Continued from here.


I don't want to highjack this thread so I'll only post one abstract. If you want to discuss it further, then it should be in a dedicated thread. If you look into the work on schizophrenic delusions and hallucinations, you will always see the phenomenon of encountering any sort of hallucinatory entity referred to as being a delusion. Sometimes this is stated explicitly and sometimes it is implied, but it seems pretty clear either way.


*emphasis added

Also, here is the definition of delusion from Encylclopedia Britannica:


*emphasis added


These aren't my opinions and they are the views of science as a whole. I don't necessarily believe that entities are only delusions. I really don't know what to think in this case. But in science, there is no supernatural, so at this point in time, the best scientific explanation for entities is that they are a delusion resulting from changes in neurochemistry.


That's great, but the opinion of a small subset of scientists doesn't change the current paradigm. For example, the small subset of scientists that don't believe in anthropogenic global climate change don't affect the view of science overall that humans are the main cause of climate change since the industrial revolution.


I spoke a bit too fast on the part about control over bodily functions. I misinterpreted it as he felt as though he was able to control these things as opposed to feeling he could learn to control them.

It has been documented that you can learn to control these things with years of practice, but it seems doubtful that one ayahuasca session is going to allow you to control these bodily functions. Plus, it would be difficult to distinguish actual control from the delusion of control while someone is under the influence of ayahuasca. A well documented aspect of the psychedelic experience is increased pattern recognition to the point that you recognize patterns that aren't actually there.


I'm referring to delusions as defined by psychology. It seems fair to say that mushrooms and DMT have about the same probability of inducing beliefs of spiritual significance. But since supernatural beliefs are illogical and cannot be supported by evidence, they are delusional.

No. no. no.

Stop there.

Read this: Hallucinations and Sensory Overrides

Then, maybe, let's talk.

Equating delusions from psychosis with intentionally altered states via entheogens is a non-starter. Period.

Calling something supernatural and thus claiming it can't exist is a lazy way to defend narrow points of view. By calling things we don't understand supernatural, we automatically rule out the possibility that it is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

You should, you know, try DMT.

This exactly. Religions are built upon this cop out. Simply calling something supernatural, unable to be understood, or impossible without further investigation of the topic is irresponsible. I do not believe in a supreme deity or "GOD". However, I do not discredit someone that tells me they have experienced spiritual enlightenment or miraculous happenings via their religous practices simply because the religion is founded upon fallacy. There is truth in all things (besides the government) and in all things we must search for truth. Be it real or not, it is undetermined unless you are the one experiencing.

I just read this paper and I fail to see how it supports your point. It convincingly argues that delusions and hallucinations caused intentionally by entheogens can be real in the cultural sense. They can be understood to be acceptable and even true in the context of the society in which they occur. But this doesn't make the delusion more true than one experienced by a schizophrenic. It just makes it a mass delusion.

I'd like to hear exactly how you think this paper supports your idea before I reply further.

In case it wasn't clear in the first post, I want to restate and clarify that I do not think that the belief in the objective existence of autonomous entities encountered while in states of altered consciousness is necessarily always a delusion. I personally haven't decided whether I think that entities are real or not. I have experienced entity contact while in altered states of conscious and while in sober states (but not significantly with DMT). But these have not convinced me of anything besides the fact that I have experienced what my mind interpreted at the time as contact with autonomous seemingly supernatural entities.

My original argument is that from a scientific standpoint, the best explanation is that entities are a hallucinatory manifestation of the mind of the individual experiencing the entity contact and that it is a delusion to believe that the entities are separate from the self.

To put it in the terms of the paper that Snozzleberry posted, there is a lapse in reality monitoring that it causing the person to interpret the experience of the entity as being external and in the world as opposed to being internal to the mind.

I don't see how this differs so much from entity delusions in psychosis. Shamanism and the use of entheogens may be distinct from schizophrenia, but in both cases there are lapses in reality monitoring.

I've never implied that delusions/revelations/hallucinations associated with entheogen use and psychosis are exactly the same. But they share underlying principles that make them comparable.

In any case, in order to convincingly scientifically show that entity contact is not a delusion, you would have to show replicable physical proof of the existence of the entity. Maybe one day someone will be able to do this and convince the rest of the scientific community that their data is valid. But until then, science cannot recognize the existence of these entities and therefore the belief that they are real is only a drug induced delusion that persists into sober states.

