I would take a close look at the fallacies both endlessness and snozz have pointed out in your posts, and consider this as it is pretty relevant to this situation IMO:

Your logic isn't wrong, it's ruling out possibility and making assumptions.

I know my logic isn't wrong. And I know that it makes assumptions, but it doesn't rule out possibilities.

If you can't see that when only considering our current scientific knowledge, entity contact is a delusion, then you are ignoring science. I have never claimed that we are at the pinnacle of scientific knowledge though. It may one day be scientifically shown that spirits and entities are real.

The word delusion may have a negative connotation, but that doesn't really matter when considering this issue solely on the basis of definition and current scientific knowledge.

Let me clarify, I think you need sources. As I and others have pointed out, the things you present and claim to be "evidence" are, at best, opinions and conjecture, not actual evidence upon which to make solid claims about the phenomena being discussed. You disagree...and yet several members of this community have taken the time to highlight the numerous examples present in your words.

To quote an old dad-ism:


I'm not even going to touch the content of your last post. I would ask you to reconsider if that's really what you want to say...or at least if that's really how you want to word it. If so, that's a major turn off.

Well that alone ruins the entire argument. If you are to convince someone that these beings are not real, then you should have concrete evidence to support your claim. If your entire argument is based on current scientific knowledge on the subject of the spiritual (which in all actuality is very little) then you have no argument. You are putting faith in current knowledge, which you even admit may one day be obsolete. Nothing in this argument is concrete for either side. It really all boils down to what do you have faith in? Do you have faith that the spiritual is real or do you have faith in scientific knowledge as it stands now? Truthfully, there is "evidence" for either argument. None of that evidence is cold, hard fact. Which leaves this topic up for discussion. Either answer is entirely plausible at this point.

Persinger, M. A. (2001). The neuropsychiatry of paranormal experiences. The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 13(4), 515-524.

Here you go. A paper about how paranormal experiences are essentially just due to neurophysiology. No where does it ever say that paranormal experiences are due to autonomous entities.

But to be fair, the burden of proof is always on the one who is claiming something exists. I don't have to provide you any proof to say that a talking tree with legs does not exist. Why should I have to provide evidence that spirits or entities don't exist? You all seem to have it backwards here.

If you say that entities are real, you should have to prove it.

it's a bit of a fallacy to use proof of observable neurological activity as evidence for this discussion here, for reasons I can assume many will already understand.

It is basically meaningless.

It tells us nothing about the nature of the experience itself. All it tells us is that there is a neurological response, that it is observable and that we can trigger it..and so
in reference to the disucssion of delusions and entities I say, so what?

Big deal..

If you think that becasue there is a simply absense of proof, that somehow that makes your opinion hold more weight than great..but that sounds just as delusional as the alternative. You want to tell people the burden of proof is on them(becasue you heard other people say things like that), well fine..but you still have not actually shown anything that says otherwise..the best you can come up with is that there is no proof..which is like saying there is no proof that life exists on other planets..again all I have to say to that is so what? There are tons of unproven things, and throughout history things have gone untproven for very long periods of time that were later proven.

This is a common arguement that people make but never seem to realize how limited and pointless it can be.

Here, I have an idea....


SMOKE SOME DMT

Terrific idea.

Smoking DMT is not necessarily a solution..you should know this. There was a time (after smoking lots of DMT) when you were saying this stuff was all just in our heads and delusions as well.

For sure jamie.
I think it's a different story though when someone hasn't done it at all yet tries to speculate.

SMOKE SOME DMT!

? No one here is claiming that psychedelic entities are "real". YOU are the one claiming they are delusional according to a "scientific standpoint"... so the burden of proof is on you to present this evidence you claim exists. But so far this going no where and you continually engage in fallacy after fallacy, and are now changing the argument to include ghosts and paranormal phenomenon in general and disregarding that this was about entity contact while on psychedelics.

If your going to deduce that entities are delusional based on that paper/reasoning (that study isn't even about psychedelics btw), then you mine as well conclude that consciousness itself and everything anyone has ever experienced is equally delusional/an illusion, since all experience has a correlation, of some sort or another, with neurophysiology. Correlation does not equal causation...and you again are projecting your reductionist/materialist philosophical spin on everything. Please re-read endlessness's post about the TV analogy.

A dilemma in your definition is in the critical wording of "logical absurdity". It makes it sound like delusion is this objective state, but who is to say what is "absurd"? That is a subjective judgment to make. Reacting to something as being "logically absurd" can be just as much a product of conditioning as it can reflect the true nature of the situation. In the context of this thread, it is you who comes off as delusional, adhering to your rigid system of preexisting beliefs, despite the numerous fallacies and holes in your reasoning.

As endlessness hints at, if we were to apply your definition of delusion to the historical peoples who believed that the planets and the sun revolved around the Earth, just because all evidence at that point in time suggested that the geocentric model was true and that a heliocentric model was "logically absurd" to those people, it would therefore make the heliocentrists definitively delusional despite the fact that we know they are correct.



What you are hinting at is only one form of logic (binary). It follows the argument of "either or". Either entities are real or they're not. The way English (and most contemporary language) is set up tends to have us thinking this way. We think tend to think things are one way or another, but that's to completely overlook an enormous spectrum of relativity. For example I can say that the Earth is big, but it's also small compared to the Sun. It would be incorrect to say that the Earth is either big or it is not. The earth exists in two states simultaneously in this regard. It is both big and small at the same time. Who is to say that reality is not relative to the observer? What evidence can you show to say that it isn't?

