I recently read How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence by Michael Pollan. It’s a fascinating book which describes the history of psychoactive substances as well as current experimental treatments for mental health problems. It is also a memoir of a sixty-something atheist exploring psychedelics for the first time. He tried four different psychedelics, always under the administration of guides, either underground/outlaws or in labs. People using psychedelics are very open to suggestion and therefore “set and settingâ€, one’s mindset and environment, significantly influence the experience. The substances he tried were psilocybin (mushroom), LSD (artificial chemical compound), DMT (the venom of the Sonoran toad), and ayahuasca (Brazilian plant compound). He describes his experiences on these substances, which seem pretty consistent with other reports: the dissolution of self, derealization, feelings of openness, connectedness, profundity and perceptual distortions. Still, they are entertaining, e.g. going into labor and giving birth to his son.
The use of psychedelics in treating depression, anxiety and addictions are very interesting but because this is an atheist forum what I would like to discuss are spirituality and subjective experience. It's obvious that substances have influenced spirituality and religion (look up the "stoned ape theory'). Many people, including atheists, describe having profound and life-changing “spiritual†experiences while using psychedelics, particular when certain psychedelics are used at higher dosages.
Brain scans (fMRI's) have shown that the default mode network (DMN) areas of the brain are suppressed in people undergoing psychedelic sessions. The DMN can contribute to elements of experience that are related to external task performance and is also active when the individual is thinking about others, thinking about themselves, remembering the past, and planning for the future. The hypothesis is that when the DMN temporarily loses its dominion the unconscious, now unregulated, comes to an observable space and different areas of the brain that don't normally operate directly form connections. It is interesting that the brains of experienced meditators look very similar to those on psilocybin, both dramatically reducing activity in the DMN.
So scientists have some idea of what is going on in the brain when people use psychedelics and we also know that people experience profound and “mystical†experiences when the DMN is suppressed through psychedelics or meditation. So my question is this: if we know what neural switches to flip to produce a mystical experience does that in any way invalidate that experience? Pollan asked a woman who said she had a spiritual experience that question:
I asked her the question that gnawed at me whenever someone recounted such a mystical experience: “How can you be sure this was a genuine spiritual event and not just a drug experience?†“It’s an irrelevant question,†she replied coolly. “This was something being revealed to me.†There it was: the noetic sense William James had described as a mark of the mystical experience.
Is a mother's love for her baby any less because her brain is being flooded with oxytocin and other hormones? Is the common realization under psychedelics that “Love is everything†less meaningful? Should people trust their subjective experiences or look to others to confirm what is "real" and valuable?
The real mental chemicals are already in your brain. You don't have to use supplements, but sleep deprivation might be necessary, to drop the veil between being awake and being in a dreaming state (hypnosis, hypnopomp, hypnogog).
The secondary effects can be very nice, such as when I was under the first time I have my cataracts operated on. The anesthesiologists never got it quite that right for later operations ;-) I had a great sense of relaxation and clarity (maybe I am usually short on sleep).
I suspect psychedelics have been demonized, even when used by doctors in genuine medical situations.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 29, 2018, 12:08:39 AMSo my question is this: if we know what neural switches to flip to produce a mystical experience does that in any way invalidate that experience?
A thorny question. We know for a fact that human behavior is ultimately tied to brain chemistry. This is the reason psychedelics frequently produce mystical experiences, after all. Yet, people are very loathe to ascribe their more profound feelings (particularly romantic love and religion) to chemicals.
Like many things (death and atheism come readily to mind), this quickly becomes a "this can't be true because it makes me feel bad" situation. Thus, highly motivated people are prone to seek an alternate explanation that's a bit more palatable. Declaring it irrelevant and reasserting the realness of the mystical experience seems like the easiest solution.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 29, 2018, 12:27:22 AM
A thorny question. We know for a fact that human behavior is ultimately tied to brain chemistry. This is the reason psychedelics frequently produce mystical experiences, after all. Yet, people are very loathe to ascribe their more profound feelings (particularly romantic love and religion) to chemicals.
Like many things (death and atheism come readily to mind), this quickly becomes a "this can't be true because it makes me feel bad" situation. Thus, highly motivated people are prone to seek an alternate explanation that's a bit more palatable. Declaring it irrelevant and reasserting the realness of the mystical experience seems like the easiest solution.
Yes in general. Tied to brain chemistry? Yes, but not solely that. Hardware without software just sits there. There is no need to seek explanations anyway. And IQ people typically are bad at EQ.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 29, 2018, 12:08:39 AMShould people trust their subjective experiences or look to others to confirm what is "real" and valuable?
This question ought to have its own thread. But suffice it to say the latter. Emphatically the latter. You have no idea the problems associated with people prioritizing their "gut" above all else.
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2018, 12:12:59 AM
The real mental chemicals are already in your brain. You don't have to use supplements, but sleep deprivation might be necessary, to drop the veil between being awake and being in a dreaming state (hypnosis, hypnopomp, hypnogog).
Pollan was able to enter an altered state when guided through rapid, deep, rhythmic breathing. This was before he tried psychedelics.
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2018, 12:12:59 AM
I suspect psychedelics have been demonized, even when used by doctors in genuine medical situations.
The efforts by activists to get America's leaders, Silicone Valley and the general public to use psychedelics followed by the backlash is an interesting story. I know you know about the MK Ultra program's attempt to weaponize LSD. Timothy Leary didn't help matters. People in the 1960's had reasons to worry about how people were using psychedelics. Unfortunately, the response was to completely demonize psychedelics and abandon promising research.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 29, 2018, 12:31:59 AM
This question ought to have its own thread. But suffice it to say the latter. Emphatically the latter. You have no idea the problems associated with people prioritizing their "gut" above all else.
True. But not much interest here in that. Most already are long ago locked into their own opinions ;-) And no, you don't know me. Most women have more EQ than IQ, and men the opposite. As a former husband, I know this for a fact. However you may mean "impulsivity" ... which isn't entirely different from mere sentimentality. Impulsivity is valuable only in a few life critical situations. In most cases, taking the time to consider things two or three move ahead, is much better.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 29, 2018, 12:34:25 AM
Pollan was able to enter an altered state when guided through rapid, deep, rhythmic breathing. This was before he tried psychedelics.
The efforts by activists to get America's leaders, Silicone Valley and the general public to use psychedelics followed by the backlash is an interesting story. I know you know about the MK Ultra program's attempt to weaponize LSD. Timothy Leary didn't help matters. People in the 1960's had reasons to worry about how people were using psychedelics. Unfortunately, the response was to completely demonize psychedelics and abandon promising research.
Correct. A few people still hod-carry for the value of medical use of psychedelics. Pranayama is the standard intro technique of breath control for meditation.
Ram Das, who was a friend of Timothy Leary, is closer to my own view, though his Hindu guru was quite open about drug use anyway. The point I think is that in American culture, we tend to "entertainment" everything. I don't think recreational use of drugs has any wisdom, ordinary or transcendental, to it. Americans are poet-tasters, not poets, profits not prophets.
On "dream state" ... have sweet dreams ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RA2Zy_IZfQ
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2018, 12:42:37 AM
Ram Das, who was a friend of Timothy Leary, is closer to my own view, though his Hindu guru was quite open about drug use anyway. The point I think is that in American culture, we tend to "entertainment" everything. I don't think recreational use of drugs has any wisdom, ordinary or transcendental, to it. Americans are poet-tasters, not poets, profits not prophets.
Americans don't really do sacred very well. Everything gets branded, packaged and commercialized.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 29, 2018, 12:51:14 AM
Americans don't really do sacred very well. Everything gets branded, packaged and commercialized.
Amen, Brother GSO! Can we get a big Amen from the banana gallery?
PS ... the use of psychoactive drugs and mass hypnosis in warfare never stopped. We just don't know about it. Well ... it seems to me that the cat is pretty much out of the bag for the last three years. Almost all politics now is based on adulterating the food supply and mass hysteria. Spontaneous ergotism and random mass delusion ... I think not.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 29, 2018, 12:31:59 AM
This question ought to have its own thread. But suffice it to say the latter. Emphatically the latter. You have no idea the problems associated with people prioritizing their "gut" above all else.
I do try to follow the maxim, "Lead with the head and the heart will follow."
Still, I'm not completely convinced surrendering my judgment to others is ultimately in my best interest or that the wisdom of the crowd is going to produce the best solution. Having one's family or community arrange who one marries may be the rational choice, particularly if one's judgment is clouded by pesky hormones, but I would prefer to make my own decision and live with the consequences. Arrange marriages may have a low divorce rate but I suspect it has everything to do with cultures that have arranged marriages make dissolving those marriages very difficult.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 29, 2018, 01:31:37 AM
I do try to follow the maxim, "Lead with the head and the heart will follow."
