deleted

What arguments did your friend use to back up his statement?

I don`t think ayahuasca or other such preparations or substances need to be substituted, each thing has it`s own place. Ayahuasca is wonderful for many things, and so are many natural preparations, but maybe there are diseases which only can be treated using some specific synthetic substance, and in those cases we should have the research.

I wouldn't necessarily equate neuroscience with the pharmaceutical industry and it`s mistakes, anymore than we should blame physics for the creation of the atom bomb.

I think there is a natural desire for humans to delve deeper into knowledge about the world around us, and it's up to each one to use that appropriately. It's essential to also remain modest and careful with assumptions which are often made or implied when neuroscience is discussed, such as for example making claims about brain creating consciousness. In any case personally I`m interested in trying to absorb knowledge in this area and would say it does matter. What about you?

Full disclosure: I am studying cognitive neuroscience in school, so there's my bias.

I think that neuroscience and psychedelics are absolutely intertwined and that removing neuroscience from the study and exploration of psychedelics removes a lot of the soul from the topic.

Knowing how drugs effect your brain can teach us how our brains create our souls and our spiritual practices. We are our brains and neuroscience is how we learn about ourselves and how we fit into the rest of the universe.

I love neuroscience!

Blessings
~ND

You can point at my brain, but you cannot point at my consciousness.

Reducing the study to brains, because you can more easily point to them is IMHO the fallacy of contemporary science.

I don't want to claim I know the way out, but I do want to point out the hidden assumption.

deleted

most research articles are rhetorical reviews (reinterpretations of proposed questions), or marginally relevant advancements. there are some significant advancements, tech-wise, but applications are still a work-in-progress; of course, investment funding is the largest factor.

Maybe not pinpoint the exact location yet, but we are definitely pointing in the right direction

I'm not sure what you mean by 'reducing the study to brains'? neuroscience involves more that just studying the brain

I think of great importance is the comparison, that psychedelics are to psychology what the microscope is for biology and and the telescope for astronomy. Just imagine, how infantile these fields would be without their main tools. Then think about where the studys of the mind could be today.

Therefore the studies connecting mind and matter has currently no teeth, since only the material side of the equation can be observed effectively. Also there is the economical pressure that makes it most likely to find money for research that brings profit to the university and cooperations. Therefore research in this area can be pretty annoying, if you are aware of the possibilities. Also the academic world is highly comeptitive.
Do you know what topic you want to specialize in, learn about for the rest of your life and put most of your energy in? Can you put together a plan, how to pusue this passion, make a living with it and contribute to the field? If you have a passion in such a way and are confident that you have the persistence to follow it, then go for it! We need true scientists today more than ever!
Also there is probably a liberalisation ahead, that finally makes it easier again to study these compounds on human subjects. This time will be great for the few knowlegable, active scientists.

I guess for friend is aware of this and of the opinion, that the effort is better spend with other things. Nobody can decide this for you. You should reflect about this as much as possible, since it is a decision that shapes much of your life.

I think the mysteries of the universe will remain unsolved, no matter how much we discover about it. This does not mean we should stop researching or stop exploring. On the contrary, it gives us endless grounds to continue discovering new things. Even with research it's not always about getting to the final answer that explains everything, but about adding pieces to the puzzle, step by step.

Will research change the important things? It really depends on what you define as important. In a super non-materialistic, spiritual view no earthly achievement or scientific knowledge may matter. In the worldview of an explorer or researcher, every little detail can matter and add to the big picture.

And, sometimes research and science lead to amazing discoveries that make our earthly existence a lot better. Think of penicilin. Think of LSD. I think understanding the relationship between our brain and consciousness would be a great field to study. What is relevant or not really depends on what you value in your life at this point in time. If you are into it and find it stimulating and driving, go for it.

If you are rather drawn to the immaterial or spiritual world view, perhaps rethink your carreer in neuro-science, because in my opinion these are two different things that hardly communicate with one another and looking for one inside the other usually does not result in success.

cheers

Sure I can point to your consciousness -- it's right in your general head-region. If you are at all like the rest of the human race, you have a perception of the 3D world oriented relative to where 'you' are. The center of the world is, roughly, your head. That alone should be evidence that your consciousness is localized in the brain.

And science is all about reducing things, it's fundamentally reductionist, at least until it has reached a point where it can begin integrating all of the reduced parts into a functioning mechanism.

IMO, not so sure these perspectives need to be so separate. Here is an attempt at explaining my perspective, for what its worth -

Imagine as many do that the ground of being - essentially the universe - is an infinite and eternal pool of potentialities. From that base, the potentialities narrow - matter forms and organizes into increasingly complex forms (subatomic particles - atoms - molecules - cells - organs - organisms) and when a sufficiently complex pattern of this matter is achieved, awareness has a *vehicle* in which to perceive the world around you. I think that awareness exists in the base of the universe, it just requires the universe to be sufficiently organized in order to be expressed. In this viewpoint, there are no nouns - only verbs. The universe is *doing* you just as it is doing everything else - a temporary manifestation of that which is not temporary. A *ride* of sorts.

To my knowledge the traditional materialist paradigm says something along the lines of "awareness is produced by the interactions between matter". I don't think many of the more traditional scientists who posit this view stop to consider how trippy that really is - matter becomes way more than pointless particles - they are a vehicle by which all of the universe comes into being, including you and I. The infinite organizing into the temporary.

I think that some people find the materialist paradigm depressing - something along the lines of "oh thats all that we are? just particles bouncing off each other?" I think its the opposite - how wonderfully bizarre and interesting that the universe organizes itself into mind-bendingly complex forms all interdependent on each other, ultimately arriving in the formation of conscious beings. We are all the same space-junk - and what wonderful junk it is.

My wording of this is perhaps lacking - but the beauty to me is that it requires no special beliefs - it is just a mental model based on what is observable. Science and mysticism need not be so separate if you take a step back.

This is of course, just my opinion, and subject to revision

I'm writing my thesis on an idea I've been developing about Psychedelic Architecture, and I'm drawing a lot of my conclusions from melting neuroscience, spirituality, and society by claiming that the fact neuroscience can point to a specific neuroreceptor just means that we are all the same no matter what we believe, and that we experience the same feelings and are trying to achieve the same goals.

If psychedelic consciousness is the same as mystical experiences (and some of neuroscience believes it is) then we can end what I call spiritual segregation. So no I don't think its irrelevant. Just because its mental doesn't make it any less real. I mean our tangible reality isn't even that real, it too is a product of our minds interpretation.

deleted

Well now.

Science is ALWAYS relevant.

The BEST statement I have seen this month!

I doubt science will ever be able to explain the Infinite.

How can the ego, while stuck in the illusion of duality possibly reason out the Unknown, the Un-manifest order?

Maybe some aspects of reality can only be experienced...

I can only understand the question if one goes as far as to say that neurophysiology is just an echo, a symptom of something occurring at some enfolded level of reality we are hardly able to grasp. Thus implying it's not the best, most direct way to learn and understand reality.

But even one thinks like that, even if one only sees a synapse as a symptom of a deeper cause, it is still a symptom. It's related to it. It gives you a type of map.

So I cannot really think of a valid reasoning to answer "no".

Yes.

I was not referring to materialistic viewpoint of consciousness but rather of what is important in this life, to the person living it. Material values being a job, a career, scientific knowledge, achievements. Spiritual values being joy, connectedness, love, peace etc. Surely we all have a good measure of both but we do prioritize often, especially when choosing a job.

I worked in science and decided after a few years that it wasn't what I wanted, that to me all of it was irrelevant, because it could not bring me joy or peace, nor was it helping anyone or anything. I think science is great and I don't regret my education in it. Just that to me the work and the answers it provided weren't enough to dedicate my life to. At least not this phase of my life.

I think the materialist-reductionist paradigm will not hold on for long, especially after the falsification of realism.

http://www.newscientist....cle/dn20600#.UwTmiUr4Lc0
http://physicsworld.com/...-says-goodbye-to-reality