Thread: Psycheledics - what's really going on in the brain?

Yea, the first few times of doing acid. I didn't quite 'get it', so to speak. Having grown up in a suburban christian household, even though I never believed their tired dogmas, there were still undeniable imprints or remnants of the system's brainwashing which was thrust upon me from an early age that I internally fought with during the experience, due to having these preconceived walls up. So initially, I flipped out and lost control of myself and I didn't understand the appeal of acid at first. Curiosity kept me coming back, though. It wasn't until I truly let go of my ego and what I thought I knew on the third or fourth time where I started seeing people move before they were moving, colors around peoples' bodies, untold clarity of perception in all forms, systems of time and space explained, etc. All the information of the universe is already out there, you just have to let go and be open and ready to receive it.

Anyway, I like the initial stance of this thread, because it doesn't simply write off the entire drug experience as delusion which anyone that's done drugs would know it's far from.

If someone can ignorantly write off any of their gathered and thought through life experiences as delusion no matter what state of mind you were in at the time, then pretty much all that ever follows in life or came before it could be exactly the same thing. You really have no way to confirm or deny it, either way. Just one's own personal faith between what is real, and what is not.

Not that anyone here used the word, but the word 'delusion' in itself is self-defeating, and contradictory because it blindly assumes that what the masses consider reality is rational and not contradictory in nature itself. When in actuality, everyones view of the world is altogether askew, completely contradictory, and downright delusional. It's just a matter of how many people stand behind your given contradictory belief system to make you feel at ease with the contradictions, or not...

As long as one doesn't delude themselves into thinking, that everyone and everything is anything but contradictory in nature, they can safely say they remain as sane as this insane universe gets.

Never forget...

i gain most of my greatest insights from shrooms and LSD.

What if there was a way to control perception through the alteration of brain chemistry. For example... take visible light. Visible light is 400-750nm. Anything outside of this, we pretty much cannot see. Now here's a cool fact... if you were to wear glasses... I forget what kind exactly - you could actually very barely see in infrared. That's right - infrared vision, though not much. This is a different wavelength of visible light... problem is our eyes are not very sensitive to it. What if through taking a controlled drug, it could temporarily alter the brains chemistry to ignore all visible light, and only focus in (and magnify) the infrared spectra, causing a human to be able to see in full blown infrared. Something like this would be extremely hard to accomplish if even possible at all. Humans would be the guinea pigs, but it definitely would not be hard to find volunteers. But *if* this was possible, all of a sudden I don't know if I could look at drug induced hallucinations at "just hallucinations" anymore.

Drug induced hallucinations - like any hallucination - involves perceiving a stimulus that isn't there. You don't enter another reality because the hallucinations are not real. They don't pertain to any real world process or object. You still stay in the same reality, it's just that your perception of it is altered under the influence of the drug.

With regards to the whole alternate universe thing, whilst there are some physical theories about alternate universes, however even the most optimistic of these forbids travel to them. There is no evidence to suggest any kind of other reality that is connected to our own that we could travel to.

Even if it did exist for the sake of argument, our brains construct a model of reality based on input from the 'real world'. Altering brain chemistry isn't going to change anything because the organs that detect a stimulus haven't changed. And if you want to truely enter a different reality, a stimulus has to come from a real object, not a drug.

With the seeing in infra-red, it's impossible without technology. If we use equipment such as thermal goggles we can see infra-red, but it's being converted into a form we can detect (into visible light), though some people can weakly detect lower bands of IR.

Actually seeing it in it's own right is impossible without modifying the receptors in the retina, or removing all non-IR light. Changing the brain chemistry will have no effect, because the brain does not detect information, it acts on it.


EDIT: Altering brain chemistry might allow people to enter different states of consciousness - I've read of devices that can alter brainwaves - it still doesn't change the reality that you're in.

The example above of LSD allowing people to see more clearly that their perception of reality is a simulation would be an altered state of consciousness. It's not a different reality though.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Drug induced hallucinations - like any hallucination - involves perceiving a stimulus that isn't there. You don't enter another reality because the hallucinations are not real. They don't pertain to any real world process or object. You still stay in the same reality, it's just that your perception of it is altered under the influence of the drug.

How do you define real? The only thing you can know is that "you are" and that you've recieved some kind of information, which defines your reality.
If someoned hallucinated half of his life and woke up in this reality, do you think it would really be real? You can tell him that, but he doesn't have to believe you.
What I'm trying to comment is...
like any hallucination - involves perceiving a stimulus that isn't there

All you ever get is stimulus. What makes one kind real and the other one fake? How will you ever know that you recieved a stimulus from something that is "actually there". Unless you are some kind of omnipresent god, it doesn't matter what you hallucinate, because what you hallucinate is your current reality. You are a result of these chemical reactions so it doesn't matter what "really is outside". In the end we are just basing our reality on belief... and as many believe, belief doesn't make something true. I'm just going to stop know, because all I did was make a silly paradox. But here you have my "opinion" anyway.

So basically I agree with blade5x.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

How do you define real?

What's real? An object that exists independantly of other processes, that is physically there. We're not talking about abstract concepts here either. If I imagine a pink elephant, it isn't real. There is no such thing. If I take a drug and hallucinate that I see one, it doesn't make it real as it's being perceived by an agent (me), instead of corresponding to a physical object or process. It doesn't exist independantly.

All you ever get is stimulus. What makes one kind real and the other one fake? How will you ever know that you recieved a stimulus from something that is "actually there". Unless you are some kind of omnipresent god, it doesn't matter what you hallucinate, because what you hallucinate is your current reality. You are a result of these chemical reactions so it doesn't matter what "really is outside". In the end we are just basing our reality on belief... and as many believe, belief doesn't make something true. I'm just going to stop know, because all I did was make a silly paradox. But here you have my "opinion" anyway.

Again, a 'real' stimulus comes from interacting with a real, physical object. A fake one comes from something that doesn't exist. The two stimuli can be identical, and the stimulus itself is very real! The thing it corresponds to is not necessarily real though.

You're also confusing what you perceive as reality as reality itself. There's a difference. Reality is independant of you, it's your perception of reality that comes from you.

How would you know? We wouldn't. If we had a dream that we couldn't wake up from, and it was otherwise identical to the real world, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

And yes, belief doesn't make something true. But that's my whole point about perceptions and reality.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

What's real? An object that exists independantly of other processes, that is physically there. We're not talking about abstract concepts here either. If I imagine a pink elephant, it isn't real. There is no such thing. If I take a drug and hallucinate that I see one, it doesn't make it real as it's being perceived by an agent (me), instead of corresponding to a physical object or process. It doesn't exist independantly.



Again, a 'real' stimulus comes from interacting with a real, physical object. A fake one comes from something that doesn't exist. The two stimuli can be identical, and the stimulus itself is very real! The thing it corresponds to is not necessarily real though.

You're also confusing what you perceive as reality as reality itself. There's a difference. Reality is independant of you, it's your perception of reality that comes from you.

How would you know? We wouldn't. If we had a dream that we couldn't wake up from, and it was otherwise identical to the real world, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

And yes, belief doesn't make something true. But that's my whole point about perceptions and reality.

Why would you truble youreself by being an objective observer, something you can never be. The real physical object is as fake as the "unreal" pink elephant. If you want to be scientifical, then you need an objective observer. But not when we argue about a subjective perception. When I dream, none of you exist because I switch my reality. It doesn't matter what type of input I get. It doesn't matter that the rest of the world is most likely "the real reality", because I can only experience things from my perspective and most of the time there is only room for one reality. If it's a dream or a hallucination then that's just what it is. I'm just saying that everybody is basing their reality on belief, and belief isn't proof. But yes, I agree with you from an objective point of view.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

What's real? An object that exists independantly of other processes, that is physically there. We're not talking about abstract concepts here either. If I imagine a pink elephant, it isn't real. There is no such thing. If I take a drug and hallucinate that I see one, it doesn't make it real as it's being perceived by an agent (me), instead of corresponding to a physical object or process. It doesn't exist independantly.



Again, a 'real' stimulus comes from interacting with a real, physical object. A fake one comes from something that doesn't exist. The two stimuli can be identical, and the stimulus itself is very real! The thing it corresponds to is not necessarily real though.

You're also confusing what you perceive as reality as reality itself. There's a difference. Reality is independant of you, it's your perception of reality that comes from you.

How would you know? We wouldn't. If we had a dream that we couldn't wake up from, and it was otherwise identical to the real world, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

And yes, belief doesn't make something true. But that's my whole point about perceptions and reality.

Ordinary perception is not so keyed to base reality, either. I've never experienced hallucinations as you define them, only radically divergent styles of perception, and while I can't be certain, I suspect people's 'hallucinatory' experiences are more akin to cloud gazing and/or seeing strangers in dark corners: a reordering of real and present stimuli in accordance with one's interior landscape.

In either state, ordinary or altered, unconscious processes are constantly carving singular reality into innumerable bits of data along at least 5 sensory streams, then recompiling all that into a field of objects and events weighted for novelty and relevance to survival. Your assertion that reality consists of physical objects creating stimuli is testament to how much we mistake the projections of our minds for an external and fixed reality.

Bonsay misses the mark wide in the other direction, asserting that self exists and all else is numinous, but any conception is incomplete, coming as it must from within what it attempts to characterize. The only method I know for addressing reality directly is calmly abiding within it.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Bonsay misses the mark wide in the other direction, asserting that self exists and all else is numinous, but any conception is incomplete, coming as it must from within what it attempts to characterize. The only method I know for addressing reality directly is calmly abiding within it.

In what way did I miss the mark? All I said is that you'll never know what's the real world simply because you can't directly, objectively observe the world outside your head. Even if you get proof, it's still bound to that reality and shouldn't carry any weight, because you can always wake up somewhere else. I do know that any such claim is useless and becomes just one of those unanswerable questions, the thing which was discussed in the "brain in a vat" thread. Sorry if I expresed my thoughts in a confusing manner, my intention was to approach the problem from a diferent point of view. Could you clarify where you think I missed the mark?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Drug induced hallucinations - like any hallucination - involves perceiving a stimulus that isn't there.

I disagree with this on one very particular level of understanding.

I believe that while on drugs, one continues to react to simuli, but simply processes them in a different manner. Drugs change the way our senses process incoming signals, changing the meaning of the world around us. In essense, they change our world filter. A radical enough change to the filter might result in hallucination.

Every piece of information you take in through your senses is colored by your own filters. There is no way to take in information in a complete and consistent way... there is always information that will not be perceived, or will be distorted in some way. The example of visible vs. nonvisible light is a good example. It's information about the world that simple does not make it past the filter of your eyes.

Knowing that our perception is imperfect is important. It helps us keep an open mind about the world.

Taking a drug to "alter reality" is really just another way of saying you are taking it to "alter your filters." When a photographer decides to use a colored filter to snap the sunset, he wants you to see a familiar object in an unfamiliar way. It doesn't make you see the subject "incorrectly" because you never have and never will see it "correctly." It simply gives you another viewpoint. We've seen some beautiful pictures from deep space recently, but it's easy to forget that they are usually greatly processed and filtered to make certain features more visible, such as different spectrums of light or other electromagnetic energy.

So that's what drugs are really about... another viewpoint. If one overuses drugs, he denies the common viewpoint of humanity, and does himself a disservice. However, if one explores with only the intent of learning and enriching ones experiences, I believe it is a good thing (any physical downsides notwithstanding).