As far as I can see, the difference between schizophrenic delusions and drug induced delusions is a non-issue with regards to hard science. You can come up with clever hypothetical explanations from anthropological investigations, but these mean nothing without physical evidence.

No, that does not represent the best explanation from a scientific standpoint, just one possible explanation. You`d be making too many assumptions, and you`re presenting a supposed consensus that AFAIK doesn`t exist (and even if it did it would still be a logical fallacy until evidence backing that argument is presented).

Thats the same as saying that consciousness is created by the brain according to a scientific standpoint (it can be just a receiver), or, as a thought experiment, imagining that if you brought a TV to the 1800´s, their scientific standpoint would be the image is created by the TV

Also the word `delusion` has a connotation that isnt necessarily appropriate to describe the experience.

By the way, obligatory read:

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=11579

See: A pragmatic approach: What is "real", and when is it actually useful to ask this?


Source?


Where is the evidence that it IS a delusion? Imo, this evidences your own presupposition that this is delusion, rather than any scientifically-based assertion. Science is undecided on this, afaik. Demanding that science must offer evidence that this is not a delusion, and thereby assuming from the get-go that it is a delusion is a personal bias, not an open scientific exploration.


Source for the scientific community's unified view that there is only invalid data regarding subjective experiences under the influences of entheogens?


Source?


Source(s)?

I have to ask: what is a delusion? How do we know? How do we know that are notions of "reality" and "delusion" are real and free from delusion themselves? And even if our notions were pure, reasonable and sensible, does that logically transfer to our judgements in actuality?

I think that the western view of schizophrenia is severely colored by the deleterious effects of typical anti-psychotic medications that are forced upon "prospective" schizophrenics. Garbage like risperidone is neurotoxic horror with debilitating mental effects (I would not even call these side effects, as the intended purpose of it is to shut people down.)

Ten years ago I dated a girl who was labeled as schizophrenic. I was appalled at her situation and the treatment she got from the professionals. All the anti-psychiatric books from the seventies that I had read came to life, including the observations about maternal deprivation. It would have been hilarious if it wasn't so painful and disgusting.

I am convinced that the etiology of schizophrenia cannot be reduced to the identified patient but must be considered as a "folie a deux" by the schizophrenic and his or her environment. Both seem to have a vested interest in the immediate benefits of the status quo and often, both parties react hostile to any attempts to transform the secured and entrenched position in this standoff. Both sides act mostly unconsciously in this drama.

Considering this, I feel that a case could be made that the concept of "the schizophrenic individual" is in fact a delusion of the society, an impotent attempt to contain the shock of the breakdown of basic human communication and to salvage the illusions of sensibility and reason by projecting any feelings of incompetence and guilt onto the indentified patient.

In this light, I view the whole fashionable "bio-psychiatric movement" as an prototypical example of the byzantine and convoluted pseudo-logic of the "typical" schizophrenic sufferer. Typically, the sufferer sees no fault at all in his own selective logic, claims to be on a mission of truth and believes to be a saviour of humanity. Bio-psychiatry remains as unable to actually explain or cure schizophrenia as any of its preceding fashions in psychiatry.

Anyway. I sat in with many meetings this girlfriend had with "care" professionals. One was her psychiatrist. Some time during a meeting with him, I broke into the conversation, asking "what is schizophrenia?", in a tone feigning to be like a family member who wants to buy into the psychiatrist's authority to declare the boundaries between "normal" and "crazy". The man fell for this and triumphantly declared "a schizophrenic is someone who suffers from psychoses". I then asked the question "but what is a psychosis?", but in a slightly different tone, no longer suggesting eagerness for any morcel of authoritative goodness, instead looking over his shoulder at his chest of books. Confused, the psychiatrist had no answer. After a small pause I asked the final question: "if you do not know what it feels like to be psychotic, then what do you know at all?" No answer.

Sorry to go off on a tangent in the last post, but I couldn't resist.

On the topic of science and entities, I think that "science" is generally taken as "experimental science".

As far as I understand it (call me wrong if I don't), experimental science only considers "entia" that can be verified objectively by any random scientist, provided he or she has the right diploma and lab equipment. Any phenomenon that cannot reliably be provoked or enforced under these conditions, simply does not exist according to the rules of experimental science.

I cannot even get a reliably predictable dmt experience, not even considering the "entities".

There are only two basic possibilities that are of any importance in this argument. The first possibility is that experiences of supernatural/paranormal autonomous entities can represent contact with real autonomous beings. In this case, the belief that these entities are real is not always a delusion. The next possibility is that all of these paranormal autonomous entities are solely a product of the mind. In this case, the belief that they are real is a delusion.


Here again is the definition of a delusion in psychology from Encyclopedia Britannica:


When a person encounters an entity while under the influence of DMT and they believe that this entity exists in reality, it completely fits this definition. The connotation is unimportant. I'm pretty certain that if you were to tell a psychologist or psychiatrist that you believe that you have seen paranormal entities and that you believe these entities to be real, they would classify this as a delusion.


I agree with this, but this is only applicable to how one personally approaches the psychedelic experience. It is possible for a scientist to operate as if they believe entities are real for the sake of finding testable consequences, but it isn't functionally useful to believe that entities are real from a scientific standpoint.

I suggest you are more careful with your wording. You are speaking too much in absolutes. Who are you to say what are the important possibilities? Also your argument seems to border the false dilema fallacy. We can think of virtually infinite possibilities of how to explain the phenomenon at hand which could fall somewhere between those two extremes you mentioned , or even totally unrelated with your hypothesis. And the fact that you are so certain of how things must be makes me wary of your arguments. Here´s someone else who explains it much better than I do: https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=18572



Again talking in absolutes.. I suggest you look into E-Prime.

Also, again, false dilemma fallacy.. A person may not consider the entities `delusion´ and yet they may not be rigidly believing they exist `in reality` (whatever that means).

Also appeal to authority fallacy, just because one or another psychiatrist or psychologist (which I am btw, not that it matters though my opinion is as good as any) `believe` something, does not make it true.



I disagree. Your wording seems inaccurate and misleading. You seem to speak as if you are representing a consensus of science, which is not true. Science is neutral regarding what entities (or anything else) may or may not be. Science is a method, it does not have beliefs. It is all about openly investigating phenomenon, making testable hypothesis, isolating variables, etc.

I'm not sure if you think you're being cute by constantly asking for sources or if you really think sources are necessary. I really need no sources for these claims. This is all pretty common knowledge. And I could just as easily ask you for sources that show that my claims aren't reasonable.

There have been plenty of investigations into similar phenomena such as ghosts, spirits, and psychic abilities to channel spirits yet there has never been any evidence that was able to convince the overall scientific community.

We have evidence that hallucinogens drastically alter processes within the brain making it so that they do not function as normal. I do not need any source for this claim.

We know that DMT entities cannot be reliably seen or sensed by people who are not on DMT. For instance, if you took ayahuasca and then told me that there was an entity standing next to you, I would not be able to see or sense it and, even if I could, I wouldn't be able to show any valid evidence that it was there.

Therefore, the best scientific explanation is that entities are not real.



The evidence that this is a delusion is that it perfectly fits the definition of a delusion in psychology. I think that your unwillingness to admit that scientists have tried to prove the existence of spirits and have so far failed shows your own presupposition that entities are real. Or it shows that you find the term delusion insulting and are trying to defend your own beliefs.

I have experienced these delusions many times. My personal beliefs actually lean toward the existence of spirits. But I'm not going to bend the facts to fit my own beliefs.


A unified view isn't necessary for scientific consensus. You only need a strong majority. I'm sure there are some scientists who believe spirits are real and believe that their data shows this. It is unlikely that any scientist who is worth their degrees would believe this at this point in time. If there wasn't a scientific consensus that spirits aren't real, then they would be thought of as supernatural. They would be natural phenomena.

Science is not undecided on the matter of paranormal entities of a "spiritual" nature. Some individuals might be undecided, but if you surveyed a large group of scientists do you really think that the majority would be undecided or that they would think that the overall view of science is that spirits are real?



I will rephrase this because hard science could explore the differences between these two things. The difference between the two is a non-issue with regards to the hard science that is of interest in this thread.

Citing a dictionary definition and claiming "most believe it's a delusion" (even if true) is not in any way evidence. In fact most scientists don't seem to even know about DMT or entity contact with regards to high doses of psychedelics, so I doubt this consensus you speak of exists. And even if it does, as endlessness said - that doesn't change anything in terms of the evidence that exists...popular opinion does not equate with evidence and reasonable deductions from that evidence.

I'm not claiming entities or "real" or not "real". My issue is that, in thread after thread, you continually misunderstand and misrepresent how science works... and are mistakenly confusing a scientific standpoint or scientific approach as being synonymous with the paradigm of reductionist materialism - which is actually just a philosophical stance. You are expressing nothing more than your personal opinions and dressing them up as if they are the undeniable logical scientific consensus/conclusion based on the existing evidence.

If your going to approach the question of hyperspace entities via ingestion of psychedelics from a scientific standpoint then the reasonable response would be "We don't know"... because that area has barely even been studied by modern science. (And if you think there are only 2 possibilities, you probably lack imagination or haven't explored hyperspace much).

If I was your doctor I would prescribe a hefty dose of Robert Anton Wilson

By that same logic, before we had telescopes and so on, the best scientific explanation was that the earth was flat and that the sun went around the earth. It didn´t make it true though.

I really think you should stop talking in the name of science once and for all.

His asking for sources is completely legitimate because you are the one making claims you can`t back up. He`s not saying DMT entities are or are not real (and neither is anybody in this thread), he is pointing out your faulty logic.. You are the one trying to justify your opinion by a false consensus.



Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

Also why are you suddenly lumping up `spirits` and entities seen under the experience of DMT? Says who they are the same phenomenon?



A scientist`s (or even all the world`s scientists) opinion does not equal science. Also appeal to majority fallacy there.

Science does not say spirits aren`t real. You may use science to investigate one or another claim of spirits and these particular claims may be falsified, but under no circumstance does this mean that independent spirits or entities are completely ruled out.

I'm not sure how I can explain it any more clearly. It is completely valid to think of this issue in the way I outlined. Either no entities are real, or some entities are real. Something can only be real or unreal. So the dichotomy is valid. If no paranormal entities are real, then to believe that they are real is a delusion. This is logically sound.

The only way that I can see any one disagreeing with what I just said, is if they don't believe that existence in reality can only have two possible states.


So you don't think that the above definition of delsuion is correct? Honestly, it doesn't take a psychology or psychiatry degree to interpret the definition of a delusion. If that definition is valid, then there can be no question (at least in my mind) that entities are delusions.

Though after a little more research on the definition of delusion, my only qualm about that definition is the "rigid system of beliefs with which a person is preoccupied and to which the person firmly holds" part. Delusions can have differing levels of intensity and conviction. So it doesn't matter if the person is rigidly believing something or if they are necessarily preoccupied with it. If you casually believe that entities are real, then you are suffering from a delusion as defined by psychology. The delusion may only be a mild one, but it is still a delusion.

Here is another definition from the 2014 MeSH website:


Once again, the belief that entities are real fits this definition. There is some vagueness to this as well, but the belief that entities are real is false from a scientific standpoint. And this is a definition that comes from a well known professional website, so it doesn't rely on the opinion of one person.


Fine, if you want to nitpick small things, where ever it makes more sense in the context of the argument, science means scientific knowledge not the scientific process. There is a clear consensus within our current scientific knowledge and the scientific beliefs of scientists that there is no valid proof of the existence of any spirits. Period.

I have to definitely side with Snozz, endlessness and UC here (I'd suggest to make that RAW prescription double). And for the record, I've spent most of my life being a pretty level-(hard-)headed materialist.


Searching for "Delusion", I find "a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason."

And according to you, that perfectly fitting evidence is as follows:


A lot of psycho-active substances fit that "abnormal" category perfectly, yet many of them are actually enhancing the performance of the brain in several aspects, including psychedelics. If you take some time to read the literature about fMRI and psychedelics, among others, you might decide that your understanding of how some psycho-actives alter brain processes is simplistic.

Actually, and if I can be honest, I find your whole argumentation to be simplistic. It simply sounds like you decided to make up your mind, and you decided to make it up that way. And it's something I wouldn't dare to do myself. It looks too bold and premature.

And I mean that disregarding my own personal experience. If I took into account my subjective experiences, most likely I wouldn't struggle much to convey my position to you; it's too subjective. But you say you're trying to do an exercise in critique and reason, probably besides your personal intuitions, and I'm afraid you're making too many assumptions.

What a disappointing way to conclude your own personal experience. You are ignoring your beliefs for someone elses, not facts. Just because there isn't scientific data to support something DOES NOT mean it should be disregarded.

The word 'Delusion' has been invented to discredit people who make claims about things that science simply cannot explain or unwilling to explore as it may shatter our rigid materialistic belief systems and threaten the economic machine.

It's a poor approach to science, making assumptions, science should explore not condemn.
Maybe we as human beings just don't know it all? Who could have seen that coming?