First evidence for higher state of consciousness found

a reply to: TrueBrit

says the guy drinking a never ending stout.

I believe these articles are...not very logical.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Bedlam

Nobody cares what you believe they care if the treatment works.

Western drugs are given for feelings correct.

Not particularly, most of them are fairly well tested for objective effects.

The difference is they don't cure anything. You have to keep taking them.

So, if I'm having pain, dilaudid doesn't work? If I have a skin infection, clindamycin doesn't work? I think you're on "___" right now.

If you can treat a patient who takes a drug once or twice and feels better or is cured that isn't useful?

Wow, rigid beliefs huh?

"I take drugs because I like the feeling" doesn't equate to enlightenment. Again, if it makes you feel good, great. However, it's not "a higher state of consciousness", it just feels good. Now, if you had an hallucinogen that could make you understand some sort of higher order algebra or calculus, and no human could understand it unless they were on that sort of drug, it would be a great argument. But they all fall into the "I like the feeling". Which isn't wisdom, nor intelligence.

originally posted by: badw0lf
a reply to: TrueBrit

says the guy drinking a never ending stout.

You might actually make the argument for stout. Many great authors were drunks. Not a lot of them were on hallucinogens. Maybe Joyce.

a reply to: Bedlam

Do you have to take this cream the rest of your life?

That is what I am talking about. Do you need to take speed for 6 years through school for your add that kind of thing.

Lithium for the rest of your life,...

By the way pschodelic drugs aren't abut feeling good in fact they scare most people.

And your theory utterly fails because if this were the case you would need to continue to use the drug to feel good.

Do yourself a favor read the research. Start with John Hopkins.

Lithium for the rest of your life...

Generally only if you have a wiring error, like schizophrenia.

And your theory utterly fails because if this were the case you would need to continue to use the drug to feel good.

Not at all. In the world of subjective crap, this is the sort of thing you'd expect. It's like giving someone a sugar pill. The sugar isn't giving them enlightenment. It's just a palliative for the weak minded.

Ah you already know...which means you can't learn anything.

Here is the info for the rest of people who value the scientific method. Which is to use science to guide opinions.

journals.sagepub.com...

Lots of others being done as well.

Why...because it's working for patients in a control which is the same way your cream was created. Whether it works or not.

originally posted by: luthier


Ah you already know...which means you can't learn anything.

More subjective appeal.

Do you consider 'I took a hallucinogen and now I'm not afraid" to be wisdom? Enlightenment? If you do, then great, argument solved, for you.

I don't. "Higher state of consciousness" for me means something other than "I'm not afraid".

a reply to: Bedlam

www.nature.com...

journals.sagepub.com...

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Bedlam

www.nature.com...

journals.sagepub.com...

Same question. Let's label "Do you consider 'I took a hallucinogen and now I'm not afraid" to be wisdom? Enlightenment? If you do, then great, argument solved, for you.

I don't. "Higher state of consciousness" for me means something other than "I'm not afraid". "

as statement #1.

My reply to your cites: #1.

That'll save a lot of space and typing. Come up with something that's "higher state of consciousness" and not "with enough meds I'm sort of numb to the coming end" and I'll give you a more verbal answer.

a reply to: vinifalou

This means nothing and in no way proves a higher level of conciousness it is just more brain activity when tripping. We already know that happens

a reply to: Bedlam

It's more than obvious you didn't read the research I presented.

Your argument of ignorance is beyond in considerate and also full of steadfast belief with nothing to back it but an opinion on what your personal definition of higher consciousness is.

You would also know if you understood or were interested in neoroscience that no other drug does this to your brain. Heroine which is the ultimate feel good drug does not effect the entire brain to be active. The other circumstance this occurs is with lifelong people who practice meditation. Where the right and left lobe are firing and communicating across the entire brain structure at one time.

Does the drug take the place of lifelong meditation of coarse not. But in treatment where your goal is to make a functioning person who can take care of themselves from someone who can't it's a better option then the other pharmacological options if the research proves to be discovering this works in trearment.

My question is do you scorn and be little people with mental illness because that is what it sounds like. They just need to pony up.

Or do you believe that using salts and metals aa well as barbiturates and other drugs is somehow not doing what the psychodelic would be doing?

Is lithium somehow better science if you could cure schizophrenia with psychodelic drugs with one or two doses. Heck even every 6 months?

I just don't get your arguments

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: TrueBrit

It is outside the scope of the work being done, but it is commonly known and accepted by those open to the possibilities of mind-altering drugs that some leave a residue or even a near-permanent or permanent change in the whole "state" of the brain and that new state of being is relished as an expanded view of "reality" that was hidden before.

So if the five employees of your example are expanded within themselves, the cost to the business remains the same and the extra five bodies add little to the overall productivity and therefore are not required for the best result.

Yet, if their consciousness' are expanded or the neurons are firing up new pathways, then would they all not be valuable contributors of alternate thought processes that may help the company in ways not imagined before? Or, if the neurons are firing up new pathways of fantasy then the extra five members would certainly be considered valuable depending on the job at hand - such as creative/design area. However, if within a governmental office, then all ten employees will be milling around and nothing would have changed.

originally posted by: luthier
Your argument of ignorance is beyond in considerate and also full of steadfast belief with nothing to back it but an opinion on what your personal definition of higher consciousness is.

What is yours? Mine is definitely not the same as yours.

You would also know if you understood or were interested in neoroscience that no other drug does this to your brain.

Which 'this' are your referring to? The one from the OP? Any number of meds cause seizures, some intentionally, and they all do the same sort of thing, only more so. I'd expect meth to do it as well. A lot of non-coherent activity is easy to cause. I do not agree that all provide a higher order of consciousness.

My question is do you scorn and be little people with mental illness because that is what it sounds like. They just need to pony up.

I don't agree with them that doing drugs fixes things. I know it's the go-to for schizophrenics off their meds. It isn't a fix though.

Or do you believe that using salts and metals aa well as barbiturates and other drugs is somehow not doing what the psychodelic would be doing?

*snort* Salts and metals? Ah, chemistry is past you as well. Ok, how are dimethylamines and ergot derivatives not drugs?

Is lithium somehow better science if you could cure schizophrenia with psychodelic drugs with one or two doses. Heck even every 6 months?

I just don't get your arguments

They're pretty straightforward. In what way is this "a higher order of consciousness"?

And there is no cure for schizophrenia. I'm waiting for you to tell me that the voices aren't really a bad thing, they're actually beings from another dimension giving you words of wisdom.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
... unless you actually know, then you simply dont know.

So, you can't come up with anything subjective that was facilitated by taking mind altering drugs, right?

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been axed already. To go any further with it would be violating the T&C. But as already explained, it'd be pointless for someone who has broken on through to other other side to try to describe it to someone who has not.

The general noise I'm seeing though is a total doubt about such hypothetical "higher states of consciousness" (note that: PLURAL) by people whom haven't the slightest, as if such persons could possibly have the tools to chime in to begin with, but more absurd if such persons were arguing as if consciousness is some singular thing.

But to that, please all do define for us in your own terms what consciousness even is, and then articulate this notion as if its some singular 'thing' that could be defined in singular terms. I'll make the challenge 'easy' and we'll keep this within human consciousness terms. Now, to really 'win', describe for us what would constitute an achievement of "higher states of consciousness", and how psychedelics (note that: PLURAL) dont hit any of those marks.

This ought to be good......

originally posted by: luthier

You would also know if you understood or were interested in neoroscience that no other drug does this to your brain.

The items in the OP article are far from the only items that could, and probably far from the best.

originally posted by: Bedlam

Not at all. In the world of subjective crap, this is the sort of thing you'd expect. It's like giving someone a sugar pill. The sugar isn't giving them enlightenment. It's just a palliative for the weak minded.

Comparing placebo to psychedelics.....

ROFLMFAO!!!

I'm trying to be respectful in saying this, but you have no clue how utterly asinine you're sounding across this juncture.

originally posted by: Bedlam
You might actually make the argument for stout. Many great authors were drunks. Not a lot of them were on hallucinogens. Maybe Joyce.

You could drink or even toke yourself stupid for the next 6 months, and still have nothing of the tools to even know anything about this subject.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been axed already. To go any further with it would be violating the T&C. But as already explained, it'd be pointless for someone who has broken on through to other other side to try to describe it to someone who has not.

How simple it would be if you could actually come up with an example of something, anything, objective which has been facilitated by the use of hallucinogens. Some objective understanding that could only be achieved under their influence. I'll wait, surely you can manage one.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You could drink or even toke yourself stupid for the next 6 months, and still have nothing of the tools to even know anything about this subject.

One. Just one.