User Controls
Psychedelics are fool's gold
-
2018-11-30 at 4:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I triple waveshined my existential dread into an upsmash finisher. I realized that there was no god and life was meaningless so I became a techskill god and gave human life a purpose.
Actually, it did occur to me to bring that up (video gaming) as one of the contenders for spiritual fulfillment. I'd say I'd be a good advocate for the whole thing because, even as a non/ultra-rare gamer, I can, from time to time, find the right game, with all the right mechanics and story line, not to mention great visuals these days.
The general concept of gamification is closely related to the underlying psychology of motivation, meaningfulness, engagement, and something akin to the escape from the existential void / cosmic joke.
Personnaly, though, I just tend to get bored of video games way too quickly, wheter I've beaten the whole thing, or interest just gradually waned.
So that's why I'm interested in talking about alternatives - religion, drugs, and even video games, because they can be incredibly rewarding, and having fun is time not wasted.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-11-30 at 4:46 AM UTCVideogames are a distraction, not an answer.
-
2018-11-30 at 5:06 AM UTC
Originally posted by Mr Gay Men Watch Videogames are a distraction, not an answer.
But maybe distraction is the answer?
Life is suffering, after all, as the Buddhists claim.
It's probably no coincidence that they embrace mindfulness and focus, to keep the mind from wandering towards existentially frightening thoughts. -
2018-11-30 at 5:16 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks But maybe distraction is the answer?
Life is suffering, after all, as the Buddhists claim.
It's probably no coincidence that they embrace mindfulness and focus, to keep the mind from wandering towards existentially frightening thoughts.
No, not quite. Buddhism has many answers for such questions, but they ultimately terminate in recognizing the limitations of our knowledge. There is no distraction from that fact. Acceptance is entirely different than distractions. The answer is not to distract yourself from the existential questions, but to come to terms with them.
The answer is to accept the facts and then play videogames. -
2018-11-30 at 5:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by Mr Gay Men Watch The answer is not to distract yourself from the existential questions, but to come to terms with them.
The answer is to accept the facts and then play videogames.
Have you, or anyone you've known, actually accomplished this?
I'd be quite surprised; skeptical, in fact. -
2018-11-30 at 7:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by Mr Gay Men Watch If I die satisfied with my conduct, I call that heaven. If I die with thoughts of what could have been, I call that hell.
And so we will judge ourselves with more mercy or cruelty than god ever could, because the mirror reflecting on itself reaches beyond infinity.
I wanted to elaborate a little on this.
I like to imagine what I might be like on my deathbed.
I can imagine nothing more terrifying than to be laying there in my final minutes, drifting off into unconsciousness, reflecting on what a pussy I was that one time and I should have said what I meant, or maybe I did wrong by that person and it hurts me that I hurt them, how I never got to tell the people I loved the things I needed to say.
Conversely, I think if I make peace with everything I can, and make peace with the fact that I can't for the things I can't, and if I lead a life worth leading... I think I will be perfectly satisfied and happy to put a bow on it and step into the dark.
And consider that maybe if the death DMT is kicking in, it might lead to you having a positive or negative trip on the way out too so hey, maybe psychs do have some relevance.
Do you really need any greater reason to not be a turdbag in life, than to ease that transition into death?
Heaven, nirvana. It's that place of happiness when you've lead a good life and can end it with a smile.
Hell, jahannam. It's the anguish of your final despair. -
2018-11-30 at 7:06 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks Have you, or anyone you've known, actually accomplished this?
I'd be quite surprised; skeptical, in fact.
I mean, I'm alright with it. I don't know if I've gained perfect acceptance per se but I don't see the need to have any fear of death. You just avoid it because you want to keep doing more things, but it's not necessarily a tragedy.
I'm doing my best to lead a noble life, so when I die, I put it all in a neat blue box with a ribbon on it and sign out to my satisfaction. If not, that's okay too; I'm a relatively stoic person and I'll be fine with just getting it over with, ultimately. -
2018-11-30 at 7:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by RisiR † When I get a Switch, can a bust your cheecks with Pikachu? You'll literally have an electric ferret in your asshole.
I play FIFA on a semi-pro level so I know how it is to play noobs and what I can do to them but I want to know if this Smash talk has any substance.
You can try but I don't think your going to get much skill transfer out of FIFA. I think I'll kick your ass, but honestly I just love smash and am happy to play against people that regularly beat me assuming ultimate is the same way for me like that. I win almost all my matches with the guy I play with most often and playing people worse than you tends to make habits out of lazy stuff that doesn't work against better players (I imagine this is true of like any competitive activity) so I can have fun and generally don't mind losing in friendlies.
Originally posted by Mr Gay Men Watch Videogames are a distraction, not an answer.
A distraction from what? You're the one that described the human condition as absurd, self awareness as a "cosmic joke". What better response is there to a joke than to laugh? What better answer to absurdity than to select an obviously meaningless project like videogames and embracing that absurdity, engaging in that meaningless project vigorously, acknowledging the lack of some grand extrinsic meaning but authentically pursuing your goals anyway? -
2018-11-30 at 9:24 AM UTCpeople that don't even meditate and can't lucid dreaming talking about how useful drugs really are for visionary purposes. everything is fake, taking drugs is just pointing a gun at your head and making your brain admit its true.
-
2018-11-30 at 12:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny A distraction from what? You're the one that described the human condition as absurd, self awareness as a "cosmic joke". What better response is there to a joke than to laugh? What better answer to absurdity than to select an obviously meaningless project like videogames and embracing that absurdity, engaging in that meaningless project vigorously, acknowledging the lack of some grand extrinsic meaning but authentically pursuing your goals anyway?
Yes like I said, first you accept the joke of your existence, THEN you play videogames. -
2018-11-30 at 12:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny What better answer to absurdity than to select an obviously meaningless project like videogames and embracing that absurdity, engaging in that meaningless project vigorously, acknowledging the lack of some grand extrinsic meaning but authentically pursuing your goals anyway?
Cool your jets, Sisyphus. -
2018-11-30 at 6:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by Mr Gay Men Watch Please argue it.
I don’t mean to say that psychedelics are a significant factor in our ‘mental evolution’ as a species, rather on an individual scale they serve the purpose of modifying our self-consciousness in a manner that can be called progressive. I’m applying the Hegelian model, wherein the interplay of subject and object awareness, through the synthesis of baseline understanding and new things experienced, produces a novel subjectivity.
If you focus solely on the phenomena of the trip (which is but a single phase of the dialectic) as your original post does, you fail to grasp the full revolution. The real impact of psychedelics comes in a carefully moderated integration of the experience. I suppose this is a moot point, however, if you believe that self-awareness is a cosmic joke. Can you elaborate on that view?Well they need to be real in order to be real. They're certainly real mental phenomena. Meaningful is a whole other issue. But if you are being misinformed and arriving at incorrect or otherwise unjustified conclusions because of psychs, I think it's trivial to argue you're doing yourself a disservice by adding garbage information to your decision making equipment every time you run it.
Barring the tautology (I don't care if it's real or simulated, the experience happens regardless and can be interpreted) and your mischaracterizing the phenomena of psychedelia as “garbage information”, I think we have common ground.
Anyone who takes a psychedelic with the expectation that it will produce insight of value should have a preexisting framework of understanding that isn't full of holes to begin with, and they must follow-up with a similarly rational handling of what they experience or they are liable to believe any number of silly things without justification.
It's a very meticulous cognitive process which determines how it might be integrated with what we already know and feel, but my view is that this process can be planned for and guided along to yield, as you have conceded in your original post, some positive outcomes.Let's imagine that in terms of your first person epistemology, a psychedelic trip is precisely identical to actually having otherworldly experiences. Ok great, no6e let's imagine you go on a trip to mushroom kingdom and come back with a souvenir: we live on in a den of souls, free of our egos! Wow!
