A third eye?
 

Hey, do you beleive that psychadelics i.e pyslocybin opens a path way to a deeper understanding of the thread of organic life and the non organic cosmos and possibly going deep enough that religion/ spirituality, and science merge? im knowing it more and more every day

the smell of petroleum pervades throughout

Reality is what can be perceived by the 5 senses. When senses get messed up, so does reality. You arn't walking down a path to religious enlightenment, your brain is just incapable of applying labels to what it has sensed. When the brain is incapable of applying labels to something, then it fills in the gaps the best it can- wierd things are felt.

Our brains deal with labels. These labels are fueled by our senses. If our senses are inhibited in some fashion, our brain cannot figure out what to do and thus mislabels and otherwise "messes up" the entire thought process. While this is a different way of perceiving the world, it certianly isn't a spiritual one. Since the beginning of time humans have categorized things they couldn't label or understand as the "supernatural". It's no different here.

AppleSauceMcGee, sounds like someone's having a good morning...

I've always been one to think that orgasm was the closest you could ever be to god, but I've always thought that in a joking sense...

And Robaggio, you sound like a hardcore empiricist. I just want to clarify: Do you believe in a constant reality, or simply that there are perceptions of what is real?

By what mechanism would altering your brain chemicals influence your understanding of life, the universe, and everything? It strikes me as far more likely that such drugs cause a feeling of contentedness and "oneness" that makes the user feel like they have a connection with the world. Going on empirical evidence, however, I would have to say that people who use psychadelic drugs are either not more knowledgable about the world or that they are completely incapable of conveying their new knowledge to the uninitiated and thus only seem like insane drug addicts who have had inalterable damage done to their mental faculties. :D

Yes. Yes they do.

Cellophane:

I believe in a constant reality in the sense that "a tree will still make a sound if it falls in a forest with nobody to hear it".

I don't think that psychadelics opens any paths or new senses. I do think it makes the user aware that there could be so much more out there than what our five sense can detect.

yea I think this as well.

So obviously ultraviolet light, super-high frequency sound, and atoms aren't real because they can't be perceived by our five senses.

I find it amusing that such a hardcore empiricist, so enthralled with science, would make a statement that blatantly dismisses enormous areas of all of the natural sciences. Irony, thy name is Robaggio.

We can percieve ultra-violet light with our five sense. Not directly, sure but we can still percieve it, that is how we know it to exist.

If you look outside the window and see the trees swaying and bending over, you have 'seen' the wind.

(Don't necessarily entirely agree with Robaggio, but his position is certainly viable in the face of such an objection).

We can use things that make sense to measure things that we can't sense. You can't measure a "deeper understanding of organic life". And it's not like we'll invent a tool to measure "understanding". It can't be quantified.

The brain works on a system of labels. Psychadelics inhibit parts of the brain that help organize, remember, or otherwise just plain deal with labels altogether. The brain gets tricked into thinking it's found something it hasn't. It isn't thinking on a higher or deeper level... it's just plain messed up. The result is something nonsensical.

What's the biggest realm of nonsensical labeling? Religion. If people can't understand something they file it away under religion. Whether it's the meaning of life, or the reason why the rain god decided to cause drought. When people can't label things then they make it the cause of something divine. When labels get crosswired and the person experiences nonsensical thoughts, then are their brains experiencing something deeper and more divine? I doubt it.

And you are entitled to your opinion, narrow as it may be to the vast field of possibilities. There are those who would look upon the world as through a keyhole, while others prefer a window.

A tree falling in a forest will produce waves in the air, unless someone hears it then those waves remain silent so no it doesn't make a noise.

I agree however that when on drugs those profound thougts are a result of a messed up mind and in the cold sober light of day they really don't seem so profound, however senses can be heightened and the result can allow you to appreciate things (music, scenery) in different ways.

That all depends on whether you define sound as "the perception of vibrations in a medium by a being's sensory organ" or whether you define sound as "vibrations in a medium".

Why on earth would anyone want to define 'sound' as 'the perception of (what is normally considered) sound'. Unless of course that person wanted to do violence to the language just to win an argument.

If you are abusive enough to your langauge, you can "win" just about any philosophical argument.

yeah yeah - it was a frivilous comment and I don't want to thread hijack, 'sound' is the vibration not the perception of vibration, so the tree still makes a 'sound'

It is not abusing the language; it is a very important difference in paradigm between groups of people. Philosophical discussions are quite useless without good communication. A physicist would likely agree with you, but I'll bet a lot of biologists would state the "abusive", as you call it, definition.

If you are abusive enough to the concept, you can "win" just about any philosophical argument as well. If you do not allow creativity and difference between definitions, then I shall not allow you creativity with the consideration of the question: the question is supposed to be unanswerable since no one can witness it; therefore that is the only way it may be considered.

d*d: I wouldn't worry about threadjacking. The original topic is long dead.

Can you define the "vast field of possibilities"? How would I be limiting myself to a keyhole? I don't think I've limited myself at all. :confused:

Before I explain myself, I want to clarify that: I post on the tfp late at night, and I had an urge to try my hand at being poetic. Hence, that post may not have applied quite as much to yours as it should have. It applies somewhere and somehow though!

Now, basically what I was saying is that people who look at everything as being cut-and-dried can miss out on other fun ways to play around with concepts. If one is to latch onto a particular paradigm (in your case, scientific athiest from your post), the one will severely limit one's creativity.

In your post for example, you state that the brain is just "plain messed up", et cetera, when people claim to be having religious experiences. As a pragmatist, I don't begrudge that point of view, when applying it to everyday life. There are many other possibilities however, and it can't hurt to consider them in a situation such as this (religious experiences being one of those possibilities). Now, I'm probably overdoing this whole post due to the wording of your statements. You make all of them unequivocally, as though there is no other way that this can be. This is merely an exercise in semantics, but they are the basis of communication.

hm. im tired but ill give this a shot.
 

I do not believe that drugs open anything other than your personal limits of perception. However, you must consider that you are tampering with your brain by doing this and that your brain is what allows you your perception in the first place. (not your mind.. as we are talking about a physical alteration of perception due to physical stimulus)

Also consider that the "trip" we experience when we take drugs is simply a means of returning to normal function. You can "trip" off of anything. The "drugs" we take which induce any effect must be taken at a high enough dose to do so. Otherwise they are no more special than a dose of any other substance. What I'm getting at is that our trip is simply a physical response and nothing more. Your brain reacts to these in different ways but your concioussness is only altered in a very temporary way. While it may seem as though you've opened a door or pathway to some place new - consider that your mind has been forced to let go of the stifling chafe of conventional thinking for long enough to consider broader possibilities. It's no more magical than that. The boundaries of our perception are limited more by language and other cultural influences than anything else.

As a biologist, I would have to go, no, that is retarded. Perhaps you would care to venture an entreaty with some philosophy gurus who are on what applesaucemcgee was when he started this post.

Also, Robaggio is completely accurate in definining his perspective, you are simply - no, purposefully refusing to understand what he has plainly said. Also, I've found that using the word paradigm makes the person sound like a pompous jackass.

Je pense, donc je suis.

Life is perception. We have nothing beyond what we see and hear and feel and everything is filtered through that. Taken to the Descartian extreme, one can argue that the only thing any one person can be sure of is one's own existance, but that's harldy a useful world view. It's worth remembering though, that although our senses are the only way we're able to relate to the world, they are fallible.

Do psychotropic drugs 'expand your consciousness'? Yes and no. They alter the way you perceive the world. They change your filters, so to speak, which in turn causes you to see everything in a different light. As the drug wears off this impression may or may not stay with you.

Do I believe it opens our minds to some higher plain of existence? Certainly not. But it does change how we perceive this one, which for some people can be just as signifigant.

I cannot speak from personal experience, but yes, i believe they can. Think of it this way... I have ADD in a hardcore fashion. I'm also a pretty smart guy. However, my brain's lack of ability (due to chemistry issues) to concentrate make it very difficult for me to express ideas sometimes. Should I then believe that, by fixing that imbalance with a drug targetted to ADD, I will still have this problem and will not have clearer thought?

Secondly, our brain's ability to "perceive" is also somewhat social. Look at alcohol. When one is sober, one might find a particular girl gorgeous, but wouldn't talk to her to save his life. While intoxicated, the lack of inhibition, in part to the person's new opinion that he might get lucky, he may very well go up and talk to the girl. While this may not (or may) be a religious or spiritual experience, the point is that brain chemistry does indeed alter how we perceieve things.

Lastly, assume for a moment that the human brain is only roughly 12% used. Medically and physiologically we already know we don't understand what a large amount of the brain does. Why couldn't it perceive the existance of god? Perhaps the chemical balance in our brain normally prevents it (just like the imbalance in my brain prevents me from concentrating... a task that comes very easily to some). At any rate, sure, it's just an opinion, but there is also no scientific evidence to support that "mind altering" drugs do not, in fact, alter your ability to perceive things.

I was reading up on an article and thought it might relate well to this topic...

xepherys, you mention that the brain is only roughtly 12% used. I have read that we only use roughly that percentage at any one time, however we use most of it, just in small bursts in different places... I can't find the link at the moment though, it may be somewhere around mythbusters?

The link provided below suggests that meditating and spiritual experience is wired into our brains and I would assume that people that want to access it, can, and not just because there is a use of drugs involved... in any case it was an interesting read.

Here is the link: http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/neuro/neuronewswk.htm

OH HO Shitschyeeaahh!
And one who has never tried Gods Gift personally will never, ever,ever,ever,evr,ever,evr,evre,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever know.

Applesauce McGee?
We hardly knew ye.

Aminitas AnyOne!?

_________________________________________________
service of the queen

I find it most hilarious that god chose to hide the gift in the mushrooms.

Just image tribal societies, out collecting things in the woods. A man sees a colorful cap, tries it, and drops dead. A man picks up another, eats it, and touches God.

Anyone who doesn't truly believe psych's open pathways that have already been driven should look into the drug DMT.
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dmt/dmt.shtml

Not only does it exists naturally in our brain (with no apparent scientific reason), but there is a flood of it near the penal gland both 29 days after conception (the day the Buddists believed the soul entered the body) as well as the moment after we die. DMT is found naturally near the equator, and is smoked by many indian cultures as a ritual, a rite of passage.

Sorry man, I don't mean to pick on you, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

Firstly, that whole 12% thing is a myth. There is no part of our brain that is up there for the sole purpose of keeping our heads the right shape. We use 100% of our brain.

Or think of it this way; if it were true that we only used 12%, brain damage wouldn't be as scary as it is because the odds are good that most of the time it would be in the 88% that isn't used. Not true.

Also, you're arguing from a logical fallacy. There is no way you can argue 'we don't know what the brain does, therefore it must do this.' That's a bit like saying 'I don't know how my car's engine works, therefore it must be magic.' which is obviously not the case.