I study neuroscience. This means that a huge part of my life is dedicated to a rational and quantitative understanding of the body. In particular it is the mass of tissue located behind your eyes that I am concerned with. I need to view this thing as a machine. That's the discipline.

I had my first real breakthrough with DMT last night. And as one might imagine, I probably wasn't terribly concerned about understanding how things work. I was at the mercy of that hunk of flesh in my skull. After I came out of it, I was disturbed by dissonance between my two world views. Any thoughts on how I can deal with the rift between; to put it crudely, that which is experiential and that which occupies the realm of positivist thought. How can I work toward the goal of understanding these things if I can't even comprehend my own person?

I used to be able to handle the separation, but to me, the "realness" of an experience is not contingent upon its coexistence with things that all people can perceive. The skeptic must deny the existence of both, while I cannot deny the existence of either.


HELP ME!

1.realize that nothing is truly known
2.eliminate fear of being wrong
3.????
4.Profit!

The fear of being wrong. I need to ponder this. I think you might be on to something.

I can relate re cognitive dissonance.

One interesting theory that may help bridge the gap a bit is the view of the brain not as the source of self but as a receiver, antenna/tv, processor if you will. Just as your computer doesn't contain the internet. DMT is a great 'channel flipper' of the tv in your head.

Also think about what a dull place life and reality® would be if we all truly understood the inner workings of it all.

Unless the Dissonance rips your mind/soul apart, nobody forces you to resolve that thing.
Accept it until you have more informations.

Western psychology likes to interpret a cognitive dissonance as pathological. I think its pathological to force a decision.

Imho it is a false dilemma.

Then you might have no choice but to dissociate that pragmatical need from what may be unfathomably going on.

Parshvik was very precise, I think. If you need to follow a paradigm for practical reasons, so be it. But be aware of that fact. Looks like you already are since you mention cognitive dissonance. Paradigms are provisional, all positivist knowledge is just a filtered fraction of what we've explored so far with our limited senses. If you acknowledge that the knowledge you have about yourself is necessarily limited for as long as you use limited ways of acquiring that knowledge, you will be able to dissociate. In practical terms, this means studying the machine as if it was a generator may be possible, but if you are not perfectly aware that it might be a facilitator instead, and that you are not able to measure the source field but to experience it only, you will hardly make real progress. And that requires what Parshvik said.



Both you and your experience are ontologically real.

Thanks to everyone for the replies.

I have spent some time thinking about these issues, among others that come along with going deeper into experience. I think the most productive course of action I have taken is to shift my pursuits from one that is narrow - highly focused - to one that is more comprehensive. Realizing, as many of you said; that my senses are limited. I think the real dissonance arises not from the conflict between scientific pursuit and experience, but through the limitations imposed upon my own person - my ego. These two things only appear to be at odds. Working memory can only permit so much.

This has inspired me to look at data in a completely different way. I cannot divulge what may come of it. It's a work in progress and I have an awful lot to learn.


My most recent concerns pertain to ethics. I am having trouble escaping the notion that there may be an underlying hedonism associated with the psychedelic experience. I think many take great pleasure in these experiences, myself included. Unlike your average joy, it's mediated through novelty and hardship. It's a bit like the pleasure of beholding a beautiful landscape, or the feeling of relief when escaping danger. And dare I say, it invokes a religious experience. My perceived danger here is the fact that this is readily accessible, as a chemical one can administer at will.

Can the experience be abused? I know many would say that it will "kick your ass" if you overuse, but this doesn't change the fact that it can happen. Or does this call in to question the nature of other "stoic" pursuits. Is the concept of traditional christian restraint actually a means for pleasure? Can a steadfast faith or creed elicit the same pleasure seeking behavior?

I want to believe that all of the former examples are one in the same. They are different means to a similar end. Perhaps any lifestyle can lead to abuse and oppression of free thought, or that enforcing a belief in free thought can lead to oppression of committed lifestyles. I'm going in circles, as you can see.

Many Thanks.

I am also a neuroscientist and have spent a lot of time wrestling with the joint realities of science and psychedelic mysticism.

The best conclusion that I can come to (and it works pretty well for me) is that brains are complicated, amazing things and while it may be impossible to untangle it all, the fact that it can generate something as awe-inspiring as a DMT trip is even more incredible then the trip itself.

You can't logic or science your way to the solutions of some of these problems. Some of them you just have to feel.

