271–280 of 302 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes, but mostly without psychedelics.
I mean, if one of ten happened while on psychedelics, and the person spent 0.0001% of their life under the influence of psychedelics, that's a pretty significant contribution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>To scientifically test this... I swear, you people turn science into a religious ritual. First-hand observation (which we have here) is the gold standard for knowledge-derivation. Science is just a method for ensuring that our models hew close to that. What you assert here is mere convention.
Actually no. The plural of anecdote is not data. This is a single anecdote, not a set of data from a properly blinded or designed study. Humans are TERRIBLE at knowing reality. That's like the whole point of the scientific process. People's self reports are literally the worst evidence ever used in science, and you have to actively work against your subjects and their brains to tease any actual signal out of that noi…
You see how that is rather inconsistent.
How about this instead.
We can offer, in addition to our observation, the method by which we arrived at the observation. The method of our "experiment".
We might also compare our observation with that of our "peers".
(And we might also cultivate ourselves, to make better observations. If you think such a thing is possible)
But however you slice it, the validity of the observation stands upon the authority of the observer. There's no getting around that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point I was making is different. It was that perception and experiences are real, just not necessarily reflective of a shared reality. The state of consciousness is much more than just the processing of external signals. > if you have a solid source or line of thought that manages to explain one's sense of reality being more than «it's how I feel it for me, so that must be true of others, otherwise it's q…
Foreword: I don't wan't to be contrarian or combative, but I see unjustified universal truths laid out in your comment, 2 specifically: > The state of consciousness is much more than just the processing of external signals. Complex life evolution is 100% based on best survival interpretation of surrounding environment. I understand how we can try to figure out what is more in the human way of doing it, but I really t…
>Complex life evolution is 100% based on best survival interpretation of surrounding environment. I understand how we can try to figure out what is more in the human way of doing it, but I really think that has to hold on something before getting past it.
I agree that evolution is driven by Fitness, and a large part of Fitness is understanding the world around you. That doesn't mean 100% of behavior, or especially experience, serves a purpose of advancing Fitness. Evolution is messy. It has mistakes, byproducts, artifacts, and maladaptive traits. Not everything done is done with a purpose.
>It is, and yet, if you do the exercise of imagine that dreaming is a social construct that you are the only one to really experience it, discarding that idea is solely based on belief. A belief I share, based on trust in others, and what seems the most probable. If it's absurd, it's only because we can rule it out as highly improbable.
Really struggle to grasp your meaning on this one. It seems that the existence of belief itself, independent of social truth, and contrary to trust in others, is evidence to the contrary. Are you saying that humans wouldn't have feelings, thoughts, or dreams, unless they have a social expectation to do so?
All the people in this thread who decoded it used long exposure or faster playback. Using the latter, for me, it starts to become readable at 2.5x and is essentially a clear static image at 4x. (I had to download the video and play it back using VLC.) Which for me, makes this claim a bit absurd: > At a theoretical level, this confirmation is significant because it is the first clear demonstration of a real perceptual…
This is consistent with the idea that the geometric patterns of hallucinogenic drugs are just feedback artifacts in an analog system of your senses, and by imparing its 'clock' signal chemically, you get periodic noise whose geometry is proportional to the signalling frequency and its failures. No higher dimensions, just maybe a lower, impaired, fractal dimension. There are still theraputic uses for this impairment,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>To scientifically test this... I swear, you people turn science into a religious ritual. First-hand observation (which we have here) is the gold standard for knowledge-derivation. Science is just a method for ensuring that our models hew close to that. What you assert here is mere convention.
To be fair, I understand why they're skeptical. A brain's perception of itself is imperfect, and sometimes completely made-up. (Actually, one could make the argument that all perception is completely made-up, but I digress.) Since we're talking about things that happened inside my own head, how can I know whether I actually experienced a certain period of time, or only created a memory of having experienced that time…
It's funny. You distrust your eyes but trust your thoughts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>To scientifically test this... I swear, you people turn science into a religious ritual. First-hand observation (which we have here) is the gold standard for knowledge-derivation. Science is just a method for ensuring that our models hew close to that. What you assert here is mere convention.
> First-hand observation Well no, it is not. If you spot an UFO, chances are your "first-hand observation" is lying to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very interesting way to look at this. Do you have many more resources for this "interpretation" of a psychedelic experience. I believe, the slowing down of the "clock" can be said for meditation as well in some sense. Because even in a deep meditation you lose a sense of "time" and that's when it gets slightly "psychedelic", for a lack of a better word. One thing that is different with meditation is that th…
check section 3 of this review: https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/golubitsky.4/reprintweb-0.5/o... or for a narrower slice this paper is reference [6]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11500666_What_Geome... The full mathematics are quite challenging, but the gist of the result (iirc) is basically: many common hallucinatory experiences, including the geometric patterns reported from both psychedelics and migrain…
I don't entirely discount the spiritual aspect or disrespect it either, in spite of my original comment. While I've never used DMT, the experiences of friends who have used ayahuasca could not just be feedback and distortion artifacts of impairment, they are a complete break, where the needle on the player of self just lifts off the record entirely. But for milder recreational stuff like lsd and mushrooms, it's nice to just have the self shut up for a little bit by impairing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a basis for your speculation, or are you just sharing from personal experience?
Yes, it clearly needs more science. Can we get some test-tubes and white lab-coats in here? Because first-hand observation just isn't good enough.
Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it clearly needs more science. Can we get some test-tubes and white lab-coats in here? Because first-hand observation just isn't good enough.
Actually, my guess was that parent poster had neither science nor experience to back him up and was just making shit up. Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, if one of ten happened while on psychedelics, and the person spent 0.0001% of their life under the influence of psychedelics, that's a pretty significant contribution.
I wasn’t making a point I was countering yours.
Was that not self-evident?
Also, countering a point is itself a point in a conversation.