As you look at your computer screen right now, is what you are seeing real? What I mean is that what you are perceiving is the result of light bouncing off (or being projected from) your computer screen which is then "captured" by the retina and relayed to the brain as electrochemical signals where the brain creates a visual representation based on the above. So is your perception real or not real? I would say that it is real and not real at the same time. We know that the brain is prone to deception and illusion, and that often times what you think you are seeing, you can easily be mistaken. This doesn't make the stimulus real or not real. "Either or" logic is inappropriate here, and "both and" logic seems more appropriate.

Its weird when someone is unwilling to look at what is being said. Such a turn off when the Nexus is actually based on an open minded scientific attitude, reasonable arguments backed up by evidence and/or proper logic, and when the attitude page specifically says no preaching and talking in absolutes.

It`s also funny that there`s actually only one person in the thread that is actually incessantly arguing for one specific position, while all others are keeping an open position and are simply discussing the logic of the arguments themselves and pointing out flaws. Nobody in this whole thread except the OP argued whether entities are or aren`t a delusion... Does that not make you think?

It makes arguing senseless when important arguments and links are ignored and evidence is cherry picked to support one`s previously decided position, while failing to recognize the constant use of logical fallacies and faulty logic (like the last post, yet another fallacy that was dealt with before: correlation does not imply causation). Going in argument circles is not fun. UC`s table of what a real scientific attitude is, is spot on.

And the irony of it is that the thread title is a question, but the content isn´t asking us, it´s telling us what it is. What is the point then?

Endlessness, jamie, UC, global, and others. You guys keep falling for powerfulMedicine's bait. I do realize that you are moderators and need to respond, but this is turning into another 'BS' thread PowerfulMedicine is clearly just out for confrontation and it doesn't matter what you say, it will not be absorbed. IMO you are all just wasting (having stolen?) your energy by responding from now on. Very well written and thought out responses so far, but that only encourages more delusional posts from powerfulmedicine.

How can they prove something that occurred in their own mind and why does it matter so much to you to prove that entities are delusions?

haha good one cyb

powerfulmedicine I know your intent was merely to create a discussion and play devils advocate but how it reads to me is of someone who has made an assumption of an entire groups (science) opinion in order to convince themself by convincing others.

I am just going to simplify what I'm saying. If I had planned on actually starting a thread about this, I would not have started it with that OP.
__________________________________________________________________

First assumption: The only knowledge that matters is our current scientific knowledge. This is not true from a holistic view, but when only considering what is currently valid in science, this is true.

Second assumption: Delusions can be defined as an illogical belief that someone holds despite evidence to the contrary or being practically impossible to falsify. Essentially, you must be able to prove that a belief is based on reality in order for it not to be a delusion.

When only considering science, you must be able to show that something exists based on currently valid scientific proof.

Third assumption: Hallucinogen induced experiences of entities can be lumped with other phenomena regarding autonomous conscious entities of a paranormal nature. This is valid from a historical standpoint and very clear in shamanic cultures and ancient cultures that use hallucinogens.

So here is my argument:

If something cannot be shown to exist by science, the belief that it does exist would be considered a delusion from a scientific standpoint.

Entities cannot be proven to exist at this point in time and there has never been any valid scientific evidence of the validity of any paranormal entity experience. Therefore, the belief that an entity is real would be considered a delusion.

In my experience, most people have no problem calling entity contact experienced while under the influence of deliriants or dissociatives a delusion. In fact, there is a wide variety of scientific literature that refers to such experiences as delusions. These drugs are classed as psychotomimetics, meaning that they mimic psychosis. A central characteristic of psychosis is delusions.

Guess what. DMT is also considered to be a psychotomimetic:

Bradley, P. B., & Briggs, I. (1974). FURTHER STUDIES ON THE MODE OF ACTION OF PSYCHOTOMIMETIC DRUGS: ANTAGONISM OF THE EXCITATORY ACTIONS OF 5‐HYDROXYTRYPTAMINE BY METHYLATED DERIVATIVES OF TRYPTAMINE. British journal of pharmacology, 50(3), 345-354.

Tanimukai, H., Ginther, R., Spaide, J., Bueno, J. R., & Himwich, H. E. (1970). Detection of psychotomimetic N, N-dimethylated indoleamines in the urine of four schizophrenic patients. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 117(539), 421-430.

Freedman, D. X., Gottlieb, R., & Lovell, R. A. (1970). Psychotomimetic drugs and brain 5-hydroxytryptamine metabolism. Biochemical Pharmacology, 19, 1181-1188.

Cohen, S. (1967). Psychotomimetic agents. Annual review of pharmacology, 7(1), 301-318.

I can provide many more sources by request.

So if DMT is a psychotomimetic in the *eyes of science*, then does it really matter whether we have an exact definition of delusion for this discussion? Delusions are pretty much an essential part of psychosis and DMT mimics psychosis according to science.

So, *science sees* entities as a delusion.

*Edit: This anthropomorphization is referring to our current overall scientific knowledge, the scientific paradigm.

Those are some pretty old papers you are citing there.

More recent research suggests that DMT may play a role in suppressing symptoms of psychosis.

Jacob, M. S., & Presti, D. E. (2005). Endogenous psychoactive tryptamines reconsidered: an anxiolytic role for dimethyltryptamine. Medical hypotheses, 64(5), 930-937.

full text here: https://www.dmt-nexus.me...s%20anxiolytic%20DMT.pdf