Auto-SummaryThe author expresses frustration with the prevalence of supernatural explanations for the psychedelic experience on forums, and advocates for a skeptical, scientifically rigorous approach to understanding these experiences. The author proposes a method for collecting data to support the positive aspects of psychedelic drugs, such as enhancing creativity, using experimental studies to observe changes in consciousness. The author emphasizes that the psychedelic experience is a result of chemical reactions in the brain, not supernatural phenomena, and encourages the scientific community to approach these topics with a skeptical mindset.
I wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the "Philosophy and Spirituality" forum, but as I will be dealing extensively with the scientific method I decided it would be better here.
The point of my post is two-fold:
1) I would like to observe the psychedelic experience from a skeptical point of view, and dispel notions of supernatural involvement; I digress on points relating to criticisms of the scientific method and the continued persistence of archaic myths being propagated as acceptable truth
2) Present a method for collecting data in favour of, and proving, the more "subjective" hypotheses associated with psychedelic substances (i.e. "Certain drugs can enhance creativity") in an effort to promote the positive aspects of psychedelic drugs within a scientifically rigorous framework.
I begin with a sigh of frustration. When I browse these forums, I am impressed by the open-minded, freethinking, proactive men and women that populate them. News articles, scientific studies, philosophical theories, and everything in between, are often presented in a rational, logically consistent way that allows for an enjoyable read and an educating experience.
However, I am severely put off by the amount of "supernatural" explanations for the subjective effects of the psychedelic experience, and the "New Age" movement rehashing pagan ritual and Eastern magic as excellent theories on the way the world works, with no shred of evidence other than faith and perhaps an "illumination" 5 g of P. Cubensis gave them. Taking a look at the "Mysticism, Religion, & the Paranormal" and to some extent the "Philosophy and Spirituality" forums, I am appalled by the sheer amount of ridiculous ideas, ghost stories, and random postulates rife with contradiction and ultimately with no basis whatsoever. I recognize that this is largely the purpose of these forums, but nonetheless, the fact that such reservation has to be made on a 21st century discussion board is a little disheartening.
It seems that, in general, the scientific method, intellectualism, skepticism, atheism, and all manner of free thinking paradigms are under attack in what should certainly be the age of reason. Ridiculous superstitions and paranormal accounts of ghosts and goblins continue to pervade a society well in advance of the societies that gave birth to these ideas.
I see this as unacceptable.
For a species evolving and progressing, such ancient triviality should have long been abandoned in favour of the skeptical thought, the ingenious hypotheses, the powerful experimental observations, and ultimately the falsifiable theories that have come out of the scientific method, which have led us to numerous leaps in our continued struggle for survival.
I will digress from this general point and address the issue of the psychedelic experience, of which I’m sure most of us here are familiar. As this is the Shroomery after all, let’s talk about psilocin.
Psilocin is a molecule of a specific type that tickles our brain in a certain way. Certain chemicals are released, others are blocked, some not-yet-fully-understood trickery happens, and quite an “out of this world” experience results.
However, regardless of how “spiritual” the experience is, regardless of how you, absolutely, positively, without a doubt, think you talked to God directly, this doesn’t change the fact that it’s just a chemical that produced a strange reaction in your brain.
The molecule does not come endowed with any “spiritual” properties. It has no “mystical significance,” nor does it have the power to propel you into any new dimensions of spacetime (that is, outside of the spacetime in which we exist). Your perceived reality may very well be altered, but to the sober observer, you’re just a guy or girl beaming with a child-like grin.
Now I suppose that at this point I am receiving harsh criticisms for many supposed “believers” in fairies and goblins and pink unicorns with gold horns, but I stand firm on this position. There is nothing unnatural, unscientific about the experience. A chemical, composed of atoms of this universe, attaches to certain parts of your brain, suited for other atoms, and stuff happens that cannot conveniently be expressed through feeble discourse offered by language. Nonetheless, this does not mean that God, Osiris, Zeus, or Odin have anything to do with it.
I would be greatly comforted if I knew that there are others here that approach the psychedelic experience with the same skeptical, scientific viewpoint, and that do not succumb to the absurdities of alien encounters and supernatural out-of-body experiences. Nonetheless, unless evidence is provided to the contrary in support of a better theory resting on a supernatural hypothesis, the case remains as presented.
Now, I do not by any means believe that there can be no intrinsic benefits to be gained from a psychedelic experience. My own life was radically changed after my first mushroom trip, and I see great benefit in the use of psychedelic drugs for personal reasons. Again, just because someone is left less bitter, more loving, and more open-minded after an experience does not imply that there was anything supernatural about it.
How can we make these subjective experiences more recognized in the scientific community, or at the very least, the public?
Well, that is really where the discussion comes in, and I invite everyone to share their opinions. I propose that, if people are serious about describing the subjective effects of these drugs, rigorous studies are done to display the apparent changes in consciousness that result from say, LSD.
Since many of people are not deep, philosophical thinkers or great artists, we cannot conduct a test based on selective skills like logical reasoning or musicianship. However, we can target how people think about certain things, and I propose an experiment like this:
Take a test population. Ask one individual a question, or present a word, or a picture. The person then is asked to think of anything that comes into that person’s mind, and talk about it, or write about it; record it somehow. This will be the basis of our control group.
The same test population is then given, say, LSD (if we wish to explore its effects). The same experiment is applied. The observations are recorded, and compared. Of course this takes a lot of speculation, but so does the fossil record and cosmic microwave background radiation (to a certain degree; the speculation must stand up to rigorous examination of the evidence, of course). We draw conclusions based on the observations.
Now, I recognize that it would be very difficult to falsify any results produced. For example, if we were to give the test group LSD first, asked to talk about something, and then some time later (say, a month) asked them again, sober, we could not infer whether their response was inspired and reinforced by the LSD experience, or whether that’s how they simply think sober. Again, I am not suggesting that this is perfect, and I am asking for opinions on how such studies could be devised. Extrapolating the results from such an experiment could allow us to more carefully observe how the human brain works, and in particular, abstract notions of “creativity” and the like.
Thank for you considering my points. I know this has been a bit long, but I’ve had it pent up in me for so long, I just had to get it out. I just finished watching “The Root of All Evil?”, a documentary on the unnecessary continued existence and evil of religion, by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, and felt my scientific skepticism anxious to be used. 
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale 
North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Spores for European Microscopy 
Mono Tub Substrate
Mosis 
Ythan
Edit 
Reply 
"...and I know that I have to keep breathing, as tomorrow the sun will rise, who knows what the tide will bring?" 
Mojo_Risin
indicaz
1 2 all )
daba
rommstein2001
JssMthrFcknChrst
Pinhead
RebelSteve33
Baby_Hitler