Submitted by Gmroo t3_zdfsu4 in philosophy
Reply to comment by sempiternal_susurrus in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo
Psychedelic trips can often pierce the veil, though we don't really have a very sophisticated means of dealing with what's discovered - heck, even proponents are often not very helpful.
The lore of psychedelia is saturated with information pertaining to this - though i feel a certain amount of salt taken with this is essential due to the mind maintaining a capacity for crafting sub-autonomies which intermingle and provoke self contained feedback states [schizophrenia, tulpas, Dissociative Identity disorder, etc]
/and/ the fact that it could be archetypes of the mind - noetic excavations of the extents of the atunement of the mind when faced with differing cognitive placements incited by chemical intake
However, religious stances of psychedelics, tesla's viewpoint on the mind [it being a receiver for information created elsewhere], native american beliefs that mental illness is an individuals predisposition towards differing dimensions, and the fact of the matter that high fidelity rated sensory organs of bioware when overclocked and refined through the usage of chemical compounds ['crystalline piezo-electric experience amplifiers' - the dead] may depict valid referentials of aspects of reality [Penrose and Hameroff have this whole theory of quantum computation within scopically sub neuronal architectures of microtubules - with delvings into psychedelia and how it may refine brain wave patterns to ellucidate deeper levels of space time geometry]
Either way, they entail a wealth of knowledge and profundity - and until we get "real" "time" readouts of the experiences themselves or anomalous spikes in future variables with meta-tech sensors - it's entirely within the realm of plausible deniability when faced with the [quasi-rightful] tryant that is modern science .
I'm exceedingly interested in detachments from the illicit though - and postulations dealing strictly with the extents of thought in sobriety . Ie - our consciousness defined by the spatial axis' x, y, z is somehow interacted with by a "consciousness" defined by the spatial axis' x, z, z² , what forms of "consciousness" might exist when emergently related to a reality substrate dictated by differing mathematical constants, what forms of "consciousness" exist within the span of a second [their relative experience of existence feels like 80 years], what variables of sustenance exist in the ebbs of post temporal/spatial transcendence - and what avenues of "life" base their "existence" around such things?
//and how do all of these hypothetical instances relate to the perception of us from an outsider perspective ? - especially when taking into account quantum implications of an observer's relation to it's environment/superposition breakdown - !!does the typoidal "consciousness" dictate , quantumly, it's residence within the nth+ hyperobject which encapsulates our reality - and what occurs when differing strains of "consciousness" enroach upon another's domain? [Strictly by means of observation]
So many questions, so much socioeconomic stiflement, so little time
> The lore of psychedelia is saturated with information pertaining to this - though i feel a certain amount of salt taken with this is essential due to the mind maintaining a capacity for crafting sub-autonomies which intermingle and provoke self contained feedback states [schizophrenia, tulpas, Dissociative Identity disorder, etc]
Agree, though what so many people overlook when applying salt is that the mind makes things up during normal consciousness as well - the subreddit I linked above is full of not-actually-scientific scientific thinking. You seem less prone to falling for these tricks which is a nice change of pace!
> Either way, they entail a wealth of knowledge and profundity - and until we get "real" "time" readouts of the experiences themselves or anomalous spikes in future variables with meta-tech sensors - it's entirely within the realm of plausible deniability when faced with the [quasi-rightful] tryant that is modern science .
Scientific thinkers do love epistemology, when it works in their favour at least!
> I'm exceedingly interested in detachments from the illicit though - and postulations dealing strictly with the extents of thought in sobriety . Ie - our consciousness defined by the spatial axis' x, y, z is somehow interacted with by a "consciousness" defined by the spatial axis' x, z, z² , what forms of "consciousness" might exist when emergently related to a reality substrate dictated by differing mathematical constants, what forms of "consciousness" exist within the span of a second [their relative experience of existence feels like 80 years], what variables of sustenance exist in the ebbs of post temporal/spatial transcendence - and what avenues of "life" base their "existence" around such things?
I think our (default) consciousness is kind of hardwired to 3D reality and our (human-longevity-distorted) sense of time, and as a consequence we continue to make bad decisions as a species.....what's your take on this theory?
> and how do all of these hypothetical instances relate to the perception of us from an outsider perspective ?
Exactly...which is why I think people often find psychedelic trips "more real than reality" at the time, and are certain of it, but can't recall why afterwards.
> So many questions, so much socioeconomic stiflement, so little time
Ha! Too true, too true.
I think that we have been bred selectively for optimum fulfillment of lower tiers of maslow's heirarchy of needs , and so we are very much entirely predisposed towards only interacting with that which is pertinant to the base aspects of reality . In time , perhaps our evolution could be trajected towards us leaving the waters of leadened reality and shaking , subtly, the droplets of physicality from our repurposed vestigialities of form - perhaps this is a heaven or hell . Society has much promise yet seemingly is pushing for nonthinking drones, purposefully subjected to the lower rungs - which is antithetical to advancements of capacity for fulfilling higher tiers of the heirarchy. I think we do purposefully make bad decisions and that it is an affliction of purpose and intent by select members of the species for gain - by will of power inherited and by will of pushing for bad decisions to be made so as to retain the status quo and prevent ascension of the power structure we currently find ourselves in .
We're also like preteens in term of geo-political amoebic poly-autonomous societal entities so it's like - ahhh when's the fermi paradox scythe gonna bring out the dead in nuclear hollocaust
I've heard tell of there being definitive gain from only being privy to base levels of reality - perhaps our trivial life and death - the whole tragedy of the human experience , in terms of species , is a blessing - hubris is a concept of biblical folly
[Tldr:] maybe we should continue to make bad decisions so we can remain gratefully dead , our waking minds asleep to the horrors of what could be - waiting blissfully in our own negligence of comprehension for that slumber , somnium eternal
Also whoa its so cool to actually like talk to somebody ab this i've been ruminating in intellectual isolation for like years now
assuming anything 'discovered' via psychedelics is actually anything in the first place.
apart from self-reflection there isnt anything there, as someone who has done a pretty large amount of a variety of hallucinogens ive never had an ego-death, met entities of any variety, felt any connection to nature or the universe or any of the other typical experiences (and ive done 1300ug doses of LSD).
personally i havent seen anything of any objective quality to psychedelics, they are interesting as hell but they cant tell you anything part of you didnt already know.
Edit: i am autistic, maybe thats why i have never had any of those experiences?
> assuming anything 'discovered' via psychedelics is actually anything in the first place.
How might the two of us simultaneously be talking about something that has no existence? Us talking about it requires a kind of existence, and us coming to talk about it presumably requires a force of some kind (especially since it has happened simultaneously).
> apart from self-reflection there isnt anything there, as someone who has done a pretty large amount of a variety of hallucinogens ive never had an ego-death, met entities of any variety, felt any connection to nature or the universe or any of the other typical experiences (and ive done 1300ug doses of LSD).
Do you honestly think that the entirety of reality is what you have experienced (or, that you have experienced the entirety of reality)?
> personally i havent seen anything of any objective quality to psychedelics, they are interesting as hell but they cant tell you anything part of you didnt already know.
How did you determine that it is a fact that what you experienced was not objective? I will go way out on a limb and take a wild guess: was consciousness involved in the acquisition (and possibly manufacture) of that fact(?) in any way?
> > > > Edit: i am autistic, maybe thats why i have never had any of those experiences?
I dunno man, you seem quite neurotypical to me.
>How might the two of us simultaneously be talking about something that has no existence? Us talking about it requires a kind of existence,
The conception of an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists in any real capacity. Take magic for example: Shooting a fireball by saying a few words and willing the thing into existence or lifting a rock with nothing but the power of your mind can't be done in real life, but we can conceive of a reality where it might be possible.
>and us coming to talk about it presumably requires a force of some kind (especially since it has happened simultaneously).
Coincidence. No outside force necessary.
> The conception of an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists in any real capacity.
What meaning do you ascribe to the word "real"?
Is this claim (...an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists...) "real"? Is it true?
> Take magic for example: Shooting a fireball by saying a few words and willing the thing into existence or lifting a rock with nothing but the power of your mind can't be done in real life, but we can conceive of a reality where it might be possible.
Seems reasonable, but examples in the physical realm is playing on easy - how about metaphysical questions like is there a God(s)?
>What meaning do you ascribe to the word "real"?
"actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed" (from Google)
Tangible, touchable, interact-able, experience-able. Perhaps more specifically "as pertains to reality"
For the specific use "...any real capacity." it means that just because you can think of it and make it "real" in a sense (real within a story, lore for a game, etc.), doesn't mean that it is something you can find in reality and interact with.
>Is this claim (...an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists...) "real"? Is it true?
Yes, just because you can conceive of something doesn't automatically make it a reality somewhere in the universe. You have to find it and prove that it exists first. You can postulate ways that it might exist (done often in science before the actual discovery of something) but to say that it for sure exists before you have actual evidence is folly. You can only say that it might exist or even very much probably exists. Which leads to your next question...
>Seems reasonable, but examples in the physical realm is playing on easy - how about metaphysical questions like is there a God(s)?
Personally, I believe there are no gods, nothing supernatural. Everything is natural and anything that seems supernatural is simply something we don't yet understand well enough to explain via natural laws. Therefore, it is reasonable to be skeptical of any claim about a god or gods. I can take the believer at their word when they describe aspects of their god, since that is what they believe about it and doesn't really affect me but when they start saying that I must believe in their god or such and such thing will happen I need proof. As far as I'm concerned they are just believers in a fantasy, until they can provide proper evidence. I myself tried to provide proper evidence for a believe in the christian god and that simply wasn't possible.
I thought I asked some good questions, would you be willing to reply?
> "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed" (from Google) > > > > Tangible, touchable, interact-able, experience-able. Perhaps more specifically "as pertains to reality" > > > > For the specific use "...any real capacity." it means that just because you can think of it and make it "real" in a sense (real within a story, lore for a game, etc.), doesn't mean that it is something you can find in reality and interact with.
Are thoughts real?
>>> The conception of an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists in any real capacity.
>> Is this claim (...an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists...) "real"? Is it true?
> Yes, just because you can conceive of something doesn't automatically make it a reality somewhere in the universe.
"The conception of an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists in any real capacity" is real, exist, and is true though?
> Personally, I believe there are no gods, nothing supernatural. Everything is natural and anything that seems supernatural is simply something we don't yet understand well enough to explain via natural laws. Therefore, it is reasonable to be skeptical of any claim about a god or gods. I can take the believer at their word when they describe aspects of their god, since that is what they believe about it and doesn't really affect me but when they start saying that I must believe in their god or such and such thing will happen I need proof. As far as I'm concerned they are just believers in a fantasy, until they can provide proper evidence. I myself tried to provide proper evidence for a believe in the christian god and that simply wasn't possible.
What's your take on abortion rights?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments