Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[JackDaydream]

I raise the topic in the context of the transpersonal approach in psychology and philosophy. The transpersonal perspective is one which looks beyond conventional psychology and science for an understanding of consciousness, including altered states ones and ideas from spiritual traditions. The definition of qualia by M Rye (1997,'Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy')refers to 'the introspectively, accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives.'Thd philosophical issues of this involves explaining this in relation to the nature of 'reality', the brain and the nature of 'mind'.

I first thought about this while reading Aldous Huxley's, 'The Doors of Perception/Heaven and Hell', in which he speaks about his own experiments with masculine. He draws upon the ideas of Henri Bergson, in which the brain is seen as 'a filter' for 'mind at large'. It was this that made me become interested in psychedelia, as well as a fascination with psyche rock music.

One particular researcher in this area is Stanislav Grof, who has looked at the parallels between perinatal experiences and the way in which drug altered mental states mimic states of psychosis, resembling schizophrenia. Indeed, in mainstream psychiatry there is a general consensus that the use of hallucinogenics, including cannabis, can trigger psychotic states.

The work of Timothy Leary, an extremely controversial writer, who influenced the psychedelic counterculture movement, was particularly significant, especially in relation to the idea of 'psychedelic' as mind-expanding. He compared psychedelic experiences and the descriptions in 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead'. He was not thinking of these descriptions as signifying life after death as such, but looking at them in relation to mental states of awareness which are considered to a state of enlightenment.

Thinking about hallucinogenic substances in this way is different from their use in party culture, although it may be that many drawn to use them have a deeper interest in mind expansion. One area of research in the present time is different from the experiments in the 1960s and 70s, because it is less dramatic and involves microdosing on hallucinogenics for the treatment of depression. I understand that this is an area of clinical trials at this stage. In this thread, I am opening up discussion of what do psychedelic experiences show about the nature of 'reality', the brain and the nature of 'mind' and its healing?

[JackDaydream]

Edit:
I just noted a ridiculous typo in my post, and I think that it was because my phone software changed it. In the second paragraph about Aldous Huxley, it should read about his experiments with Mescaline, not masculine!

[GE Morton]

In this thread, I am opening up discussion of what do psychedelic experiences show about the nature of 'reality', the brain and the nature of 'mind' and its healing?

In a word, nothing.

Brains are electro-chemical data processors. The transmission of neural signals from neuron to neuron depends a upon a variety of specific chemical substances, and those transmissions can be disrupted by the introduction of antagonistic chemicals into the system. Leary's pitch resonated with college freshmen beguiled by the prospect of attaining instant wisdom by taking a hit of LSD. But all the chemical does is block or misdirect or garble neural communications, producing a variety of phantasms, delusions, and hallucinations --- the diametric opposite of "enlightenment." Not a single worthwhile insight into the nature of "reality" has emerged from an LDS "trip," or from ingestion of any other "psychedelic" substance. They are the equivalent of throwing sand into a gearbox.

(This is not to deny some other benefits some of those drugs may confer, such as pain relief or control of epilepsy. But "enlightment"? No.)

[JackDaydream]

In this thread, I am opening up discussion of what do psychedelic experiences show about the nature of 'reality', the brain and the nature of 'mind' and its healing?

In a word, nothing.

Brains are electro-chemical data processors. The transmission of neural signals from neuron to neuron depends a upon a variety of specific chemical substances, and those transmissions can be disrupted by the introduction of antagonistic chemicals into the system. Leary's pitch resonated with college freshmen beguiled by the prospect of attaining instant wisdom by taking a hit of LSD. But all the chemical does is block or misdirect or garble neural communications, producing a variety of phantasms, delusions, and hallucinations --- the diametric opposite of "enlightenment." Not a single worthwhile insight into the nature of "reality" has emerged from an LDS "trip," or from ingestion of any other "psychedelic" substance. They are the equivalent of throwing sand into a gearbox.

(This is not to deny some other benefits some of those drugs may confer, such as pain relief or control of epilepsy. But "enlightment"? No.)

Reading your answer leads me to think of two different ideas. First of all it does depend on whether enlightened states of awareness exist at all. By that I am thinking of possible peak experiences or moments of insight spoken of by some spiritual teachers or practitioners of meditation. This is different from just getting 'high', although it is hard to differentiate this from a possible state of potential euphoria absolutely. This is my attempt to think about enlightenment, so I am wondering what do you think about the idea of enlightenment, especially in relation to brain activity.

The second issue is if enlightenment is possible, such as that spoken of by people who encounter an altered state of consciousness through meditation, the question is how psychedelic substances are comparable with this. I have no idea whether you have ever experimented with hallucinogenics or not. I have done a few times, the most dramatic being when I took acid twice, although I didn't achieve enlightenment and the experiences weren't particularly wonderful at all. On the first occasion I took it alone in my room and, on the second I took it with complete strangers in a warehouse. After the first experience, I struggled a lot, and the main thing in both of the two trips was that it gave me a different vantage point.

Generally, I can see why taking substances is dangerous, and why many people would recommend the practice of meditation instead. The setting is extremely important and I am more inclined to think that the idea of microdosing is more of an interesting possibility. Some of this does come down to neurochemistry though, because the SSRI antidepressants are chemically related to Ecstasy. The area which I am raising is concerned with the basic biochemical aspects of consciousness, as well as being interested in the states of conscious awareness too and what these represent.

[LuckyR]

While it is absolutely true that enlightenment (whatever that is) doesn't reside in pills, it is also true that our mindset is based on our mental processing our perception of our experiences. And the experience of using hallucinogens can be a powerful one.

[JackDaydream]

While it is absolutely true that enlightenment (whatever that is) doesn't reside in pills, it is also true that our mindset is based on our mental processing our perception of our experiences. And the experience of using hallucinogens can be a powerful one.

Yes, the phantomisms of hallucinatory reality are not REAL in any objective sense, especially as some are one's own fears amplified. It is the learning experiences of processing the altered states which may take one into a journey of inner exploration and reflection, a bit like the Jimi Hendrix song title, 'Are You Experienced?'

[GE Morton]

Reading your answer leads me to think of two different ideas. First of all it does depend on whether enlightened states of awareness exist at all.

It depends upon what you count as "enlightenment." The term does have some communicative utility, such as when describing an insight gained that leads to the solution of some hitherto intractable problem, such as Einstein's appreciation of the significance of the Michaelson-Morley experiment. But for most mystics, the "insights" they claim, whether gained by fasting, self-flagellation, divine revelation, or drugs, leads to no useful knowledge --- though it may confer a certain contentment and self-satisfied feelings upon the mystic. Ho-hum.

The only "enlightenment" worth pursuing is that which comes from collection of evidence, prolonged study, reflection, and logical analysis. That is what turns on bulbs that emit real light.

[chewybrian]

Yes, the phantomisms of hallucinatory reality are not REAL in any objective sense, especially as some are one's own fears amplified. It is the learning experiences of processing the altered states which may take one into a journey of inner exploration and reflection, a bit like the Jimi Hendrix song title, 'Are You Experienced?'

I think they are in fact real. There is nothing there in the dark that is not there in the light. Yet, we "see" things in the dark that we don't see in the light. These experiences are real, just different from our everyday experiences. I like Huxley's take about the filter, which is a different way of expressing heuristics and logic and language and such that we normally use to make sense of the world. In the altered state, we are apt to notice and pay attention to things that we would filter out any other time. Not filtering experience is something like walking around Manhattan and trying to talk to everyone we see. We have something like the experience of a child who is seeing things for the first time. We are looking at the stuff we see everyday without subconsciously categorizing it, determining that most of it does not warrant our attention.

I don't think the lesson is that we should all drop acid. Rather, we should be aware of how many assumptions are built into what seem like pure perceptions. It's too easy to confuse our models with reality and to lose any chance at objectivity in the process. We should simply try to view things as novel even though we are familiar with them, to allow us to understand different perspectives and hopefully drift toward objectivity.

[JackDaydream]

Reading your answer leads me to think of two different ideas. First of all it does depend on whether enlightened states of awareness exist at all.

It depends upon what you count as "enlightenment." The term does have some communicative utility, such as when describing an insight gained that leads to the solution of some hitherto intractable problem, such as Einstein's appreciation of the significance of the Michaelson-Morley experiment. But for most mystics, the "insights" they claim, whether gained by fasting, self-flagellation, divine revelation, or drugs, leads to no useful knowledge --- though it may confer a certain contentment and self-satisfied feelings upon the mystic. Ho-hum.

The only "enlightenment" worth pursuing is that which comes from collection of evidence, prolonged study, reflection, and logical analysis. That is what turns on bulbs that emit real light.

It is interesting that your take on 'enlightenment' is along the lines of rationality, as in the enlightenment and Steven Pinker in his book, 'Enlightenment' took this stance. The comparison between a moment of knowledge along the rational direction in comparison with the idea of mysticism is important. The mystic is said to sometimes reach the realisation of 'the ineffable'. It is questionable whether the mystic experience if it is beyond words is open to question. I wonder where Wittgenstein lies in this because he spoke of being silent of that which one could not speak about. Also, Einstein is interesting too because he came up with a whole paradigm as a new paradigm of seeing as did many visionaries.

There may be the eureka moment in which both intuition and logic come together because the most profound ways of rational understanding also draw upon intuition and imagination. Also, this level of understanding may involve an intimate engagement with ideas which requires brain chemistry but cannot be reduced to it entirely. The interactive engagement with knowledge, even if it is not entirely beyond subjective awareness is about insight which is about the realm of intersubjectivity, whether a thought is original or has been discovered before by others. The main aspect though is in the process of understanding the thoughts stand out from the brain chemistry and processes.

[Ecurb]

It depends upon what you count as "enlightenment." The term does have some communicative utility, such as when describing an insight gained that leads to the solution of some hitherto intractable problem, such as Einstein's appreciation of the significance of the Michaelson-Morley experiment. But for most mystics, the "insights" they claim, whether gained by fasting, self-flagellation, divine revelation, or drugs, leads to no useful knowledge --- though it may confer a certain contentment and self-satisfied feelings upon the mystic. Ho-hum.

The only "enlightenment" worth pursuing is that which comes from collection of evidence, prolonged study, reflection, and logical analysis. That is what turns on bulbs that emit real light.

Oh, nonsense. The notion that science and evidence provide the only paths to enlightenment is mere silliness. What about poetry, or fiction, or myth? Can we not become "enlightened" through them? Can't great poems or works of fiction help us see the world in a new "light"?
Or, if logic is your thing, what about mathematical proofs, which requires logical analysis, but are not scientific?

Introspection can clearly enlighten ourselves about our own motives and desires. Psychedelic experiences may allow us to see ourselves and the world from a different angle, which is clearly enlightening, even if it my not be "useful" in a practical sense. Enlightenment need not be useful.

[JackDaydream]

Yes, the phantomisms of hallucinatory reality are not REAL in any objective sense, especially as some are one's own fears amplified. It is the learning experiences of processing the altered states which may take one into a journey of inner exploration and reflection, a bit like the Jimi Hendrix song title, 'Are You Experienced?'

I think they are in fact real. There is nothing there in the dark that is not there in the light. Yet, we "see" things in the dark that we don't see in the light. These experiences are real, just different from our everyday experiences. I like Huxley's take about the filter, which is a different way of expressing heuristics and logic and language and such that we normally use to make sense of the world. In the altered state, we are apt to notice and pay attention to things that we would filter out any other time. Not filtering experience is something like walking around Manhattan and trying to talk to everyone we see. We have something like the experience of a child who is seeing things for the first time. We are looking at the stuff we see everyday without subconsciously categorizing it, determining that most of it does not warrant our attention.

I don't think the lesson is that we should all drop acid. Rather, we should be aware of how many assumptions are built into what seem like pure perceptions. It's too easy to confuse our models with reality and to lose any chance at objectivity in the process. We should simply try to view things as novel even though we are familiar with them, to allow us to understand different perspectives and hopefully drift toward objectivity.

I am glad that you appreciate the ideas of Aldous Huxley because many often dismiss such perspectives as being odd, and see those who seek altered states of consciousness as psychonauts. I read his book when I was at school, when I would have never considered using any kind of substances. I found the book in itself to be transformational, especially in thinking about aesthetics. It lead me to think of different ways of seeing, including the altered perception of Van Gogh and the visionary, William Blake. Van Gogh used absinthe which may have been significant.

Of course, many who had altered states of consciousness didn't use substances because the mind can be psychedelic in it's own right. I say psychedelic as opposed to psychotic because not everyone who has unusual perception is necessarily unwell, although it is a fine line because many who had intense experiences also had intense suffering. It is hard to know whether psychological suffering caused the brain chemistry to become different and many factors like stress, lack of sleep and fasting can trigger unusual experiences. There are other ways of trying to find altered states, including lucid dreaming. However, the use of hallucinogenics can be a speedy way of accessing altered mental states. So, it is not surprising that many artists, writers and musicians seek hallucinogenics. In many cases though the experiences may be have been too intense for many, including in music subcultures. Even some cannabis, especially skunk weed, can be mind blowing, and often people who use such substances casually are not aware of the way in which they are 'opening up' the mind dramatically.

Apart from being an account of the aesthetic experiences of altered states of perception under Mescaline I see Huxley's book as being an important work in the phenomenology of perception.

[Pattern-chaser]

While it is absolutely true that enlightenment (whatever that is) doesn't reside in pills, it is also true that our mindset is based on our mental processing our perception of our experiences. And the experience of using hallucinogens can be a powerful one.

Yes indeed. This topic makes me think of our considerations of how we sense and perceive 'reality', of how we 'see what we expect to see'. I think it is fair to say that our perceptions of 'reality' are not as reliable/trustworthy as we would like. And in that context, a "psychedelic experience" is less far-removed from 'reality' than we might think at first, isn't it?

GEM is convinced that there is no merit of any sort in psychedelic experiences, also of any sort. I would not disagree outright, but I would admit I'm not as convinced as he is. At the most trivial level, a psychedelic experience offers a different perspective, which is nearly always a positive and useful thing. Different viewpoints can be valuably instructive ... and they can be less valuable too. But they are rarely without any value at all, IME.

Beyond that, there is the hippy stuff. Enlightenment, and the like. This is wholly subjective and spiritual, and probably only usefully judged by the individual, in the context of their own personal experience. But there are enough reports of benefit or value that I think it rash to discard them without further consideration. Individual or not, many relate experiences that others also have shared, and they report these experiences to be of value (to them if no-one else). Not to be casually dismissed, IMO.

One thing I think we can confidently observe is that our grasp of 'reality' — outside of psychedelic experiences — is not as clear or firm as some — perhaps GEM? — might think. And so it seems reasonable to view psychedelic experiences as little more than alternate perspectives. Their value might be limited, or of huge significance (probably less likely, but not implausible).

[JackDaydream]

Having written this thread, I am wondering how people see the concept of 'mental healing' because it is open to interpretation. In particular, it could be a subjective estimation of one's sense of wellbeing, especially in relation to past experiences of sufferings. Others, including some healthcare professionals may see it in relation to the ability to function on many levels, including the spectrum of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I am wishing to keep it open to think about what individuals think about meaning on a personal level. However, I would emphasise the importance of how individuals view their experiences as opposed to others, including professionals making assumptions and prescriptions about what health, wellbeing and 'healing' mean independently from subjective constructions.

[GE Morton]

It is interesting that your take on 'enlightenment' is along the lines of rationality, as in the enlightenment and Steven Pinker in his book, 'Enlightenment' took this stance. The comparison between a moment of knowledge along the rational direction in comparison with the idea of mysticism is important. The mystic is said to sometimes reach the realisation of 'the ineffable'. It is questionable whether the mystic experience if it is beyond words is open to question. I wonder where Wittgenstein lies in this because he spoke of being silent of that which one could not speak about.

"Realization" is the wrong word there, with respect to Wittgenstein. "Recognition" would be more accurate. The former implies that one has gained some sort of grasp, or insight, into the "ineffable." The latter term merely suggests that some questions are unanswerable; there is no suggestion or pretense of esoteric knowledge.

There may be the eureka moment in which both intuition and logic come together because the most profound ways of rational understanding also draw upon intuition and imagination. Also, this level of understanding may involve an intimate engagement with ideas which requires brain chemistry but cannot be reduced to it entirely.

Ideas are not reducible to brain chemistry, but they are fully explicable in terms of brain chemistry.

[GE Morton]

Oh, nonsense. The notion that science and evidence provide the only paths to enlightenment is mere silliness. What about poetry, or fiction, or myth? Can we not become "enlightened" through them? Can't great poems or works of fiction help us see the world in a new "light"?
Or, if logic is your thing, what about mathematical proofs, which requires logical analysis, but are not scientific?

Well, "enlightenment," as used by mystics, is a superlative, denoting the acquisition of some sort of "higher" knowledge or understanding which transcends that gained by ordinary observation and reflection. My claim is that there is no such "transcendental" wisdom or understanding, and what is presented as such is mostly vacuous gobbledygook.

But "enlightenment" also has a more prosaic meaning, merely denoting the gaining of some (substantive) knowledge which was unanticipated and which has some major implications for practice. E.g., when we speak of the 17th - 18th century "Enlightenment" we are not speaking of anything esoteric or "transcendental."

Introspection can clearly enlighten ourselves about our own motives and desires. Psychedelic experiences may allow us to see ourselves and the world from a different angle, which is clearly enlightening, even if it my not be "useful" in a practical sense. Enlightenment need not be useful.

Oh, sure --- the term can be understood in that subjective, personal way --- but we can't attach any superlative implications to such personal changes in thoughts and beliefs. Whether the new viewpoint is superior to the old is a wholly subjective judgment.