Why do psychedelic visuals look the way they do?

[Carl-Richard]

I have always wondered if that could ever be explained in a satisfactory way. What I consider not a satisfactory explanation is "oh this is what the brain activity looks like when you see psychedelic visuals". Because that doesn't really tell you why you see what you see and not say pink elephants. But I also have no idea what a satisfactory explanation would look like.

 

 

[Someone here]

Why does anything look the way it does? 

No "why" is answerable. 

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Someone here said:

Why does anything look the way it does? 

No "why" is answerable. 

So you've never encountered something called an explanation before?

[Grateful Dead]

At low to medium doses, it's like seeing the inside of my body for me, like my energetic structure. But a high dose I can't explain at all, like my first n-n-dmt breakthrough I was surrounded by sphinx-like beings dancing and greeting me. wtf? 

[Someone here]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

So you've never encountered something called an explanation before?

When you really question everything you think you know or have an explanation for.. you will be shocked at how little you know. And it's not extreme to say that you don't know a dam thing.

Do you know what anything is or do you just give it a name? 

For instance.. A cat. You don't know what a cat is. I mean it's essential nature. You just know it's appearance. And you give it a name. A label.

 

We give labels to objects and actions.. We write mathematical equations to describe certain patterns in nature.. We think we know this stuff.. But we actually don't.  We don't know what an apple is or what a tree is or what a color is or what a sound is or what a feeling is or what a thought is or what  a human is or what psychedelic is or what any thing is.. Existence is pure undefined magic..

An explanation requires further explanations to back it up and you always end up with infinite regress. 

 

[Carl-Richard]

18 minutes ago, Someone here said:

When you really question everything you think you know or have an explanation for.. you will be shocked at how little you know. And it's not extreme to say that you don't know a dam thing.

Do you know what anything is or do you just give it a name? 

For instance.. A cat. You don't know what a cat is. I mean it's essential nature. You just know it's appearance. And you give it a name. A label.

 

We give labels to objects and actions.. We write mathematical equations to describe certain patterns in nature.. We think we know this stuff.. But we actually don't.  We don't know what an apple is or what a tree is or what a color is or what a sound is or what a feeling is or what a thought is or what  a human is or what psychedelic is or what any thing is.. Existence is pure undefined magic..

An explanation requires further explanations to back it up and you always end up with infinite regress. 

 

You can still explain things despite all that. An explanation is when you reduce something to something else. I'm looking for such a thing.

[Someone here]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You can still explain things despite all that. An explanation is when you reduce something to something else. I'm looking for such a thing.

Sure. You can reduce one phenomenon into a more fundamental phenomenon to explain it away. But you are just facing the "turtles all the way down" dilemma. 

Psychedelics are hallucinogens. They affect certain areas in your so called brain which makes your perception change because perception centers exist in the brain. Is that a satisfying explanation? Not at all! See? 

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, Someone here said:

Sure. You can reduce one phenomenon into a more fundamental phenomenon to explain it away. But you are just facing the "turtles all the way down" dilemma. 

I'm fine with that 

 

8 hours ago, Someone here said:

Psychedelics are hallucinogens. They affect certain areas in your so called brain which makes your perception change because perception centers exist in the brain. Is that a satisfying explanation? Not at all! See? 

I think a satisfying explanation would need a certain level of specificity relative to what is being asked. For example, I think explaining the occurrence of psychedelic visuals as having to do with the 5HT2a receptor is a satisfying explanation, but to explain the structure or form of the visuals I think requires a different kind of explanation.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, RebornConsciousness said:

Many visuals from mushrooms could have scientific explanations, because they're not that extreme. If it's just changing of some colours, shapes in your visual field, etc. because you coould argue that "the part of the brain responsible for colour detection is this, the part of brain responsible for analyzing shapes is that, the XYZ chemical influences these parts in XYZ ways" etc.

I'm very much concerned about details like this (this video is surprisingly accurate):

Like, why do you see those particular patterns and not something else? It has always fascinated me since the first times I tripped.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Someone here]

@Carl-Richard would you agree that from the absolute perspective there isn't any explanation for literally anything? But from the relative perspective there are partial explanations? 

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

@Carl-Richard would you agree that from the absolute perspective there isn't any explanation for literally anything? But from the relative perspective there are partial explanations? 

To explain something in terms of something else is by definition relative. Also, you can't keep explaining things by pointing to something else forever. At some point, you reach the unexplainable, the absolute, the final reduction.

Try it: what are chairs made of? "Wood". What is wood made of? "Cells". What are cells made of? "Chemical compounds". What are chemical compounds made of? "Atoms". What are atoms made of? "Quarks". What are quarks made of? "Strings". What are strings made of? "No idea".

Edited April 28, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

This is a bit of a tangent, but I've been thinking about something @SeaMonster once said.

The unknown is often equated (maybe mistakenly) with non-duality or pure being. But what if non-duality is rather just the conceptual unknown, and thus still non-conceptual knowing (because obviously, non-duality is known)? So then, what about the truly "ontological" unknown? Does it actually exist? If it does, we can't know if non-duality is actually the true absolute, but instead only absolute in the realm of what is known. The only counter to that would be that the unknown is actually known. Thoughts?

Edited April 28, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Thought Art]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

To explain something in terms of something else is by definition relative. Also, you can't keep explaining things by pointing to something else forever. At some point, you reach the unexplainable, the absolute, the final reduction.

Try it: what are chairs made of? "Wood". What is wood made of? "Cells". What are cells made of? "Chemical compounds". What are chemical compounds made of? "Atoms". What are atoms made of? "Quarks". What are quarks made of? "Strings". What are strings made of? "No idea".

Haha, yea try do list out an infinite regress 

in the end idk

Edited April 29, 2023 by Thought Art

[UnbornTao]

12 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

This is a bit of a tangent, but I've been thinking about something @SeaMonster once said.

The unknown is often equated (maybe mistakenly) with non-duality or pure being. But what if non-duality is rather just the conceptual unknown, and thus still non-conceptual knowing (because obviously, non-duality is known)? So then, what about the truly "ontological" unknown? Does it actually exist? If it does, we can't know if non-duality is actually the true absolute, but instead only absolute in the realm of what is known. The only counter to that would be that the unknown is actually known. Thoughts?

I've heard that being directly conscious is truly self-validating; unlike knowledge, it's direct, not up to interpretation, guesswork or conviction. With direct consciousness, you're in the same "place" as consciousness. You might be over-intellectualizing the matter when a solution would be having several enlightenments.

Edited April 29, 2023 by UnbornTao

[M A J I]

Psychedelics allow the brain/receiver and signals that go in and out to become "loose" and "open" similar to a child in its natural state.

It is much more flowing/feminine and organic. Whereas an adult brain, especially one who grew up in the city and not a secluded village in the wild, will eventually become rigid and boxed-in. If you think about it, we live in boxes, work in boxes, think in boxes, everything is very "mechanical" ect.. thus eventually it shapes the consciousness to become very mechanical, compartmentalized, fixed and rigid ect...

While the planet is round and everything in nature and the universe is round and spiral. So when we relax into nature or meditate effectively or take something that relaxes the nervous system, the natural fractal/feminine/spiral nature represents itself once again.

Our minds are very triggered and stimulated by our over-stimulative environments and lifestyle habits so everything appears solid and unmoving. while someone who is truly relaxed and still in mind, the whole universe is alive and dancing. As Lao Tzu once said, In complete stillness the stone girl dances.

 

[EdgeGod900]

@Carl-Richard  My theory is that its because psychedelics gives us a "partial glimpse" of how a higher being sees "reality."

ie. It allows us to see/sense different dimensions beyond 3D or 4D(time)

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

I've heard becoming conscious is self-validating and true, it's not up for interpretation, since you're in the place of the direct consciousness. so your intellect is coming up with stuff.

Of course the concept of the ontological unknown is just a concept that the intellect makes up, but that doesn't mean the concept isn't pointing to something in reality.

It's the same thing with the concept of non-duality: it's a concept pointing to something in reality. I guess what the non-dual tradition is saying is "just don't concern yourself with the ontological unknown; concern yourself with what is experienced directly". That is why it rejects things like matter, because nobody has directly seen matter, only direct experience. But that doesn't in principle invalidate the existence of the ontological unknown. It's just an ontological preference to say you only care about the known. Therefore, "the absolute" is only absolute in the realm of the known.

It can also be the case that the unknown is just a fantasy, or a kind of artefact of the functioning of the intellect (which is to ask questions; "what if?"). In other words, for the intellect to ponder the unknown is self-serving to its very existence. Of course it will do that — it's in its nature. If the known is "this", it will ponder "not-this". If the known is non-dual, it will ponder duality.

Also, I guess the non-dual tradition focuses on accepting the unknown, to make peace with it, rather than rejecting it. Because when you're obsessing about the unknown, you keep projecting "what ifs" all the time, which is the root of suffering. It doesn't get you anywhere other than existential OCD. So if you care about reducing suffering, accepting the unknown by letting it remain unknown and living in the known is the way to.

Edited April 29, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[WeCome1]

17 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Like, why do you see those particular patterns and not something else? It has always fascinated me since the first times I tripped.

Yeah, I did some digging a couple years ago as to what science had to say about this; nothing interesting turned up - it is indeed a very little studied subject. My theory is that the consciousness is a pattern recognition/abstraction machine - it's just something it inherently does, it's hardwired at the very core. So, when a sensory overload begins during the trip, on one hand, that pattern recognition tends to default to simpler geometric forms in order to keep up (like, you know, in extreme situations, you recognize forms and movement faster than colors, because it gave your ancestors evolutionary advantage back in the day); and, on the other hand, is able to recognize more patterns where it previously wouldn't. Hence, everything gradually turns into one big fractal. And, since reality is indeed structured in this very deliberate, almost mathematical, orderly manner all the way from top to bottom - that fractal representation is not at all surprising: you are just becoming conscious of more of it.

Edited April 29, 2023 by WeCome1

[Asayake]

21 hours ago, Someone here said:

When you really question everything you think you know or have an explanation for.. you will be shocked at how little you know. And it's not extreme to say that you don't know a dam thing.

Do you know what anything is or do you just give it a name? 

For instance.. A cat. You don't know what a cat is. I mean it's essential nature. You just know it's appearance. And you give it a name. A label.

 

We give labels to objects and actions.. We write mathematical equations to describe certain patterns in nature.. We think we know this stuff.. But we actually don't.  We don't know what an apple is or what a tree is or what a color is or what a sound is or what a feeling is or what a thought is or what  a human is or what psychedelic is or what any thing is.. Existence is pure undefined magic..

An explanation requires further explanations to back it up and you always end up with infinite regress. 

 

There is a paradox in your reply in the sense that it implies that you KNOW that there can't be any explanation and that we don't know what a cat is, how can that be known? Do you agree? 

Also when you're saying existence is pure undefined magic there you're defining what existence is, paradoxically. Do you really know it's pure undefined magic?

[Someone here]

8 hours ago, Asayake said:

There is a paradox in your reply in the sense that it implies that you KNOW that there can't be any explanation and that we don't know what a cat is, how can that be known? Do you agree? 

Also when you're saying existence is pure undefined magic there you're defining what existence is, paradoxically. Do you really know it's pure undefined magic?

Of course there is a paradox in saying existence cannot be known. In that it's confirmed that I know that it's impossible to know. 

But that's just the strangloopy nature of existence. Paradox is inherent. You can't say anything factual about existence by trying to rectify paradox. 

So when I say "you don't know what a cat Is".. I don't mean there is no specific image that comes to your mind when you hear that word. Yet still you're absolutely clueless as to what cat or the whole of existence actually Is beyond just knowing it in the form of perceiving it with your senses.