First evidence for higher state of consciousness found

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

There you go again.

You are conflating two things together, which are NOT alike unto one another. You consider your experiences whilst affected by a drug, as evidence for something they are not evidence for. Subjective experiences requiring participation in order to understand cannot, by definition, prove anything. Do you understand the issue I am having yet, or has your faith in your chemical deity blinded you to reason?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

With respect, an objective and unaffected observer would be more able to make accurate and factual assessments about the effects of substances such as those to which you refer, because his or her observations would be uncoloured by neurochemical inconsistencies caused by consumption of the substance concerned.

Its like faith. If you have it, then you are not in a position to comment on its legitimacy as a mode of thought, because you already bought into it and are unable therefore to maintain an objective position on the topic.

Figuring out ways to read the mind with technological means, in such a way as would prove the effect you are describing to actually exist in the way you describe it, will be necessary if you ever want to have your position verified as a matter of fact, rather than a matter of your own assumptions based on a subjective experience you had.

That is partly true.

But without the subject the researcher has nothing.

This subject has been studied for well over 50 years. There is good I formation available of clinical trials where psychiatrists use the drug to open up deeply internalized issues. Some ptsd from childhood abuse that has manifested as a mood disorder etc.

I think if you haven't expirienced altered reality either by fasting, chanting etc it's hard to imagine what the drug does. People associate drugs with feeling food. These are non adictive drugs because they aren't about feeling good, they are about altering perception.

Those drugs are able to take people out of their psychosis and let the psychotherapy work on things he that were bound in the patients.

This is also how they are able to take patients off of drugs using this therapy. After the sessions are done the drug is no longer needed. Not the case with psychotropics and most barbiturate users who take he ha the hinges like Valium for anxiety.

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: namelesss
...when the human genome became known to him, winning him said prize.

Actually, the prize was for discovering the molecular structure of DNA, quite a different thing.

Corrected, although the point remains valid.

It would be more a matter of looking at the x-ray crystallographic data and having an intuitive leap that you could get that pattern from a double helix structure.

I do think that it is that intuitive leap that is what we are talking about.
There are certain conditions supportive of such Zen/genius/intuitive leaps!

I'm actually partial to the opinion that hallucinogenics turn down the threshold on your pattern-matching functions sort of the way a schizophrenic's miswiring does. So you see 'connections' that may not be there, but occasionally you can see some you were ignoring. Among a lot of other less useful side effects.

I find that I can tentatively agree with you that entheogens inhibit our 'pattern matching function'.
By 'pattern matching function' (something any monkey can excel at), I am hearing the common mundane day to day 'Consciousness' of the average ape, uh.. person. All religious practices, such as 'incessant prayer/chanting, meditation, fasting, self flagellation, whatever... is all the average folk had to use to decrease the O2 and increase the CO2 in their brains (what the entheogens do Now!; entheogens were used, but mostly by mystics).
The 'brain' is primarily a 'reducing' apparatus, limiting input to the immediately 'pragmatic', the common day to day (primitive) 'pattern matching function'; only 'pre-programed patterns' matter. Too many 'new patterns' might well leave you teetering on the Abyss!
To inhibit that 'reducing valve' function might make you a bit less pragmatic, at the moment, but there is more input, perhaps, more context for that Zennish leap of intuition/Knowing that will cure the cancer (seems 'pragmatic' to me, ultimately...), or paint a Mona Lisa, or leave you Enlightened, in the transcendental state of unconditional Love!

We cannot ever perceive that which does not exist!
Everything exists! *__-

Interesting. I think also consciousness is probably very misunderstood, many people seem to give it more meaning than it really has, which is basically I am aware I am observing.

You can be conscious in a dream.

When you reach higher consciousness your able to access information about yourself or the environment that was normally not availbale in your baseline consciousness. It has to do with the mind.

In that state you could use the higher consciousness for elevated cognitive ability but that isn't necessarily what consciousness is. My opinion is higher consciousness is like watering a plant in regards to cognitive ability. It's not the plant itself, but rather the water.

That's basically it. It doesn't mean your the dalai lama or captain kirk.

It means you have made your brain make connections it normally does not.

Of coarse this is paraphrasing and basic discription but more or less accurate.


Basically the physical part and the mental are separate. The neurological explanation comes after the mind part. Since we don't understand consciousness fully in physical brain functionality it's working from the the psychological aspect back towards the neuroscans. The neuroscans are working off what psychology considers consciousness.

Some folks seem to think it's the other way around. That the neuroscans are predicting consciousness.

There are about 55 references to other studies in the op study. This isn't out of thin air. It's a rung in the ladder.

Ps (no major rebuttals so far as were predicted by bedlam)

a reply to: TrueBrit

There you go again "poopoo'ing" a litany of perspective talking points, as well as reference to that other science study that makes your position foolhardy, with a simple 'nope, that's not how science works'.

Pages upon pages in this thread trying to put it into perspective for you, and you only have one answer.

I've made two response now each with multiple examples of how your hyper-pragmatic position is basically absurd. You dont answer those though. And god forbid you read the stuff I wrote to bedlam (which is the same discussion).

Here's another annoyance to your singular approach: Can an outside "objective" observer know better than any and every subject whether or not they're lying about something??

Nope.

Now where your viewpoint does makes sense, sort of, when it comes to self-deception. People lie to themselves in ways beyond imagine. It's scary stuff, from my viewpoint. We don't need to figure out how to entirely and in every sense prove that people do it. And yet we know its 'real'.

I know, you're tempted to ignore everything else I've said and just respond with 'yeah well people that thought they had a super profound life enhancing experience with a psychedelic substance are just self-deceiving themselves'.

There, I spared you the trouble. Now perhaps respond directly to all the rest you've been skipping over?


And now my response: First, science is on my side (see OP paper, and the one I've posted into the thread 3 times now). Now, read the thread! My last post would be a good starting point, like the one about how its crazy talk to effectively be suggesting that, following your logic, a person cant actually know which experiences they've had are more profound/meh/etc compared to any other.

a reply to: luthier

In order that any proof of concept regarding the specific idea of a higher state of consciousness be attained, it must be a proof which does not require imagination on the part of the objective observer, only facts which cannot be argued with once properly understood, without engagement with the chemical on the part of the observer.

I am not applying a special idea of proof here either. ALL scientific experimentation must provide such a proof, of whatever concept it is seeking or investigating, in order for that proof to be accepted. I only ask that people stop trying to conflate anecdotal evidence and subjective experience, with proof, which it simply is not and will never be.

a reply to: TrueBrit

That is not true.

First off we are talking about the mind correct?

The proof is that a patient is able to unlock memories that the brain has sealed over. There are even ptsd cases that are quite severe that are able to change the mind of the patient.

A true cure where the drug is not needed permanently after treatment.

ANOTHER importance here is also to study how the brain works in people who have sensory issues.

This study is combining psychology and neuroscience. You have to read the references when they are cited in the study to get the bigger picture.

a reply to: luthier

Yeah. These naysayers are all like NOOOOO, as if everyones talking about achieving actual out of body experiences or something like that, in the statement "higher level of consciousness".

Of course I haven't seen where they are willing to even define "consciousness" in context to whatever this notion they're insisting isn't real/possible/whatever, despite being challenged to do so, so we could at least establish an agreeable benchmark by which to frame the discussion.

And they also seem to have some weird disorder where they're not able to read talking points people put in in the broader scope as they see it, like you just did.

It's really curious. I know they're smart guys. I guess they see the concept of there being a higher state of 'whatever' (intelligence I guess, although that's a broad complicated subject in itself, which does have a lot to do with this one), than they have had the opportunity / the balls to find out for themselves, I guess its a subconscious insult to their ego, or something like that, where they're pretty sure they can technically 'win' (and 'still' 'already know' first hand the upper limits on human consciousness) by sticking to the scientific philosophical principle, to a fault.

Since they dont seem to have a single science paper that supports their naysayer position on the topic itself, and said principled (deflect) approach doesn't actually need more than a couple paragraphs to sum up, while they dont have any actual experience on this topic to be able relate to anyone about any of it... it's a serious trip that they've pushed on about it for so many pages.

a reply to: luthier

Likewise, there's another obscure one (from iboga family plants), said to be an extremely high level substance, that it's the only known 'cure' (not treatment) for opiate addiction. Apparently, they go in deep for something like a few days (like astral plane sort of deep), seriously intensive guided mediation type ordeal, I guess, and in the process they're able to introspect to such a degree that when its over they've effectively pulled a 'mind over (brain) matter' move over their addiction, so thoroughly I guess that they come out without withdrawal symptoms.

And that's just another single item from list of a good couple hundred or so known active substances.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Your either interested in the mind or not..

If that process is not interesting to you, I don't know how you would call yourself a scientist.

People have begun to value empericism over curiosity and inquiry which is the true nature of science right? First you have to be curious enough to ask the question. If you already know everything how could you be curious and wonder how things truly work?

The mind, ontology, reality, etc is not something that is going to produce 1+1=2.

We discover more but haven't come close to answering the ontological question so how could we say the mind is:


We currently judge everything based off of function in "society". It's a terribly subjective tool for comparison.

Does a person have add because he is in an environmental noncompatible situation, or is it really an evolutionary anomaly, or genetic bad mutation?

Was it what kept people from being eaten for the last 175k years? Back when society was in nature if you kept your head down and worked were you eaten by bears?

Of coarse it's subjective. We haven't defined reality.

a reply to: luthier

What is not true, specifically?

The standard of proof having to be a non-subjective accumulation of recorded data, amounting to far more than anecdotes and hearsay?

Clearly you fail to understand scientific methodology, if you think that user testimony is ever going to cut it.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Clearly?

Falsifiability is used in science correct?

How do you prove the cosmological model in string theory.

Why don't you show me the 5th-10th dimension?

There is a debate in the study of reality as to how to quantify data. Apparently your unaware of it

Can you explain how psychology is proven with evidence.

What is the baseline for comparison? Is it subjective or objective?

If a person with a mental illness makes a great worker in another society and those behaviors are accepted does the person have a mental illness?

Are we treating reality in psychology or helping people fit into society?

Is your understanding of reality subjective or objective.

Maybe you don't understand a few things about this topic. Science is not only nuts and bolts. It's also purely recording data for people to quantify over time. Some of it will never be quantified.

Should we give up on cosmology? It's truly impossible to ever prove, we just keep adjusting what we think we observe.
www.psychologytoday.com...

a reply to: luthier

When the LHC confirmed the existence of the Higgs Boson, they did so by locating the damned thing.

When we measure the speed of light, we do not estimate it, we simply measure it.

A kilo is not an ounce or two, it is a kilo. Electrons do what they do, not something other than what they do. Similarly, either the substances you are talking about cause a recordable, measurable, and tangible real world advance in the function and more particularly the useful function of consciousness, or they do not, and rigorous empiricism is the only way to establish which it is, which once again, does not permit things like hearsay and anecdotes provided by people who are, or have tripped balls, to have as much weight as you believe they ought. That is simply how it is, there is no debate to be had about the thing.

a reply to: TrueBrit

All false.

We made observations.

The observer is subject to its own limitation.

You have no idea how science works.

Again in psychology which is considered a science. How do you prove anything?

If clinical trials aren't enough what would do it for you?

What your really saying is you don't believe in psychology because it's subjective.

So is the meaning of the results from observation in all science.

The entire field of psychology is subjective. You have no point unless it's to discredit psychology, however your up against ontology at that point. Which seems you aren't fimiliar with.

a reply to: luthier

Bull.

The meaning of a result of a Newtonian physics experiment is not subjective, it is objective, because it means the same thing no matter who witnesses it. Experimentation is repeatable, variables can be minimised to increase the accuracy of the experiment and therefore the solidity of conclusions drawn therefrom.

Psychology is a soft science, full of subjective and unscientific concepts, as well as experiments which are in no way comparable in terms of their repeatability or accuracy, when stood against hard science and experiments performed therein. Chemistry, Physics, Biology. Hard sciences, REAL sciences, not self help circle jerks with delusions of importance. THESE are the things you look to, when trying to figure out how to get to the bottom of things. EVERYTHING else is subjectivist waffle of no value.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Then why doesn't Newtonian physics work in QM?



Those hard nosed newtonian physicists certainly were astounded when they looked into the electron microscope. Some stayed believing it was reality.

You applied science guys forgot science doesn't prove anything. Nor is it ever the goal.

You need to read some Karl Popper. The Logic of Scientific Discovery would help.

a reply to: luthier

Nonsense.

There are QM principles which can be applied as well. However, those principles, like Newtonian concepts feature repeatable experiments as their foundation as well, for example, the double slit experiment, which has entirely repeatable results... unlike, say for instance, any experiment done in psychology, which has such wildly varying results more often than not, as to mean next door to nothing what so ever. Bloody garbage for fantasists and poppycock merchants at best, and snake oil at worst! Kick the psychologists out, replace them with neurologists only. That is going to get you results worth reading over.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Really?

How would the neurologist interpret the results?

Are they trained to that if there is no psychology? What would they go off of? What a dumb statement.



There isn't a single neurologist I know that would agree with you. They are symbiotic.

So the results of these psychodelic tests are that patients are cured of something that has kept them from reaching full potential.

In all of medicine this is done. If you ask a patient how much pain he has....subjective

How does your medicine make you feel...subjective.

Your under the impression science is objective. It can never be because of the observer concluding the results.

That is something real scientists understand. And thank the universe they do or they would never be curious which is what science is at the heart of it



Patient comes in can't get out of bed can't go to work,
Guided through say 10 trips over time all dosed and guided under observation and regulation. Then can work every day without continuing to take drugs, kids notice a change etc...

When that gets repeated it isn't proof of needing more info and study at the least?

I would love for you to explain how neuroscience would interpret the results without consulting the patient.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Let me put it this way.

Bacon comes from the grocery store correct?

Bacon comes from a big slab of meat.

Big slabs of meat come from pigs.

Pigs come from an evolutionary path

The evolutionary path was set forth by the big bang.



Every one of those statements is true and false.

I can't eat a pig for breakfast but I can eat bacon.

Humanity is at about step one. Bacon comes from grocery stores. We are looking for the piece of meat but that isn't the full explanation.

I know your going to have to recognize bacon theory.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: namelesss
...when the human genome became known to him, winning him said prize.

Actually, the prize was for discovering the molecular structure of DNA, quite a different thing.

Corrected, although the point remains valid.

It would be more a matter of looking at the x-ray crystallographic data and having an intuitive leap that you could get that pattern from a double helix structure.

I do think that it is that intuitive leap that is what we are talking about.
There are certain conditions supportive of such Zen/genius/intuitive leaps!

I'm actually partial to the opinion that hallucinogenics turn down the threshold on your pattern-matching functions sort of the way a schizophrenic's miswiring does. So you see 'connections' that may not be there, but occasionally you can see some you were ignoring. Among a lot of other less useful side effects.

I find that I can tentatively agree with you that entheogens inhibit our 'pattern matching function'.
By 'pattern matching function' (something any monkey can excel at), I am hearing the common mundane day to day 'Consciousness' of the average ape, uh.. person. All religious practices, such as 'incessant prayer/chanting, meditation, fasting, self flagellation, whatever... is all the average folk had to use to decrease the O2 and increase the CO2 in their brains (what the entheogens do Now!; entheogens were used, but mostly by mystics).
The 'brain' is primarily a 'reducing' apparatus, limiting input to the immediately 'pragmatic', the common day to day (primitive) 'pattern matching function'; only 'pre-programed patterns' matter. Too many 'new patterns' might well leave you teetering on the Abyss!
To inhibit that 'reducing valve' function might make you a bit less pragmatic, at the moment, but there is more input, perhaps, more context for that Zennish leap of intuition/Knowing that will cure the cancer (seems 'pragmatic' to me, ultimately...), or paint a Mona Lisa, or leave you Enlightened, in the transcendental state of unconditional Love!

We cannot ever perceive that which does not exist!
Everything exists! *__-

Interesting. I think also consciousness is probably very misunderstood, many people seem to give it more meaning than it really has, which is basically I am aware I am observing.

Wow! All those philosophers and thinkers throughout the millennia just needed to see your one line definition of Consciousness.
How am I to have a conversation with someone who is Conscious of thoughts that Consciousness is 'overrated' and believes them'?

You can be conscious in a dream.

Perhaps you mean 'lucid'.
Are you lucid in 'this' dream?

Ps (no major rebuttals so far as were predicted by bedlam)

If there's something particular that you'd like rebutted, bring it on.
(I Love this mental masturbation!)

a reply to: luthier

Bacon comes from the grocery store correct?

No. It comes from a butcher, who got a slab of meat from an abattoir, who received livestock from a farmer, who reared the pig or keeps a stock of pigs for breeding and selling for meat. The grocery store is simply where you purchase your meat, assuming you are an idiot and do not go direct to the butcher.

Bacon comes from a big slab of meat.

Again, not quite. Bacon is indeed derived from parts of a pig, but does not become bacon until it has gone through the curing process, until which time it is not actually bacon, but mere back or side meat.

Big slabs of meat come from pigs.

They also come from sheep, cows, goats, deer and other things, but not all of these things can become bacon.

Pigs come from an evolutionary path

Yes they do.

The evolutionary path was set forth by the big bang.

Indeed so.

Every one of those statements is true and false.

Some of them are true, and some are false, but not all are both.

I can't eat a pig for breakfast but I can eat bacon.

Um, yes, you could actually eat a pig for breakfast. If you had a spit and you found yourself in the mood to do so, you could put an entire pig on the spit, cook it up over an open fire, and sit around with your family eating pig. Keep in mind, if the meat has not been through the precise curing process which creates the glory we know as bacon, then it remains simply pig meat.

Humanity is at about step one. Bacon comes from grocery stores. We are looking for the piece of meat but that isn't the full explanation.

Step one is the big bang. We encounter what we see, taste, hear and touch, at step googolplex. Human life is about the staggering number of steps which came after step one, never, EVER about step one.

I know your going to have to recognize bacon theory.

I recognise it, but your interpretation of it... its like you are wearing it backwards.