Subjectivity and Science

articulett said:
Actually it's more ayahuasca and ibogaine. Frequent LSD use and MDMA are associated with brain damage.
Click to expand...
Not that I know what the lit says about these drugs, mind you, I've just not heard the usual ones were all that damaging.

Adverse reactions to psychedelic drugs. A review of the literature.
The question of organic brain damage as well as permanent changes in personality, attitudes, and creativity in patients and normals who have repeatedly ingested psychedelic drugs is controversial, but tends to point to subtle or nonsignificant changes. Future areas for study of the psychedelics' pharmacological, psychological, and therapeutic effects are suggested.
Click to expand...
That is however a 1984 review, not the most current. But a pubmed search for "lsd brain damage" didn't exactly get a zillion relevant hits.

I'll keep reading the posts which followed your comments so you don't have to re-post something if you already addressed this.
 
articulett said:
I think Pixy is a male. What are you proposing other than consciousness being a brain function?
Click to expand...

I think Mercutio would answer this by saying that it is a complex of behaviors and that we must look at not only the body but also the environment. It is certainly the case that many of the higher functions that we label 'consciousness' depend critically on language and language makes no sense as private property -- we are part of a larger language community. So, consciousness, in that sense depends on many variables that cannot all be localized to any individual brain, or brain function.

So, there needn't be any woo involved in this. It's just a different perspective.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Just a question........

Non-duality, to me, on the surface of it, and looking from the view of ontology, can mean two very different things -- either monism or pluralism.

Is this term meant to refer to an ontologic stance? If so, is it really just another term form for monism?
Click to expand...

Well, as presented here, it’s an experience where there’s no identification with the phenomenal self. Thus when you’re back to all your senses, your interpretation is that the experience was non-dual in nature. Sometimes this is achieved through meditation or introspection.

The problem with claims of non-duality is that people tend to draw conclusions about the physical nature of reality solely based on them (or deny the physical nature of reality based on them). This is what’s criticized from a scientific point of view. People making the original claim, in turn, criticise science because science is critical against their conclusions, or how they validated their conclusions.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
I'm not sure that is evidence based, Joe. Were you thinking of specific hallucinogens? Solvents cause serious brain damage. Not sure about all hallucinogens, however.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it is evidence based, for specific hallucinogens... I couldn't tell you which ones off-hand, because I'm not a hippie goofball. :cool:
 
skeptigirl said:
Not that I know what the lit says about these drugs, mind you, I've just not heard the usual ones were all that damaging.

Adverse reactions to psychedelic drugs. A review of the literature.That is however a 1984 review, not the most current. But a pubmed search for "lsd brain damage" didn't exactly get a zillion relevant hits.

I'll keep reading the posts which followed your comments so you don't have to re-post something if you already addressed this.
Click to expand...
According to Wikipedia, there are three types of hallucinogens. The psychedelics are supposed to be the relatively harmless category.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
I think Mercutio would answer this by saying that it is a complex of behaviors and that we must look at not only the body but also the environment. It is certainly the case that many of the higher functions that we label 'consciousness' depend critically on language and language makes no sense as private property -- we are part of a larger language community. So, consciousness, in that sense depends on many variables that cannot all be localized to any individual brain, or brain function.

So, there needn't be any woo involved in this. It's just a different perspective.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the brain evolved to be programmed by it's environment. Yes, language does influence how people think. But I don't think a materialist denies this. What is BDZ saying and how do his beliefs differ from the ones he finds so outrageous in Pixy?
 
Stout said:
.... I was thinking along the lines of geneticists discovering a gene, or genes that code for belief. Who knows, science just may prove that skeptics are mutants, or producing some substance that suppresses a trait that should be expressed.
Click to expand...
While there is a recently presented hypothesis about 'the god gene', I don't think it is quite as specific as it sounds. A certain personality might be more likely to accept some unsupported beliefs as fact, but I've seen nothing in the hypothesis identifying why god beliefs would be the only beliefs to satisfy a particular genetic programming need.

As for those of us who understand that current god beliefs are no more true than a thousand other god beliefs recognized by god believers as foolish myths of ancient peoples, the only gene involved there would be one giving us better skills for logical thinking.

And I think you have to consider the accumulation of observations that modern science has made. The more we know about the Universe, the more atheists there are. We've been through that discussion before. Atheism does correlate with modernity. The US is an exception and I attribute that to mass marketing of god beliefs.
 
Ecstasy floods serotonin receptors and long term users often have problems getting the system back to normal. Dopamine flooders (not generally hallucinogenic) create a similar dependency. LSD creates recurring flashbacks in some people. I don't think either of this drugs are being studied much for therapeutic purposes. Ibogaine seems promising.

 
God belief appears to come about like all superstitious behavior... humans evolved to associate closely connected events-- it's a good learning mechanism. We also evolved to tell and remember stories to pass on information. Unfortunately the former leads to the logical fallacy where correlation is confused with causation and makes us invent answers when we don't know something; the latter encourages the spread of these notions through generations.

Religion is a byproduct.
 
Last edited:
lupus_in_fabula said:
Well, as presented here, it’s an experience where there’s no identification with the phenomenal self. Thus when you’re back to all your senses, your interpretation is that the experience was non-dual in nature. Sometimes this is achieved through meditation or introspection.

The problem with claims of non-duality is that people tend to draw conclusions about the physical nature of reality solely based on them (or deny the physical nature of reality based on them). This is what’s criticized from a scientific point of view. People making the original claim, in turn, criticise science because science is critical against their conclusions, or how they validated their conclusions.
Click to expand...

Well, like all experiences, this would require interpretation, and that is where the problem arises. We already know, in general terms, how to create those sorts of experiences from particular types of brain stimulation, so we should have healthy skepticism towards the interpretation.

Monism as an ontologic position makes sense, though, so the claim about reality might be true in some sense. Even if we take materialistic monism to its logical conclusion there is no room for 'us' as separate categories. So, whether or not the experience of 'non-duality' is an artifact, it might still be true*.


*for a particular value of true
 
articulett said:
Yes, but the brain evolved to be programmed by it's environment. Yes, language does influence how people think. But I don't think a materialist denies this. What is BDZ saying and how do his beliefs differ from the ones he finds so outrageous in Pixy?
Click to expand...

I don't think they differ all that much. BDZ, from what I can tell, was merely correcting a generalization that Pixy made -- one that I don't think Pixy believes himself. We all speak in short-hand in these threads. I would bet that Pixy would fully agree with what BDZ said.
 
articulett said:
Ecstasy floods serotonin receptors and long term users often have problems getting the system back to normal. Dopamine flooders (not generally hallucinogenic) create a similar dependency. LSD creates recurring flashbacks in some people. I don't think either of this drugs are being studied much for therapeutic purposes. Ibogaine seems promising.

Click to expand...

And in Ecstasy's case there is evidence of cell death in target cells of chronic abusers.
 
Stout said:
By questioning the nature of consciousness, are we really questioning the existence of the soul ? Is there a fear that science may eventually learn enough to reduce the idea of belief to biochemistry? That belief might somehow end up termed "treatable" ?

Just thinking out loud here, but if ethnogens can be used in ritual to bring the practitioner "closer to God" and invoke spiritual experiences, why couldn't the opposite chemistry be used to "take one further away from God", or suppress belief in the soul ?
Click to expand...
Hallucinogens used to see spirits only result in seeing spirits because people interpret the hallucinations as spirits. Hallucinogens don't create believers, to my knowledge, especially without any other influence.

I think your logic is flawed here.

Science has already reduced consciousness to a biochemical/structural process. It isn't fully understood but I assure you, there are plenty of scientists studying consciousness who don't have any fantasies there is a magical component.
 
skeptigirl said:
I've never taken ecstasy but I wasn't under the impression one hallucinates with it. I thought it was merely mood altering.
Click to expand...

Hallucination is also a possibility with it. Especially with chronic use, but it's been described in first time users as well.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Monism as an ontologic position makes sense, though, so the claim about reality might be true in some sense. Even if we take materialistic monism to its logical conclusion there is no room for 'us' as separate categories. So, whether or not the experience of 'non-duality' is an artifact, it might still be true*.


*for a particular value of true
Click to expand...

For sure, monism makes sense; everyone seems to agree with that. The gun seems to be pointed at materialism and it’s validity as a tool for understanding consciousness; and to a lesser degree at the scientific method for not taking subjective experiences seriously.
 
lupus_in_fabula said:
For sure, monism makes sense; everyone seems to agree with that. The gun seems to be pointed at materialism and it’s validity as a tool for understanding consciousness; and to a lesser degree at the scientific method for not taking subjective experiences seriously.
Click to expand...

Which, when thought about critically, is just silly. If monism is the answer, then we are only able to see what is out there, and there is no possible way to tell the difference between materialism and idealism. In fact, the situation is necessarily the case, therefore, that we use two different words to refer to what must be the same thing. So, where is the controversy? I find these fights over different monisms really stupid.
 
Last edited:
Dissociative drugWP
These four groups of dissociatives have slightly different effects but also share similarities separating them from other classes of hallucinogens. They are markedly different from psychedelics such as LSD, where alert and fully conscious users experience cognitive distortion while simultaneously interacting with the "real world". Hallucinations from these dissociatives are generally only experienced in dark rooms or with eyes closed, unless at very high doses above what is normally consumed recreationally
Click to expand...
PCP, ketamine, and nitrous oxide can be considered hallucinogens. Ketamine makes you hallucinate while unconscious. Using it for anesthesia people report horrible nightmares. Nitrous and PCP are more like the hallucinations with solvent sniffing. Not sure I would call those hallucinogens. But they could be harmful, depending on dose and duration.

DeliriantsWP on the other hand cause real hallucinations. Rather than distorted visions like with LSD, you can see outright things that aren't there.

Not sure they cause brain damage, though. Guess I'd have to check. To my knowledge, they aren't the kind of drugs usually used recreationally except by the more adventurous experimenters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom