Jees wrote:sleepermustawaken wrote:Jees wrote:Why would you think there will be NO diversity in the outcome?
... The repitition is dependant on purely biological functions and not personality prototypes...
1) Because we all have 2 legs and 2 arms makes you imposing that there is no difference further to speak of in the biological functions. Dna and genes differ, the rest differs along. A certain dose really differs from one to another, that we know, you seem to counter speak facts by just saying so.
2) Why would difference in personality prototypes have no effect in the outcome? The psychological footprint goes into the experience, no doubt. Same person, same dose, other state of mind --> different experience. Go figure.
It makes me wonder how much experience you have with substances to not know this
* * *
sleepermustawaken wrote:I don't see why software programming (personality traits/memories etc) would interfer with biological mechanisms of any given substance.
It is not because you do not see that that it makes it so. A depressive state of mind does affect sickness vulnerability, your mental lifestyle could even induce a heart attack. A psychological shock can turn ones hairs white or falling out. But a substance experience won't be affected?
* * *
sleepermustawaken wrote:... if it wern't this way then dr's could not make diagnoses because of too much variation with peoples neurophysiological processes...
And the drs have a great piece of work with the variables, making their diagnosis very slippery, often ending in a try and error style approach. A neurologist told me so.
To heal a broken bone, yes, things are largely straightforward, and even there the variables make up for serious batch of unforeseen complications.
* * *
I've a weird feeling with the claims you make
There is a reason why I love Jees. He makes sense. And he is real and realistic.
Sleeper who must awaken, you seem to not understand how the practice of social medicine or clinical psychiatry work. A diagnosis is made, not on the basis of some underlying base without difference, but on, quite simply, differential diagnosis.
Probable guesswork is made based upon presenting phenomena. The diversity is quite astounding when you look closely enough at personalities and minds and brains and bodies and biographies. Not one of those aspects can be separated when an individual is under analysis.
A number of therapies and pharmacological inverventions may be tried and an intitial assessment is made based upon clusters of presenting data. But any diagnosis is very general and is made in studied ignorance.
There is no underlying universal substrate except in the most general and most generic sense. And there are only probabilities and correlations when it comes to underlying "brain imbalances" and clinical diagnoses. We really don't know for example why certain drugs are effective. We have more or less thoughtful guesswork that seems to have some efficacy for some people.
No wonder Jees gets a weird feeling when he tries to understand your views. You seem to be falling into an error when you see some kind of generic "night in which all cows are black" as the truth of what any individual person is.
Each person is specific and at the same time they participate in any number of differential qualities which will always be generic.
How would that specificity of personhood ever dissolve except that they die or become a zombie?
So too with "hyperspace" as Grateful pointed out. You seem to have reified it and made it into something generic when as Jees pointed out every jumping into the stream is jumping into a new stream and every jumping is wholly personal and individual.
There is no "hyperspace" in the sense you mean it, apart from an individual perceiver or experiencer of reverie space or dream space or what have you.
Words like "hyperspace" are metaphors or ways of talking about a range of very specific experiences that very specific people are having and talking about. A danger in talking about it is that some person might think that an independently existing "thing" exists that we are calling hyperspace.
We can posit formal rules for the existence of the many possibilities for "existence" as in mathematics and theory and we might call that a kind of "hyperspace". But that will be a highly developed set of intuitions formed by people who train and work with these theories and these maths. It may or may not approximate to a "real" but it can only describe it through the manipulation of symbols. And it still requires an "intuiter" to understand it.
The real of who we are. That we can point to. That we are. But we cannot pin it down as either purely
material and generic or specific and psychical.