Do you think your decision making would be best if it reflected this belief?
Perhaps, if it was factual. But I'm not arguing that psychedelics are or should be considered essays in fact given that they have awesome, well-documented potential to be exactly the opposite. Instead, I’m responding to your claim that what can be said is verifiable should be of paramount importance in the context of psychedelic use.
I’m asserting that the value of such an experience does not rest solely on its relationship to truth—in fact, not even primarily is it necessary for a productive psychedelic episode to bear resemblance to anything real or factual. -
2018-11-30 at 8:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I don’t mean to say that psychedelics are a significant factor in our ‘mental evolution’ as a species, rather on an individual scale they serve the purpose of modifying our self-consciousness in a manner that can be called progressive. I’m applying the Hegelian model, wherein the interplay of subject and object awareness, through the synthesis of baseline understanding and new things experienced, produces a novel subjectivity.
If you focus solely on the phenomena of the trip (which is but a single phase of the dialectic) as your original post does, you fail to grasp the full revolution. The real impact of psychedelics comes in a carefully moderated integration of the experience.
It's a very meticulous cognitive process which determines how it might be integrated with what we already know and feel, but my view is that this process can be planned for and guided along to yield, as you have conceded in your original post, some positive outcomes.
Barring the tautology (I don't care if it's real or simulated, the experience happens regardless and can be interpreted) and your mischaracterizing the phenomena of psychedelia as “garbage information”, I think we have common ground.
Anyone who takes a psychedelic with the expectation that it will produce insight of value should have a preexisting framework of understanding that isn't full of holes to begin with, and they must follow-up with a similarly rational handling of what they experience or they are liable to believe any number of silly things without justification
Perhaps, if it was factual. But I'm not arguing that psychedelics are or should be considered essays in fact given that they have awesome, well-documented potential to be exactly the opposite.
Right, I get that, but my understanding of what you're saying is (or posits) that ALL new experiences are what might be called "progressive", if you can subsequently learn from that experience, and integrate it into your consciousness and rationality.
For example, both of us might have been able to understand that domain of experience through our rational, self critical analysis after the fact and learn something from it in a way that is positive to us, so to speak.
Is this an accurate representation of your opinion?
If so, I must raise three objections.
1. Contemplation opens many doors, but behind them are only other doors. For us this is a den of curiosity, but for the less curious it is a Pandora's box of dissatisfaction and angst. What justifies your positive valuation of this particular way to handle our experiences? What if I prefer to act as many do, impulsively and unmindfully?
2. Do you believe it is impossible for your cognitive machinery to output a garbage answer if it receives a garbage input?
Are you proposing that your rationality is necessarily able to process these massive, noisy sets of alien experiential data in the most true or correct way (whatever you choose to define that as)?
We have an absolute boatload of empirical cognitive research data on biases and illusions that the brain succumbs to. We're a grotesque patchwork meat machine that hacks itself into consciousness. It's not pretty or clean, and it's definitely not rigorous.
What makes you think that your attempts to parse and analyse what might be largely meaningless data will yield good results? I could find meanings in the clouds if I wanted to, and turn those into seemingly useful little stories to tell myself.
3. Are you implying that the combination of the experience and your rationality, in light of the previous 2 points, cannot lossibly generate a net negative outcome for you? Do you think there really is a truly "correct" way to process those experiences, and do you believe that you know what that true way is for sure?I suppose this is a moot point, however, if you believe that self-awareness is a cosmic joke. Can you elaborate on that view?
As a species of conscious agents that evolved in an interacting biological community within a natural environment, we have evolved to model the data about our environment in intentional and teleological terms, and assign agency to anything that moves, so we can avoid threats. That threat avoidance is so we can try to not die.
But when we turn that eye inwards, well, the ultimate teleological "purpose" of all living things is to die and there isn't much we can do to avoid that. It's a self-ringing panic alarm,and we can't really turn off that faculty. The best we can do is come to grips with why we will continue to feel that fear deep down, and try to not to fear that fear itself, and live life knowing that it's the result of a broken but essentially useful cognitive tool.
We also need to understand that we cannot model ourselves teleologically: you can only determine your behaviour, not predict it in a vacuum.Instead, I’m responding to your claim that what can be said is verifiable should be of paramount importance in the context of psychedelic use.
Could you quote where I said that?I’m asserting that the value of such an experience does not rest solely on its relationship to truth—in fact, not even primarily is it necessary for a productive psychedelic episode to bear resemblance to anything real or factual.
I am arguing that there doesn't seem to be any grounds to say it's definitely productive and positive, and it's almost logically inarguable that garbage data can very easily be mishandled by your cognitive machinery. In their mechanism, applying psychs to your brain is like removing the character type restrictions from a text entry field on a form; it is very easy to see how this could result in fucked output. -
2018-11-30 at 9:43 PM UTC
-
2018-11-30 at 11:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by Mr Gay Men Watch Right, I get that, but my understanding of what you're saying is (or posits) that ALL new experiences are what might be called "progressive", if you can subsequently learn from that experience, and integrate it into your consciousness and rationality.
For example, both of us might have been able to understand that domain of experience through our rational, self critical analysis after the fact and learn something from it in a way that is positive to us, so to speak.
Is this an accurate representation of your opinion?
If so, I must raise three objections.
1. Contemplation opens many doors, but behind them are only other doors. For us this is a den of curiosity, but for the less curious it is a Pandora's box of dissatisfaction and angst. What justifies your positive valuation of this particular way to handle our experiences? What if I prefer to act as many do, impulsively and unmindfully?
2. Do you believe it is impossible for your cognitive machinery to output a garbage answer if it receives a garbage input?
Are you proposing that your rationality is necessarily able to process these massive, noisy sets of alien experiential data in the most true or correct way (whatever you choose to define that as)?
We have an absolute boatload of empirical cognitive research data on biases and illusions that the brain succumbs to. We're a grotesque patchwork meat machine that hacks itself into consciousness. It's not pretty or clean, and it's definitely not rigorous.
What makes you think that your attempts to parse and analyse what might be largely meaningless data will yield good results? I could find meanings in the clouds if I wanted to, and turn those into seemingly useful little stories to tell myself.
3. Are you implying that the combination of the experience and your rationality, in light of the previous 2 points, cannot lossibly generate a net negative outcome for you? Do you think there really is a truly "correct" way to process those experiences, and do you believe that you know what that true way is for sure?
Your assessment of my position is both helpful and fertile, with one exception being that I don’t think the experience or the synthesis must be positive (if you mean it as pleasant). Regarding your objections:
1. I wouldn’t say that everyone should engage in contemplation if they find it tastes sour, though I think it’s to their benefit that they find a way to bear it nonetheless. Choosing to disregard the dialectic isn’t an option for humans; it’s meant to be descriptive of their rational being rather than a prescribed model to be followed, so it’s either true to human evolution and behavior or it isn’t, or maybe each in part.
2. No. Meaning is the thread of experience woven by hungry minds into the fabric of knowledge. I believe that our understanding of experience, however banal in appearance it might be, is necessarily interpretive. It’s why clouds seem to take the form of familiar objects, why dreams are related to one another through narrative, why we notice a number recurring in our lives, why tea leaves are used for divination, and why we stare for so long at abstract art trying to make sense of it. I don’t need to be sure my response is correct (can one ever be sure?) because if I synthesize meaning and take care with my reasoning, I think the resulting beliefs should be progressive, or at least meaningful and maybe also constructive.
