can we explain psychedelics under the materialist paradigm ?

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

I'm not creating a duality here. 

Your thread title is “can we explain psychedelics under the materialist paradigm”. To have “materialist”, there must be “immaterialist” as contrast. You are creating this. And like I said, I think it’s a fun construct to create and play with. I spend a lot of time exploring this area.

What you are asking about is prior to what you are observing. Try some psychedelics and find out directly what you are missing. 

[inFlow]

@Osaid This insight was hilarious

[Jacobsrw]

30 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Jacobsrw @Jacobsrw

Ofcourse different chemicals have different effect on the brain that's so obvious. 

You’ve just interpreted what I said using reductionism. You missed the point. Science cannot discern meaningful differences between altered states of consciousness. Regardless of the substance in which induces it, all it can do is make neurological inferences. It cannot discern the transferable differences in consciousness between two highly activated states and it is what they fundamentally represent.  Which is the very limitation of science.

Its no more helpful in this area than a Giraffe trying to figure out why it fails to swim in water.

Altered psychedelic states are prior to science. Just the very fact you asked the question displays the cumbersome efforts science attempts at understanding psychedelic experiences.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Someone here]

30 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

This is a story you are creating. Albeit a fun story. 

OK thanks. 

That's a good way to end any conversation btw. It works. 

Edited June 3, 2020 by Someone here

[Someone here]

@Jacobsrw you are just spreading these statements as if it's objective absolute facts.  You actually don't know that.  You don't know if science is capable of explaining psychedelics. There's no reason to not think this is possible. If you do a bit research on the topic you will see it's just a matter of time before it happens. It's a hallucinating drug.. Why would science not be able to understand it like any other chemical when you inject in your body?. 

Edited June 3, 2020 by Someone here

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

but i think we will be able to have a material explanation in the near future as studies on the brain advances further. 

Absolutely never.

Psychedelics are imaginary.

[Someone here]

45 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Your thread title is “can we explain psychedelics under the materialist paradigm”. To have “materialist”, there must be “immaterialist” as contrast. You are creating this. And like I said, I think it’s a fun construct to create and play with. I spend a lot of time exploring this area.

What you are asking about is prior to what you are observing. Try some psychedelics and find out directly what you are missing. 

@Jacobsrwwhen you take a DMT you see entities.  People think these entities are immaterial ghosts or something.  According to science they are just material visuals caused by altered perception centers in the brain that's affected by the drug. That's what I meant.  That's not my opinion again. That's what scientific study says. For me that's the most reasonable explanation. 

[Someone here]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Absolutely never.

Psychedelics are imaginary.

OK Leo can you define what imaginary means? Or what do you mean when you say it? Unreal? Doesnt exist? Immaterial?  What? 

[Jacobsrw]

29 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Jacobsrw you are just spreading these statements as if it's objective absolute facts.  You actually don't know that.  You don't if science is capable of explaining psychedelics. There's no reason to not think this is possible. If you do a bit research on the topic you will see it's just a matter of time before it happens. It's a hallucinating drug.. Why would science not to be able to understand it like any other chemical when you inject in your body?. 

Firstly, you study the foundations from which science is built. Which just so happen to be, empiricism and logical reasoning. Both are mind oriented and conceptually driven. If the conventional mind is transcended in a psychedelic state what makes you think science can use it to explain a psychedelic experience? It just becomes a self-referential contradiction. It’s absolute absurdity to think it could. Science needs to be superseded in order to explain this.

Science has never understood the experience of a drug 

All it’s done is projected it’s conceptual frameworks on what it calls a highly integrated “hallucination” and deemed this a feasible analysis. Science itself is a hallucination. It’s explanations will be no more advanced than that’s ability to explain matter, which is completely conceptual with no real relevance in actuality.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Jacobsrw]

13 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Jacobsrwwhen you take a DMT you see entities.  People think these entities are immaterial ghosts or something.  According to science they are just material visuals caused by altered perception centers in the brain that's affected by the drug. That's what I meant.  That's not my opinion again. That's what scientific study says. For me that's the most reasonable explanation. 

Haha dude, what is this but a formulation of concepts?

A psychedelic experience is beyond concepts.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Someone here]

7 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

Science itself is hallucination

What do you mean science is a hallucination?. And anything else for that matter? What do you mean exactly when you say something is a hallucination? 

[The observer]

Science cannot explain reality. However, we already have the ultimate explanation of psychedelics: Delusion.

And with delusion, I mean a mere shift in the state of consciousness, which means absolutely nothing except whatever meaning you give to it.

[Someone here]

9 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

Haha dude, what is this but a formulation of concepts?

A psychedelic experience is beyond concepts.

Just so you know. Everything you say are also concepts. But it seems like your concepts are the only  true concepts or you are allowed to use concepts and I'm not.  I'm tired of people telling me I'm saying concepts. To talk we have to use concepts or we better just shut up. 

And there is absolutely nothing funny btw. 

[Jacobsrw]

4 minutes ago, Someone here said:

What do you mean science is a hallucination?. And anything else for that matter? What do you mean exactly when you say something is a hallucination? 

Science is merely a thought. It is demonstrated and practice through thought expressed through thought and interpreted through thought. A complete projection of the minds conceptual making.

All of which the mind creates is a hallucination. Which just so happens to be every fragment of a self and all it believes it experiences.

[Someone here]

Just now, Jacobsrw said:

Science is merely a thought. It is demonstrated and practice through thought expressed through thought and interpreted through thought. A complete projection of the minds conceptual making.

All of which the mind creates is a hallucination. Which just so happens to be every fragment of a self and all it believes it experiences.

Do you realize these are also thoughts?  

[Jacobsrw]

4 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Just so you know. Everything you say are also concepts. But it seems like your concepts are the only  true concepts or you are allowed to use concepts and I'm not.  I'm tired of people telling me I'm saying concepts. To talk we have to use concepts or we better just shut up. 

And there is absolutely nothing funny btw. 

Exactly right. 

If you want the actuality of reality, experience it directly beyond concepts and mind.

This we call consciousness but really it has no name simply by the fact it cannot be described.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Leo Gura]

23 minutes ago, Someone here said:

OK Leo can you define what imaginary means? Or what do you mean when you say it? Unreal? Doesnt exist? Immaterial?  What? 

Take psychedelic and see.

Stop your mental masturbation. This work is not a theory. You MUST do it.

Words only work when you have the necessary underlying experiences.

Try to define "red" to a blind person. It is utterly hopeless. The definition is the experience of it.

[Jacobsrw]

4 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Do you realize these are also thoughts?  

Precisely.

Everything I say will be a disservice to reality. It’s beyond all I could ever say.

However, this does not mean what we say has no utility in a relative sense.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Take psychedelic and see.

Stop your mental masturbation. This work is not a theory. You MUST do it.

Words only work when you have the necessary underlying experiences.

Try to define "red" to a blind person. It is utterly hopeless. The definition is the experience of it.

I can't take a psychedelic for various of reasons. I know we can't ask for sourcing here. But if I could PM you about it would  appreciate it. 

[Someone here]

5 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

Precisely.

Everything I say will be a disservice to reality. It’s beyond all I could ever say.

However, this does not mean what we say has no utility in a relative sense.

OK so why you think you can debunk everything I say by just saying they are just concepts and thoughts? .