Still, I'm not completely convinced surrendering my judgment to others is ultimately in my best interest or that the wisdom of the crowd is going to produce the best solution. Having one's family or community arrange who one marries may be the rational choice, particularly if one's judgment is clouded by pesky hormones, but I would prefer to make my own decision and live with the consequences. Arrange marriages may have a low divorce rate but I suspect it has everything to do with cultures that have arranged marriages make dissolving those marriages very difficult.
You have to take responsibility for yourself, and yet be socially responsible. Originally marriage had nothing to do with lust, that is what prostitutes were for. Marriage was a property arrangement between the two sets of parents, it had nothing to do with what the groom or bride wanted.
Divorce being difficult, because it would be an abrogation of contract.
I would not be surprised if any psychedelic experience was closely related to the "spiritual" upbringings of that culture/religion. I am unaware of anyone conceiving an idea without a background to support it. By that I would mean that it is probable that early man could imagine a type of floating boat by simply observing ants floating on a stick in a river, but not likely he could envision a cruise liner.
Quote from: aitm on December 29, 2018, 08:23:59 AM
I would not be surprised if any psychedelic experience was closely related to the "spiritual" upbringings of that culture/religion. I am unaware of anyone conceiving an idea without a background to support it. By that I would mean that it is probable that early man could imagine a type of floating boat by simply observing ants floating on a stick in a river, but not likely he could envision a cruise liner.
The use of drugs and trance by a shaman are prehistoric realities. Usually however, the use of drugs was controlled by social convention, they weren't for recreation or to induce sociopathy, as they are today.
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2018, 12:39:07 AM
Most women have more EQ than IQ, and men the opposite. As a former husband, I know this for a fact.
So, you were married to
one woman and that gives you knowledge of
all other women?
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2018, 10:13:07 AM
The use of drugs and trance by a shaman are prehistoric realities. Usually however, the use of drugs was controlled by social convention, they weren't for recreation or to induce sociopathy, as they are today.
a rather side paragraph statement though true, which adds nor detracts anything to the statement it attached itself to.
Quote from: aitm on December 29, 2018, 08:23:59 AM
I would not be surprised if any psychedelic experience was closely related to the "spiritual" upbringings of that culture/religion. I am unaware of anyone conceiving an idea without a background to support it. By that I would mean that it is probable that early man could imagine a type of floating boat by simply observing ants floating on a stick in a river, but not likely he could envision a cruise liner.
One reason I doubt psychedelic experiences are actually "mystical" is that knowledge isn't accessed that wasn't already known to the individual on at least a subconscious level. People may have insights by reassembling the puzzle pieces of their consciousness but the pieces themselves are the same.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 29, 2018, 03:24:08 PM
One reason I doubt psychedelic experiences are actually "mystical" is that knowledge isn't accessed that wasn't already known to the individual on at least a subconscious level. People may have insights by reassembling the puzzle pieces of their consciousness but the pieces themselves are the same.
That is the archetype theory. And it may be right (see how many actual different stories we have in fiction). But in that case, if we are standard jigsaw puzzles, is that any reason to not play the game? The ace up the sleeve though, isn't the subconscious, but the unconscious. There be monsters in there.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 29, 2018, 02:05:15 PM
So, you were married to one woman and that gives you knowledge of all other women?
Doesn't take marriage...
Quote from: Cavebear on December 29, 2018, 05:04:12 PM
Doesn't take marriage...
Correct. I like women, but they do share some characteristics, as men do with each other. The demand that we treat every person completely individually, and not even the same person, moment to moment ... simply defies any practicality.
But yes, as a human being, I do more or less understand all other human beings. And to the extent I have spent years around men, or years around women, then to that extent, I have some understanding of them.
The above is for both Unbeliever and Cavebear.
Quote from: aitm on December 29, 2018, 02:38:39 PM
a rather side paragraph statement though true, which adds nor detracts anything to the statement it attached itself to.
I am not advocating shamanistic practices BTW. But modern society is notably feral compared to previous civilizations, in regard to "eat, drink and be merry".
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2018, 05:12:54 PM
Correct. I like women, but they do share some characteristics, as men do with each other. The demand that we treat every person completely individually, and not even the same person, moment to moment ... simply defies any practicality.
But yes, as a human being, I do more or less understand all other human beings. And to the extent I have spent years around men, or years around women, then to that extent, I have some understanding of them.
The above is for both Unbeliever and Cavebear.
I merely pointed out that relational interpersonal problems are not always gender based. Same gender ones are also troublesome, sometimes.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 29, 2018, 05:19:27 PM
I merely pointed out that relational interpersonal problems are not always gender based. Same gender ones are also troublesome, sometimes.
OK. I agree that the "Gender" thing isn't all inclusive. Personality is a spectrum disorder ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2018, 05:20:45 PM
OK. I agree that the "Gender" thing isn't all inclusive. Personality is a spectrum disorder ;-)
No. That would mean that personality, per se, would be a disorder. Try again.
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2018, 05:14:06 PM
I am not advocating shamanistic practices BTW. But modern society is notably feral compared to previous civilizations, in regard to "eat, drink and be merry".
I truly have no idea what that means relatively.
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2018, 05:03:18 PM
That is the archetype theory. And it may be right (see how many actual different stories we have in fiction). But in that case, if we are standard jigsaw puzzles, is that any reason to not play the game? The ace up the sleeve though, isn't the subconscious, but the unconscious. There be monsters in there.
I like my puzzle pieces where they are.
(https://img.memecdn.com/meowy-tribe_o_7257636.webp)
Quote from: Cavebear on December 29, 2018, 05:25:19 PM
No. That would mean that personality, per se, would be a disorder. Try again.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/personality-disorders/symptoms-causes/syc-20354463
Cluster B pretty much covers everyone I know.
Michael Pollan, the author of the book discussed in this thread, was interviewed on NPR yesterday by a woman anchor who treated him with great deference. She never prodded him when he got into unsubstantiated claims. By his own admission, he would preface such claims, with statements like, "I know this sounds like I could be delusional, but I believe these things because I experienced them first hand. And yes he did sound delusional, as delusional as my long ago hippy friend who told me that he once saw the Devil when he was smoking marijuana.
Michael Pollen was more apologetic for his unsubstantiated claims than the typical Christian, but he was every bit as adamant in believing them to be real as a typical Christian. Although, he was careful to use, "I believe it to be true," rather than "I know it to be true,"... "because I experienced it first hand."
No matter how much elation you experience while describing your new found knowledge about unsubstantiated things, rules of science still apply: "Verification talks, and bullshit walks." I was not impressed hearing him in person. Back in the 70s, I had similar interests, and I read a couple of books on LSD psychotherapy. Remember LSD? People were going bonkers over the stuff, having hallucinations, and strange thoughts, and watching the walls of the room moving. As you might have guessed, LSD psychotherapy didn't go anyplace. There were probably a few insights gained here and there, but the stuff was too unpredictable to be a source of accurate self knowledge. But many people were as evangelical about it as Michael Pollan, who is now drawing his own conclusions about something that was laid to rest 50 years ago. There is always room to reopen discarded theories, but Pollan didn't reveal anything more concrete in his interview than LSD's biggest advocate, Timothy Leary, when he decided to "tune in and drop out."
Personally, I would urge caution before taking Pollen seriously. I'm sure he means well, and he seemed like a nice enough guy, but that's not considered evidence in a laboratory.
Quote from: SGOS on December 30, 2018, 08:45:16 AM
Michael Pollan, the author of the book discussed in this thread, was interviewed on NPR yesterday by a woman anchor who treated him with great deference. She never prodded him when he got into unsubstantiated claims. By his own admission, he would preface such claims, with statements like, "I know this sounds like I could be delusional, but I believe these things because I experienced them first hand. And yes he did sound delusional, as delusional as my long ago hippy friend who told me that he once saw the Devil when he was smoking marijuana.
Michael Pollen was more apologetic for his unsubstantiated claims than the typical Christian, but he was every bit as adamant in believing them to be real as a typical Christian. Although, he was careful to use, "I believe it to be true," rather than "I know it to be true,"... "because I experienced it first hand."