3. As you said later in your post, we can’t model ourselves teleologically. If we can’t accurately predict where experience may land us, we either cope with that uncertainty by abdicating from the choice or we aim outward and loose the cannon. I don’t deny that negative outcomes are possible; in fact, I think they are so common that most people who try psychedelics will suffer miserably as a result on at least one occasion. My argument isn’t that this doesn’t happen, but rather that it doesn’t embitter the fruits of psychedelia, which I argue can be truly favorable rather than always the projections of minds engaged in self-deception.As a species of conscious agents that evolved in an interacting biological community within a natural environment, we have evolved to model the data about our environment in intentional and teleological terms, and assign agency to anything that moves, so we can avoid threats. That threat avoidance is so we can try to not die.
But when we turn that eye inwards, well, the ultimate teleological "purpose" of all living things is to die and there isn't much we can do to avoid that. It's a self-ringing panic alarm,and we can't really turn off that faculty. The best we can do is come to grips with why we will continue to feel that fear deep down, and try to not to fear that fear itself, and live life knowing that it's the result of a broken but essentially useful cognitive tool.
We also need to understand that we cannot model ourselves teleologically: you can only determine your behaviour, not predict it in a vacuum.
I think you and I are in agreement that humans model the data of their environment with intention an in teleological terms, and furthermore that we cannot model ourselves teleologically.
Consider this scenario: someone with a normal fear of death takes a psychedelic and, under its influence, reckons with his own demise, ultimately making peace with that immutable fact in the aftermath and, without falling prey to delusion, shares his new insight with others. Has he done something teleologically beneficial, where your view on the phantom of death is concerned?Could you quote where I said that?
No, because you didn’t state that explicitly, it was my interpretation. You did declare that psychedelics don’t reveal higher order truths and that the states of being they simulate are delusions, as well as condemned them as exotic treats for agnostic pedestrians.
I took this attitude to mean that you were dismissing psychs on the grounds that they don’t reveal truth and also can impart falsehoods, and from this grievance I extracted the (fallaciously obtained?) statement that you’ve evaluated psychedelic experience in terms of its relationship to truth, but I apologize if I’ve formulated this incorrectly or taken liberties with your argument and I welcome your willing re-articulation of this undercurrent I’ve pursued.I am arguing that there doesn't seem to be any grounds to say it's definitely productive and positive, and it's almost logically inarguable that garbage data can very easily be mishandled by your cognitive machinery. In their mechanism, applying psychs to your brain is like removing the character type restrictions from a text entry field on a form; it is very easy to see how this could result in fucked output.
I think that on the whole, it’s progressive, I don’t think it has to be constructive or pleasant. I do like your analogy, though I’d like to point out that merely having the option to type accented letters or nonstandard characters doesn’t mean you can no longer produce coherent sentences; rather, it enables you to construct them with nuance.
While we’re on the subject of removing such boundaries, I’ll also add shamelessly that I believe there is substance to Aldous Huxley’s notion of the mind-at-large, which is to say that an aspect of the role of a psychedelic is to suspend the inhibitive functions which constrain sober experience necessarily. It's like going through the system files on a PC, you probably shouldn't touch anything but if you know what you're doing it might be useful. -
2018-12-01 at 12:20 AM UTCGAYThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-12-01 at 11:24 PM UTCBasically psychedelics widen the spectrum of human perception. We're capable of more perception than our brain organically utilizes because it's not conducive to our survival to be tripping balls all the time; just like it's not conducive to our survival to naturally be stoned or tweaked out all hours of the day. Only when we CHOOSE to pursue those feelings do we gain purpose in preparing, using, and experiencing altered states of consciousness, as those activities in and of themselves can give a person (drug addict for example, but not necessarily) temporary or permanent purpose.
-
2018-12-01 at 11:49 PM UTC
-
2018-12-01 at 11:55 PM UTCold men things
-
2020-11-18 at 10:42 PM UTC