Blessings
~ND

Its good to try and consciously let go of our brains incessant desire for complete control and understanding of our experience through its conceptual models, since the experience is of another domain of being entirely and light-years beyond any kind of full distillation into our conventional mental-monkey-boxes...Pondering it all is great and something I do a lot... but unless that realization that conclusions aren't necessarily a good idea is built into your reality-tunnels, then you can get hung up and go into insane loops trying to figure it all out. Any words you try to overlay onto the phenomenon just slide right off.

I study cognitive science, which is a somewhat similar field to your own, but because of my weird life experiences I've always been inclined to be on the more mystical side of things I guess. The two approaches can come to a sort of integration though. I just don't align with the rational/materialist/reductionist worldview. I try and stay away from becoming to attached to any one reality-tunnel or belief system (BS) in general, including the reality-tunnels promoted by most people in my field these days.

Many people in the scientific community seem to polarize between two ends of the spectrum in regards to their notions of What We Know. Either holding that we more or less have the real and full picture of reality, and that we just have to fill in some of the details here and there... Or, that we basically don't know shit about reality and consciousness but should revel in the unfolding mystery of it all regardless.. I think history and our experiences, especially altered states, can drive home the realization that we know but a tiny fraction about the perceivable universe, which is itself only a tiny fraction of the entire universe/multiverse/whatever.

There is much of the current conceptual paradigm i'd disagree with. Like the brain being a localized generator of consciousness.

I think its more both a generator and a receiver. Like a lens that can be altered to twist consciousness into a myriad of forms. Or if the brain was a cello, then the sense of self is like the sound. I've had hundreds of bizarre sober and psychedelic experiences, synchronicities, and other paranormal things occur to the point where I have to admit that our current paradigm of how consciousness works seems way off the mark.. Our models have some serious holes in them but of course humanity, as always, likes to go along with thinking that it has more or less acquired the general picture.

I think looking into the evidence for consciousness having an aspect of non-locality to it (see hameroff and sheldrakes work) has been very interesting to think about because of all of this to.

I don't really see the brain as a machine. I don't even think the evidence supports that model, personally. Its a useful metaphor and in some ways "true", but it has some serious limitations and can only be taken so far. Many go from this to saying that the universe is like a giant machine as well. To me the universe seems much more like a enormous organism, or even a fantastic idea, than some kind of machine.

I'm sure many here would agree with me in recommending a hefty dose of some Robert Anton Wilson...lol. Start with cosmic trigger . You won't be disappointed.

I think that the only way it can "kick your ass" is if you do it too often, thereby causing a permanent shift in the way your brain will choose to perceive its external (and internal) world. A type of long term potentiation if you will, that can convince you that "real" is what you are perceiving through a trip, and sustain that change across sobriety as well.

Other than that, I agree, it's definitely hedonistic. From many approaches.

I think its clear how to understand the "mystic" feeling of spice. Dmt works as a 5-ht agonist. 5-ht works to modulate your sensory perception. DMT in a sense "hyper overloads" your recptors so that your brain doesn't fully comprehend what it is sensing. It "blows its mind". Lol. So your brain senses the most rational/irrational thing it can when its being overloaded. That's how I see it. I could be wrong though, but it has allowed me a simple understanding of dmt's power.

I definitely had to look up what cognitive dissonance was. *palm to forehead*

I kind of see it the same way, but up to a point:



That's all we know.

We do not know : if it indeed "hyper overloads". It just modulates it. It alters the chemical and electrical properties of the post-synaptic neuron. What does this alteration actually means in the human spectrum of low-level functions (e.g. photons are processed this and that way)? Unknown.

We do not know : if the brain does not comprehend what it is sensing. Sensory input is sensory input, maybe not the ideal for survival, but still a valid one, at least for the brain itself. Just a different interpretation of its internal and external surroundings.

Leading to the OP and his more detailed follow-up enquiry, I think that any experience that has the potential to do the aforementioned, can and will have a hedonistic counterpart, the kind of pleasure one feels when temporarily leaves homeostasis. Isn't this why there are thrill-seekers? Why certain religious individuals go into trances? Doesn't matter where you get your adrenaline from, as long as you do, and appreciate the return to homeostasis afterwards. I think that's normal though, you always had the most daring hunter of the tribe, the most curious and experimenting shaman, and yeah... astronauts... the flea who says "yeah, flick me out of this lovely sphere of food and other friendly fleas, I may make it back or I may die, just do it!".

Maybe cognitive dissonance is a valuable and necessary event after all?

Do ethics get involved only because this specific way has the power to induce pleasure?

Everyone, I cannot express how pleased I am with how thorough and intelligent all of these responses have been.

I am also delighted to see some people in the field of neuroscience/psychology that do not take the scientific method to places it doesn't belong, such as one's feelings. When we need to define a mechanism, it can't be replaced. When it's time to have a dialogue with someone about their struggle with depression, telling them it's just a problem with their neurotransmitters doesn't do anything to help them overcome a pervading melancholy.

I overheard this conversation the other day:

Q: "My niece just went on antidepressants and is doing poorly in school. Now her parents are concerned that she will not get into medical school."

A: "Oh, well that's just an imbalance of neurotransmitters in the brain. Give her medicine and she will do much better."

My thoughts: If I stab you with a knife, would you prescribe opiates? You only feel pain because of the signal transduction in your nerve fibers. No. You would remove the knife stupid butt weasel.


I must admit that I do believe in an order and systematization to all things. In that respect I remain a positivist. Even thoughts and feelings that we perceive as irrational, may be rational in terms of survival. And by survival, I do not mean my own personal survival. I mean the potentiation of the behavior that results in more people being predisposed for that action. This is genetic or cultural, but the two are inexorably linked to a certain degree. If I see something that doesn't appear rational, I do not give up and assign it to some otherworldly, higher power. I know that the system of which it is a part is a causative thing. The dots just aren't connected and I may lack the capacity to do so. If man was better off knowing these things innately, then indeed, we would. The only thing consistent is the flexibility of belief. It is by this device that we are well made and in this thought that I find some shred of inner peace.


As for my internal conduct? Anything goes. I want to feel it all. Having a conscious belief that the world runs like clockwork does not stop me from embracing the human experience. Sexual attraction, friendship, love, music; My desire for these is infinite and I think it is for many. I think the thing that drives me insane is that no matter what we learn and no matter what we quantify. No matter how grand an idea is, it cannot be perceived. Sure, there are clever ways with metaphor and models, but that won't ever permit the chance to actually experience it. Save for certain chemicals perhaps, but the jury is out on that one.

The Neural, I like your take on thrill seeking and homeostasis. I think it is the return to earth that we all physically enjoy the most. The source of displacement is made a matter of ethics in my mind because that is how I am told to think. Hopefully I can learn to outgrow this apprehension, despite a lot of noise from all directions.

Universecannon, I have not been blessed with any paranormal experiences outside of the ones that I voluntarily induce. I am open to the idea of out of body consciousness, but there is very little to support this in a literal sense. No man or thing in the universe is unable to influence the other, so in that regard, all things and events do form an organism. That is a poorly chosen metaphor, however, for someone who studies organisms as though they are machines. Haha, so I am imposing my own world view on what you said.

In other news, my GVG arrived today. Once I get into the proper state of mind, I'll have to give it a go. I have heard nothing but great things from people around here.

Wish me luck.

F*** luck. Just act.

And a piece of advice, when you are under it, remember, even your inquiring processes are altered, so asking "hmmm and why has the window frame turned into a living fractalised snake, in relation to different action potentials in my V1?" may be translated into "ooooooo, ram bam quoeit doopla z z .... the crow is my knee coming through echoes of... of... of...".

Questioning, as an approach, exhibits a sort of inhibitory nature, which can be interpreted by your own feedforward loop as pure resistance. Which of course at that stage is futile, and totally detrimental to the experience. Leave your enquiries for your "ordinary" state of mind

Good Advice. This is why I came here.

I don't mean to take a step backwards in the conversation, but I'm curious as to uni's view that the brain is not a machine. I see everything in this waking reality as one complex machine made of many other complex machines. Organisms are organic machines. I see the brain as a complex machine made up of many smaller simpler machines. Especially after watching that cgi video on the life of a cell. Amazing stuff.

Although not too recently I came up with the thought that all these machines are governed by some sort of ever evolving software that manages everything.

I also want to thank you guys cause I have been tossing the idea around and this thread gas strengthened my motivation to pursue neuroscience, possibly neurochemistry.

Before the discussion progresses, it might be wise to point out that everyone's personal perception of a "machine" is most likely completely different, and influences the actual analogy. To some, as I might suspect (could be wrong), the term machine might evoke the image of a metal/rusty/limited man-made entity that is wired up. To others, it might mean a complicated, functional, dynamic, and interactive system, be it made of metal, carbon, silicon, or what have you.

I personally do see everything as a "machine", regardless of its nature (organic/mechanic). They still are entities that can be compartmentalized into functional and distinct parts, as they can also be viewed as the sum of these functions; one entity.

Anrchy, good choice

You might like to look into clinical neuroscience for that matter (brain, behaviour, disease, all at the levels of genetics and neurons).

Anrchy,

Could you elaborate on your definition of "software" that governs it all? I need to make the leap from metaphor to logic.

I was in your shoes some years ago. I was fascinated by perception. I looked at different fields of study on wikipedia and stumbled onto "behavioral neuroscience". This was appealing for a few reasons:

1. I thought it would provide a steady, well paying career with intellectual freedom
2. Being a behavioral neuroscientist makes you look like a badass
3. I thought that it would provide the means to find answers to many of the questions you are asking yourself

Do any of these things hold true?

Firstly, do not expect to make good money until you are 40. You can make the same wage as a research assistant that you do bagging groceries at whole foods. So, to make a good wage, you need a Ph.D, then you become a post-doc, and they don't make that much either. Certanly not enough to support a family on anything better than ramen and mac n cheese. After your post-doc, if you are lucky, then you become a research assistant professor, then a PI. Then finally you get to make good money.

That's the story in academics. You may choose to work in Pharmaceuticals, Biotech, or a Clinical setting. No matter what, you will need a Ph.D or an M.D. This is not easy and does not necessarily make you smarter. It makes you more marketable and gives you very useful skills for the workplace. It's a sure way to make a good salary, but you've got to be passionate. Keep in mind that you will have limited independence (compared to what you may imagine). When you finally do get up in the ranks, you are in more of a managerial position. Some PI's hardly set foot in the lab. They spend most of their time sucking some +!#@ over at the NIH to get grant money. You need to work in order to work. And then there's the IRB (red tape for clinical trials) and IACUC (red tape for animals). And have fun applying for your schedule I DEA license, getting audited by armed DEA agents in your lab as you try to sort out the lessons you learned from your changa binge the night before.

I know little about clinical psychology, but this would require a lot of higher education as well.

And as for the answers? It depends on what you are looking for. Are you a tool maker? Do you delight in learning about something very particular? or do you delight in broad revelation? These are the questions that you need to be asking, because the subject or the thing that you have interest in now doesn't imply anything about your skill set and what you have to offer. What you have to offer is something that people will pay you money for, and the goal is to make that thing something you enjoy or at least tolerate.

If you think about it, there are only a few tasks available at the workplace:

1. Tool maker - Improve efficiency. This is the reason the GNP goes up each year and why the PS4 is way cooler than the PS3. Bureaucracies are tools to compartmentalize labor, so upper management falls here too.

2. Laborer - You make stuff. You do stuff. Not limited to factory work. Brain surgery is a labor intensive task.

3. Marketer - You sell things.

4. If you hate all of the above, become an artist, musician, or writer.

And of course, we are all buyers and traders. This is an ugly generalization, but it may get you thinking in a more general sense about things.

Actually I get the most enjoyment out of solving problems. The first thing that got me wanting to get into neurochemistry was the fact that I see doctors prescribing ssri's for people without doing the necessary tests. They treat everyone that is depressed as if they have a biological flaw in their chemistry.

I see depression as a chemical balance rather than an imbalance. I feel that the body is suppose to be doing that when you are suffering. It is imbalanced compared to the happy healthy you but that is a more of an emotional imbalance. Although you cannot ignore the fact that there are probably some that do have a flaw in there bodies ability to keep things in balance properly. But no tests are done to determine this and I would think it's safe to say they are a minority.

Anyways...

There's a programming that manages everything. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't dna such a thing? So DNA being the software and cells, and other insane things like protein motors, are the hardware or machines.

I don't see a machine as something that is isolated to the material it's made of. I think when it comes to semantics it's important to just go ahead and use a common definition.


an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.

What you are missing is the thing that makes it all autonomous. With hardware and software, there is agency; the person building the hardware and writing the software. There is no ghost in the machine writing DNA code with intent or purpose. I think you already answered this question yourself with your critique of doctors prescriving SSRI's for depression. You recognize that if millions of people experience depression, then there was a selective pressure to make that phenotype so prevalent. There is not anything "wrong" with them, nor is there anything "wrong" with their genetics. No one can know what genes or what behaviors will become more widespread in a population, because no one can know exactly how the external environment will unfold.

What we can do is look backward and measure the frequency of different genes in a population at different time points. From this we can create a model for what may happen in the future. This is evolution.

The biggest issue with SSRI's is that they are highly non-specific. Creating drugs with very specific mechanisms of action is highly profitable for this reason, because it would treat the problem without causing side effects.

DNA is hardware. Proteins are hardware. What you perceive as software is the important necessity to make models for really complex systems. People are stupid. We cannot understand our biology. It's too complicated, as I said before, to perceive. We CAN use deductive reasoning to make models and solve problems.