Sorry, I didn't mean to put words along those lines in your mouth. I meant this specifically in connection with the idea of people's minds being tricked.


That seems like a short-sighted equation to me. Do you have anything other than antiquity to back up the claim that psychedelics are more than just mind altering drugs?


We definitely perceive different things after ingesting psychedelic drugs. But every neuroscientist on the planet will agree that these different things are caused by the effects of molecules on the brain.


I don't understand this. In what way do our bodies have the properties of receivers and transmitters?


Yes, really. Lol.


You're saying that scientists don't agree about the way in which the Khufu Pyramid was built. That's very believable, after all, those scientists weren't there when it was built. However, that scientists don't agree on something doesn't mean that this something was caused by psychedelic drugs, and it definitely doesn't mean that psychedelic drugs are more than mind altering substances. Sounds like a typical case of god of the gaps to me.


Well, I think they found some clever way, which probably involved a lot of hard work. This wikipedia article will give you an idea of the current theories about the construction of the Great Pyramid.

Like what, how to build a pyramid? Admittedly, building pyramids is hard, but it's not impossible. This is what I meant when I said they were not dumb.


There is nothing scientific about "interpreting" quantum mechanics however you see fit, and applying it to everything you like to justify irrational beliefs. Saying there is "scientific framework that supports literally any idea you can conceive" is a huge insult to actual scientists.

Me stating my opinion isn't any more or less responsible than you stating your opinion. I sure hope that's not what you were implying.

---

It does if you apply Occam's razor.

The thing with quantum mechanics is that it is not just complicated, but also straaaange. I guess that's kind of what Feynman meant..

Hm. Only 5000 years of anecdotal history, but I'm aware that's not proof.




This video will show you exactly in what ways our bodies have the properties of receivers and transmitters.




This is a straw man. I didn't say scientists' disagreements mean that something was caused by psychedelic drugs. Just because I include something as a possibility, does not mean I'm stating it as irrefutable fact.



Not to be egotistical here, but I'm very familiar with the current theories about Khufu's construction.




Which scientists? Mainstream scientists? Because when Galileo said the Earth orbits the Sun, all the scientists at the time said he was crazy.

There are several other scientists that have indirectly expressed this same idea. Nikola Tesla would be one of them.

Nassim Haramein is a current 'actual' scientist who would reinforce this idea, and surely wouldn't be insulted.

I'm a fan of possibility. Even if it has what we believe to be a low probability. What can I say? The universe got much more interesting when I stopped believing that we know it all.

I don't believe you.

I'm not sure what your line of reasoning is here. I was trying to point out that you are introducing an assumption here, namely that "experience" is happening only in the brain. Can you point me to the necessity of the assumption?


I am not Feynman, so I don't know for sure what he really meant. But from the few things that I've read from him, it seems to me that he didn't even bother very much with new-age reasoning, as he found quite a lot "not even wrong" with scientists. Did you read "Cargo cult science"?

When Galileo said the earth orbited around the sun, he was attacked by the catholic church for some bizarre reason. I'm sure the scientists of his time would have been interested in his ideas, especially after his probably rigorous defense of them (based on evidence he himself had collected with his telescope, by the way).

Nassim Haramein is a crackpot 'physicist', not someone to be taken seriously.


It is scientific consensus that all of our experience happens in the brain. Psychedelic molecules influence the brain. Through this chemical influence, our experience is altered. To me, this is the simplest assumption that leads to an understanding of the facts; it is not necessary to introduce other ideas to come to a reasonable understanding of the facts. Hence my reference to Occam's razor.


I haven't read it, but I'll read the wikipedia article at least. The title of the book is very funny.

It used to be consensus that the earth is the center of the universe. Can we agree that consensus is not a proper measure of science?


Every experience also alters the brain. External chemicals are no sine qua non.


For one I don't buy that it actually leads to understanding of all the facts. Secondly, I maintain that it is you who introduced the assumption that "everything happens in the brain". You may refer to some unquantified consensus, but you cannot point to any proof, only handwaving. The whole subject of mind and experience is as yet too ill-defined for any proper scientific theory. Any honest scholar would admit that.


I highly advise you to read it.

Geocentrism is an ancient idea and has been proven wrong. I don't think you should say that consensus today is false solely because consensus in the distant past was false.
By referring to consensus, I was specifically referring to the fact that literally every experiment ever done in neuroscience shows that the mind is a result of the brain (or at least that no experiment shows the opposite). And that scientists acknowledge this, of course.

I don't see how this is relevant. I never implied experiences don't alter the brain. Note the subtle difference between "experiences" in the previous sentence, and "experience" in my sentence you quoted.

I didn't mean to imply absolute certainty about literally everything. I'm interested in what facts you consider unexplainable, though.


This is true. I don't think the burden of proof lies on me, though.


It is true that it is hard to quantify consensus. You might want to start by reading an introductory textbook on neuroscience.


I don't think we're discussing the whole subject of mind and experience, which would (among other things ofc) include the hard problem of consciousness. We're discussing whether it is reasonable to assume that experience is a direct product of the brain.

I don't think experience is limited to the brain.

For instance, insects have no brain, but rather glia throughout the body, cut its head off and it will react to stimuli for a while longer and IMO experience that reaction, without the use of a brain.

On a smaller scale, single celled organisms can be chemotropic, phtototropic etc. I would say they experience this reaction to stimuli. So i don't think it is far to limit experience to the brain. I think the brain processes experience after the fact. That being said, i would now question whether experience is a product or the body's reaction?

I love the fact that not everyone on the nexus is hardcore and has done it all a zillion times! May I ask, what intrigued you to come here?

Btw, having a Near-Death Experience is not at all the same thing as merely being near physical death. An NDE is a very vivid experience that sometimes, but far from always, accompany being near death. See for instance this.


Yeah, good thing you added that, for it wasn't implied enough


First of all, experiences like this are not best explained by "it was just a brain with drugs in it". People are coming back from really deep psychedelic experiences completely convinced that there's way more to reality than the life we live on a daily basis does indeed tend to make us believe.

Secondly, you have things like this taking place.

And thirdly, brain scanning of people undergoing psychedelic experiences, where the mind is expanded, reveals demonstrably less brain activity than everyday normal life does. That right there suggests that the brain is a filter of sorts, rather than a producer of consciousness.


Yes, but the point he's going for is that paradigm shifts in science do not happen overnight based on actual evidence at all times. Take for instance the following quote:

"The history of science shows again and again that a failure of imagination provides no compelling reason to doubt claims that are supported by the evidence. Reports of rocks that fall from the sky - what we today call meteorites - were rejected by scientists for decades on the grounds that there are no rocks in the sky to fall. Continental drift was ridiculed by geologists for decades because they could not imagine any means by which the continents could drift."

Sometimes, paradigm shifts take time, even when there's solid evidence, if the implication of the evidence defy and overwhelm the imagination of the contemporary thinkers too much. Academia is not some hyper-rational entity that always embraces truth the moment it encounters it. It is very much a democratic process where everyone has to agree, and that can often take time. And the more controversial a claim something is, the more time it takes.


I want to preface my reply to this by saying that I know absolutely nothing about Nassim Haramein or his ideas, but the vibe of your reply strongly suggest to me that you may think like this. I.e., calling someone a crackpot is the very definition of a dismissive reaction with no substance whatsoever. His ideas being controversial does not imply that he's a 'crackpot'. Instead, try to reply to the trains of thought he has utilized to arrive at those conclusions.








You are so uninformed. First of all, read the dialogue going on here, here and here. That alone refutes 90% of your statements in those quotes.

And lastly, the idea that no data refutes the notion that the brain creates the mind is demonstrably wrong and has already been falsified. There's no short summary of this data, but see for instance this lecture for a summary of some of it.

Hope you enjoy a constructive dialogue on this topc!

Just because someone mentioned Nassim Haramein doesn't mean I have to refute everything Nassim Haramein ever said. If you believe Nassim Haramein has made a valid point, please tell me this point and why you think it is valid. This is important, because Nassim Haramein operates in the realm of pseudoscience.

Ich,

A straw man is where you manipulate or fabricate a person's argument so that it corroborates your point. You keep doing this.

Nobody said you have to 'refute everything N. Haramein said because someone mentioned him'. You said that. You also said he was a crackpot. Rational debate contends that it's not up to anyone to bring up a valid point of his, but for you, to prove your claim that he is a crackpot.

What Hjortron said here really sums up what my point was:

Yes, but the point he's going for is that paradigm shifts in science do not happen overnight based on actual evidence at all times. Take for instance the following quote:

"The history of science shows again and again that a failure of imagination provides no compelling reason to doubt claims that are supported by the evidence. Reports of rocks that fall from the sky - what we today call meteorites - were rejected by scientists for decades on the grounds that there are no rocks in the sky to fall. Continental drift was ridiculed by geologists for decades because they could not imagine any means by which the continents could drift."

Sometimes, paradigm shifts take time, even when there's solid evidence, if the implication of the evidence defy and overwhelm the imagination of the contemporary thinkers too much. Academia is not some hyper-rational entity that always embraces truth the moment it encounters it. It is very much a democratic process where everyone has to agree, and that can often take time. And the more controversial a claim something is, the more time it takes.

Instead of calling me uninformed and then referring to big walls of text that you liked to read, I'd appreciate it if you would refute 90% of my statements yourself. Simply dismissing me as uninformed because I haven't read texts that you have read is no way of arguing.

Another straw man.

He didn't dismiss you as uninformed because you haven't read the texts he has.

You created that argument.

He dismissed you as uninformed because you were displaying yourself to him as such with the claims you were making.

So, in order to back up his claim that you were uninformed, he provided you with the resources that would show you this. This is actually exactly how you're supposed to argue.

The way Hjortron put it leaves me no way to refute his claim that what I said is not true. Therefore I ask him what exactly he finds untrue about my statements, so that I can
1) understand why my statements are not true (if they are)
2) defend my statements.
Don't you agree that this is a better and fairer way to discuss things?

How do you figure? All you have to do to refute his claim is state that what you said is true and show him why what you said is true.




I'd imagine the parts he finds untrue are the parts he quoted, and he also implied that you could understand why your statements are not true, by offering resources which corroborate his claim.

I agree that your way is a good way - but that's what's happening here. You broke down communication when you refused his resources. You said you did this because he didn't 'refute them [him]self'. That's arbitrary.

I have already said why I think what I said is true. If someone thinks it is not true, I'd like to know why. As per Occam's razor, I lay the burden of proof on the one making the unnecessairy claims. The claim that psychedelics are more than mind altering drugs is unnecessary, because viewing psychedelics as mind altering drugs perfectly explains the facts.


This is not true. I didn't break down communication, I asked for clarification.

To quote you in response to me, earlier:


You might want to start by looking in a mirror.


Of course, it sound so perfectly rational when you get to single handedly decide what is "unnecessary", entirely what Occam's razor is about.


I like that, I have myself experienced it as a reducing valve of sorts.

I only said that reading an introductory textbook on neuroscience would be a good way to get an idea of the consensus in the neuroscientific community. I didn't say you were uninformed, or that your opinion was not valid because of that. Disclaimer: I know Hjortron didn't say my opinion wasn't valid.


I realize Occam's razor is only a principle. What the principle is about though, is succinctness. I'm arguing that the position that psychedelics are mind-altering drugs is the one that makes the fewest assumptions.


The linked article is indeed interesting, because it offers insights in the workings of psychedelics. However, I don't see why it would mean that the brain is not the producer of consciousness. The paper states that "the findings of two studies being published in scientific journals this week identify areas of the brain where activity is suppressed by psilocybin". To me, this resonates with the filter idea in the sense that the reduction of brain activity corresponds with a reduction in filtering by the brain. But nothing really says that this must be a filtering of something external, originating from outside of the brain.
edit: from that article:


These videos show people who had a great time while on drugs, but I honestly don't see anything that can't be explained biologically/chemically.

Agree to disagree guys, what works for one does not work so well for the other....