definatily suggest you put forth a model here for us of the universe that can account for the exclusion of the human being.
 
I don't believe the things I experience on psychedelics are real, I know they are real. It is self evident. As real as anything else, that is. However, I don't think I'm using the word real in a typical context. I don't take psychedelic experiences "literally". For example, if I have an experience of meeting, and speaking with an alien, I don't believe that I talked to an alien from another planet or dimension, that I can revisit with that alien, that it will guide me. There is a different sort of realness to the psychedelic experience that is undeniable.

What do people usually mean by "real"? To me, that word means something that can be consistently have some kind of impact one of the 5 physical senses, and observed by more than one person. Rocks are real. However, in the world of imagination, things cannot qualify as real because they are not physically verifiable. I have found that there is an inner world where the rules of the outer world don't apply. Things seem to pop in and out of existence. Nothing has any real identity, other than the identity it appears as, and then soon after fades away. There is a world of infinite possibilities, yet it has no identifiable substance.

Still, I take the experiences I have in these psychedelic states, very seriously because they are a reflection of my own consciousness, I believe. Anything can appear within these psychedelic states, and it's not coincidence that one thing happens to manifest instead of another. The experiences reflect my state of mind, or whatever energies happen to be going through me at the time. Much can be learned from that.

Other things can be learned about the nature of reality from psychedelics, not from the information they give, but from the lack of information given. For example, in psychedelic space, there is often a great deal of energy and information, and visual information being flung around. When I look within, I often can't help but ask, "where is this all coming from?" The answer is always the same... "unknown". There is this play between form and formlessness, where forms are always spontaneously arising from infinite nothing. Anything that exists, can be perceived in any way is subject to the question of where it came from, and the answer is always the same, unknown. From this lack of knowledge I see in the imagination, I realize the same unknown is true for everything in the world. I don't know where anything comes from, or what anything is. Of course, this can be observed without psychedelics, but it seems to become much more apparent and obvious on psychedelics.
 
Thanks gibran2, I’ve just finished watching the video and shall read the essay shortly, it was very interesting, but I also disagree with a lot of the arguments put forth and felt many of the conclusions to be rather contrived. If you’ll be patient I’m going to write a short essay trying to articulate my objections properly so we can further this discussion. Speak to you soon

Hello fractal enchantment. that is a very interesting point of conversation. Just to be clear do you mean to say that perceptions of reality are equally as valid and equally fallible whether they come from rational deduction extrapolated from external experimentation, as they are from altered states of conciseness? That seems to be what you are saying to me. If so then then yes you may be right but only in the same respect that solipsism (the idea that only you exist) may be true, Because as far as I can see it is ultimately improvable, but that does not make it a likely reality, or a wise or logical assumption. In fact I would argue otherwise. The fact that both ways of obtaining information are both processed through the brain does not equate them in terms of level of true reflection on reality. Science is based on empirical observation and logic, as it progresses it forms a clearer and larger picture consisting of fundamental truths. Our perception of these truths is constantly evolving to become better and more accurate, whether we can ever reach the ultimate true vision of reality seems unlikely to me at this time but we can try and get as close as we can. Anyway the point is our ever evolving scientific perceptions are all based on fundamental empirical ‘’assumptions’’, such as matter is something, energy is something, and then we find that matter and energy are both the same thing. 1 + 1 = 2, therefore a whole world of mathematical truths arise from this. If you wise to argue that these fundamental observations of reality are potentially false because they are experienced by us through the brain, then you assert that the mind is potentially completely detached from objective reality. This complete separation from objective truth seems very unlikely to me, but not only that but it seems even more unlikely that it is true and drug induced states of consciousness could somehow be any closer to objective truth. As in the sober state we experience every day many of our perceptions such as the strength of gravity are founded in these fundamental truths such as 12=1, whereas a hallucinogenic encounter with an alien has no basis in any empirically tested fundamental truth. Both are of course vulnerable to fallibility but you have to make a reasonable judgment on which is more likely. Don’t you agree?
As for your other point about the human mind being itself a part of the universe, I totally agree. And insight into one’s self is something I value psychedelics for very much. And yes in a sense my subjective perception is a part of the objective reality of the universe but I was referring to exterior truths in my original post x

Hello Apoc, I think we are on the same page, we just have different definitions of reality. I strictly mean objective truths independent of observers whereas you seem to mean any subjective experience.
 
I just find value in taking psychedelics to gain more perspectives on my inner working and myself. I like mystical thoughts and various philosophies, but I realize that each state of mind still may only be perspectives to value or disregard. It would seem the healthier my mind is when I use these things, the healthier my insights become. It often humbles me when I take LSD and seem to acquire viewpoints from all different perspectives at once, some might call schizophrenic, but the value is that it gives me a broader perspective to look at all aspects of the subject. I think this coupled with science can give a broader set of ideas.

The psychedelic experience is often like a rapid brainstorm, until I let go and things seem to become clear. The more I use them, the more I can actually integrate that into my daily life, which makes me happier. Trips often seem to heal a lot of subconscious inner turmoil to me.

For things man can not prove yet, I enjoy to be open, but skeptical if it doesn't match with many of the viewpoints I have experienced. In this case it would take science or my own internal feelings to decide what I take to be a possibility, or something that doesn't fit with my view of reality.

That doesn't mean when I see myself live and die past lives in rapid succession, explode into a beam of light, open my eyes and only see auras where people used to be, that it is real in the material existence. Rather I see that as me being a part of all energy in the universe, having only a small part to play in the whole of things, and it makes me strive to do better.
 
All I truly "know" about the nature of psychedelics, and other "spiritual" ventures like meditation, is that they've aided me, and given me some nice insights into my life which make daily living a pleasure as opposed to a chore.

I'm careful not to say I "know" the answer to anything, because often times, when I or anyone else thinks they have the answer, it would be wise to step back, reevaluate, and find the next question that is born from any discovery.

That being said, I do hold spiritual believes, and believe in the no/true-self, and the universal conscious. But I do not pretend to know what exactly the purpose of the consciousness is, or why it behooves you to reach a true/no-self, beyond becoming a more well-rounded person of course.

The question is the answer is the path. To the original question you posed, I believe that there is validity to psychedelic experiences, but to believe that any substance, or all of them, is the ultimatum is folly. (imho)
 
A singularly objective universe independent of any observer is a fantasy, a thought exercise, and clearly is not our reality. As Ken Wilbur made a career out of pointing out:
The universe is Objective AND Subjective AND Intersubjective... but the objective cosmos cannot be taken for the whole truth, bc it's only part of the whole.

Western science (and western thinking, in general) has traditionally tried to reduce all things to their exterior, objective, properties due to the inconvenient complexity of subjectivity. (And out of egoic pride: my truth, my work, my experience is THE truth.)

Regarding subjective truth (aka belief?), some truths are false, we call them delusions. Objectivity is appealing because it promises freedom from delusion, but the evidence is that there is no such thing as total objectivity. There can be, however, practical objectivity... Our psychedelic education represents something greater, and more valuable,* than the subjective truth if that education ripples into the Intersubjective and/or Objective worlds in one of two ways...
A) one's insight(s) are verified in the outer world (a premonition, say, or an inventive "stroke of genius" - as two simple examples); or
B) one simply finds oneself getting along better in this or that sphere of life.
In either case, the truth in question may still be a delusion, but it is more useful than the delusion it replaced, until it too is perhaps replaced.

* Obviuosly, any significant perception can ripple into the intersubjective, or arguably even the objective world, including unproductive delusions such as "I can fly" or "I have nothing to live for" or "The airport is operated by slave-trading aliens, and I must kill them, I must kill them all!"
 
Amanita Claus said:
Western science (and western thinking, in general) has traditionally tried to reduce all things to their exterior, objective, properties due to the inconvenient complexity of subjectivity. (And out of egoic pride: my truth, my work, my experience is THE truth.)
Click to expand...

not sure what you mean by the latter statement. objectivity is independent of first-person attributes, such as ego.
objectivity implies something is observable by all, it is unbiased. ego has nothing to do with it. there is no "western" (or eastern) science, it's all just science, and it doesn't propose "truths", just shows correlations.
 
Greetings benzyme!-

The conclusions one makes and believes to be "objective" are not always as true as he supposes... Scientists have a long tradition of falling in love with, and ardently defending, their conclusions! (Which can blind them to relevant, albeit contradictory, data.)
My greater point was that, in practice, the notion of "independent" objectivity, although it has distinct usefulness, is overblown perhaps to nearly mythic significance (such is the power of this notion on our perceptions) in our epoch.

Scientic tradition is a product of Western thinking (to believe otherwise is to reveal a bias born of loyalty to the school of science (an egoic bias, no offense implied)), whereas other cultures have made greater strides in other areas out of an honoring of the subjective realms, the "West" has tended to value objectivity and dismiss the subjective. Going forward, science will likely integrate and transcend the limitation that you argue it is inherently innocent of, but not unless subjectivity is reexamined and valued differently.

Science may not "prepose truths", as you say, but human beings do (even those who call themselves scientific thinkers), including you and I. But this thread is implying preposed truths again and again, as subjectively as you please. Btw, I am ALL for revealing correlations, and for applying Scientic Method as far, wide, and deep as possible. But scientific proclamations are considered synonymous with truth all day long.

Peace.
 
Back
Top Bottom