note the difference..you guys are on a crusade against science, which is actually the product of objectivity, the complete opposite of ego. Consciousness is the product of the ego, or lack there-of, in the case of the psychedelic experience. If you can't even discern between the two, how are you going to make an argument against it?

This thread is now locked pending a rational argument from devineinmymind. Feel free to PM me.

-a1pha

devineinmymind asked that the following be posted to this thread. I am going to allow it in hopes of providing the OP with some clarification from the community regarding the distinction between science, chemicals and ego. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of science here and it will be of benefit to clarify things.

devineinmymind - I ask that you take a step back and absorb what others are trying to tell you. You speak of science and the ego trying to put the world in a box or soulless package yet you do not seem to separate yourself from the equation and look at the issue rationally. Benzyme was correct to say:



NOTE: Please keep all further responses on-topic and respectful. I will not hesitate to lock this again.

---

The urge is the desire to try and figure out what the hell is going on around us. It's nothing to do with boxing things into "soulless" packages, if you interpret the results of scientific inquiry as little soulless packages then that is your deal. Personally I find the results of modern science absolutely beautiful. Slowly but surely we are learning more and more about the material realm in which we find ourselves.

You go on to say modern day society is the result of science... well yes, to a very large degree it is, and thanks to a lot of these advances we are now able to ponder our own existence much more deeply than the majority of our ancestors, who died far younger than us and (generally) lived lives with much more suffering and much more confusion about the world around them, for example thinking that disease was caused by offending some deity. Scientific inquiry has solved many of these problems.

You say that the scientific mindset strongly coincides with the prohibition of psychedelics. In my opinion that's just completely wrong. That is politics and has nothing to do with the scientific method. As far as I am aware scientific research into psychedelics shows them to be mostly very low risk drugs. What you are mixing up is science and politics. Science investigates and produces data, it has nothing to do with legislation against drugs.

You quote McKenna saying that we need a science without science, to me this is just a platitude. Did he expand on this and tell us what he was actually proposing we do? What is your opinion of how this "science without science" should manifest?

You say science is trying to create boundaries. I completely disagree. Science is evaluating things that are observed and trying to make sense of them. If us understanding more about things somehow creates boundaries then that is unfortunate... but I don't see how that would be the case. Also what is the alternative? Make an observation and instead of investigating it just decide not to and ignore it? Just forget about trying to advance knowledge and understanding?

Psychedelics may well cause us to transcend the material realm, or they may not, but I don't see why this has to be a conflict. "Science" doesn't say that psychedelic trips are not legitimate... there is just, so far, no way of determining whether they are or not. So scientists do what they do, they try to investigate it.

I really don't understand what you are proposing... if you are genuinely proposing that humanity ditch the scientific method and all just take loads of psy's then I think you may be a little misguided.

This is the point I've made several times, because people get this misguided view that science has some conspiracy agenda to suppress psychedelic/metaphysical exploration, which is just ridiculous. As you pointed out, I've pointed out, and others who observe have pointed out, science is based on a method, not an agenda. And as a method, science is very meticulous with little room for ambiquity. It is when money is involved, that the interpretation of results may be skewed in the public eye, to influence public opinion, but this is not done by scientists. this is done by businessmen, politicians, and media.

As someone who applies the method regularly, and one who's had several experiences with both synthetic and plant-derived psychedelics, I'm particularly skeptical of alarmists who go on a crusade against these compounds, and try to "box them in" in terms of "good" and "bad".

I can totally relate to the op.

All the natural psychedelics like mescaline, shrooms, lsa all felt right. Its hard to explain but theres a dimension in the experience that makes me feel lucky to witness that. Maybe its a coincidence.

but mdma or speed or pcp. Their was always something in the back of my head telling me that this couldnt be happening. that is to much sort of feeling. I still love mdma from time to time, but I clearly see a difference. in the visuals or in the mood it brings me.

''You say science is trying to create boundaries. I completely disagree. Science is evaluating things that are observed and trying to make sense of them. If us understanding more about things somehow creates boundaries then that is unfortunate... but I don't see how that would be the case. Also what is the alternative? Make an observation and instead of investigating it just decide not to and ignore it? Just forget about trying to advance knowledge and understanding?''

I think you need to be careful with that. Science can only study what is objectivism. The problem is right there. I know a lot of people that only will trust what is observable. dont even try to talk about spirits or a sense of illusion. Science is also loosing its grip isnt it? I think that a lot of scientist have a lot of problem with the einstein theories and quantics physics for example. therefore what is observable have no value since its been observed.... and when something is beign observed, the nature of the observed change. with that in mind, science is just another belief and seems to be another religion for certain people.

''note the difference..you guys are on a crusade against science, which is actually the product of objectivity, the complete opposite of ego. Consciousness is the product of the ego, or lack there-of, in the case of the psychedelic experience. If you can't even discern between the two, how are you going to make an argument against it?''

this is not relevant because scientist needs to use their sense, therefore their ego, to see through their ''objective'' test.

incorrect.

scientists review third-party literature, and apply changes known in the art. It never becomes ego-related, because others must be able to observe the same procedures and results. this eliminates bias. Subjective observances are subject to individual bias, which is why scientific literature is written in third-person. the only first-person interaction is the observance itself, which typically coincides with what others have observed.

and I don't know what you mean by "science is loosing it's grip." theories are always subject to change, because everything changes with time; science acknowledges that. In scientific literature, you rarely ever read "x is proven to cause y", instead, "evidence suggests x may lead to y", because one cannot reproduce events at the same initial timepoint they occurred.


finally, science is not a belief at all. like we've said several times, it's a method.
beliefs are subjective, and observed when you have no tangible evidence to support a claim.

hmmm Im not the expert. I however know that since einstein theories, especially physic quantics, the science world is quite stuck. The observed exist because of the observer. thats what I understand. therefore what we observe only exist because we are there to observe it. therefore any way to look at anything basically models the results. Furthermore, when third partys examine results, well the results are the same doesnt prove anything but that when any observer look at one phenomenon, the observed always react the same way, nothing more. this doesnt mean that the observed really is like that when not observed.

precisely.

it's really a more probablistic view used in science, hence R-squared values, showing correlations. A good example is the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, which became more the more widely-accepted principle than the Bohr model (incidentally, Bohr was a real egotistical scientist, ultimately leading to his reputational demise), where electrons cannot be located precisely at any given point in time, but rather, one can determine the probable area in space in which they exist.

Quantum physics revolves around this concept, and several others, and have an elaborate mathematical language to describe these probabilities..but experiments are barely being conducted to test these theories, because the technology now exists. quantum physics supposedly represents the driving forces for everything we observe, and the technology we've developed

do you think that the consciousness exist without a self?
do you think that anything exist without the self?

I dont know how I can trust science for important matters...

they may exist without the self....but it is the self which perceives this.
in science, this is translated into a method which can be observed in third-person.
I reiterate, this is to eliminate first-person bias, and the very reason science cannot be a product of the ego. it must be observable by everyone, not believed.

okay okay. but if everyone who looks at the proofs are humans, it does make it biaised. Probably, the way that the conscience work in humans makes us all believe the same thing, without knowing if its true or not. the matter do seem to be consistent for us, all of us humans, but that doesnt prove anything. science is a science of Men for Men's...and the results can not be not biaised if its always the same ''type'' of conscience that looks at it.

so what do you propose, a tree's point of view? can you speak tree?
I can't. maybe a dolphin can chime in on this

well I cant propose a solution but I'm trying to understand the problem that I can find with science.

I think it's the same problem so many others have...they see it tainted by political agendas.
again, this has nothing to do with science itself, but how results are interpreted by non-scientists.

note: the only time you'll hear of something being "proven" is in media or a commercial.
it's not accurate nor appropriate for a scientist to say "we've proven x to cause y."

Unless you live in a cave, reject modern medicine and don't use electricity then you are already trusting "science" (people keep talking about it as though it is an entity) with important matters... unless your health, warmth, the ability to communicate with others, the ability to travel from a to b without your car exploding etc etc etc do not qualify as important matters. NONE of these things would exist were it not for people applying the scientific method. You are not being ask to put faith into a magical thing called science... science is just the name given to, in simple terms, a process of trial and error. We hold onto the things that work and modify/abandon the things that don't... at the most basic level that is all science is. If there are no scientific answers to problem you want answers to (such as existential dilemmas, paradoxes in reality or whatever) then you should endeavour to find answers for yourself, don't hold scientists in contempt for not being able to answer them for you.

Science is not about giving absolute truth, it is about developing useful working theories.



I'm trying to understand it too, lol. As far as I can tell your problem is that science doesn't have all the answers? Or that it can't give answers and say they are definitely completely infallibly true?