No matter how much elation you experience while describing your new found knowledge about unsubstantiated things, rules of science still apply: "Verification talks, and bullshit walks." I was not impressed hearing him in person. Back in the 70s, I had similar interests, and I read a couple of books on LSD psychotherapy. Remember LSD? People were going bonkers over the stuff, having hallucinations, and strange thoughts, and watching the walls of the room moving. As you might have guessed, LSD psychotherapy didn't go anyplace. There were probably a few insights gained here and there, but the stuff was too unpredictable to be a source of accurate self knowledge. But many people were as evangelical about it as Michael Pollan, who is now drawing his own conclusions about something that was laid to rest 50 years ago. There is always room to reopen discarded theories, but Pollan didn't reveal anything more concrete in his interview than LSD's biggest advocate, Timothy Leary, when he decided to "tune in and drop out."
Personally, I would urge caution before taking Pollen seriously. I'm sure he means well, and he seemed like a nice enough guy, but that's not considered evidence in a laboratory.
Part of the appeal of the book is that Pollan is just a typical guy who explores the unfamiliar world of psychedelics and documents the colorful characters he meets and his unusual personal experiences. He interviews scientists but the book itself isn't scientific. Pollan is professor at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism and the book is well written as travelgue.
The problem with scientific research using psychedelics is that it is very difficult to perform double-blind studies, which are the foundation of testing for pharmaceuticals. Both the patient and the researchers can know almost instantly whether the medication is a psychedelic or a placebo. In addition, it is difficult to isolate a single variable. A psychedelic/therapeutic session is not simply a matter of ingesting a chemical; it is only successful with the proper guidance, and this can be a subjective matter. People using psychedelics are highly suggestible which further complicates research.
However, psychedelics are demonstrated to have a therapeutic effect and change behavior. A single guided psilocybin session is sufficient to remove depression from 80% of cancer patients. A study of smoking cessation found that most participants stopped smoking and was more effective than other smoking cessation interventions. I find it interesting that those who reported the most complete mystical experiences had the best outcomes. It is akin to religion, where changes in behavior are contingent on conviction. But, as effective as psychedelics may be in treating addiction or existential anxiety, pharmaceutical companies might not be interested in psychedelics. The LSD patent expired long ago, and psilocybin occurs in nature. If a single dose/session is sufficient, there may be little profit.
Some people are more suggestible, even without a drug. Some people have better imaginations.
Quote from: Baruch on December 31, 2018, 09:38:59 AM
Some people are more suggestible, even without a drug. Some people have better imaginations.
I was surprised to learn I'm pretty suggestible when it comes to hypnotism.
I just need to stop taking my meds for getting vivid imaginations going.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 31, 2018, 09:47:34 AM
I was surprised to learn I'm pretty suggestible when it comes to hypnotism.
Imagination or suggestibility is a talent, a two edged tool. Politicians use this talent against you. And John Lennon uses it the same way.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 29, 2018, 01:31:37 AMStill, I'm not completely convinced surrendering my judgment to others is ultimately in my best interest or that the wisdom of the crowd is going to produce the best solution.
Sorry, I realize now my response in utterly rejecting gut feelings as our guiding star could've been misconstrued as endorsing a "truth by consensus" type epistemology. Given the current and historical popularity of supernatural beliefs - beliefs that I do not share - this would seem like a very strange position for me to espouse! Naturally, I don't actually hold that position. In fact, I view both positions pretty negatively. I should have made that clear earlier.
Gut feelings are an extremely poor guide to truth for reasons that are so obvious that I won't insult any reader's intelligence by explicitly going over them.
The wisdom of the crowds is definitely an improvement (at least for movies), but an improvement on something that awful isn't much of an improvement. Given the numerous examples of popular delusions, folk "wisdom" that's actually incorrect, and various common misconceptions, it's clear that consensus alone does not necessitate truth.
My alternative, indeed the only real alternative to mere opinion, is scientific skepticism (which is rooted in empiricism). You test claims for veracity by seeing how well it maps to reality. If someone says that their horse can do algebra, you run a series of experiments to verify if this is in fact the case. You don't just take their word for it.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 31, 2018, 09:47:34 AM
I was surprised to learn I'm pretty suggestible when it comes to hypnotism.
While taking a "relaxation experience" in a college health class, I was not surprised to find I was not the least suggestible. The instructor even mentioned to me to be aware of that in the future.
I did not find that unusual, as I seem to be entirely unresponsive to external suggestions like advertisements, blandishments, and sales pitches, etc. I might be so bold as to suggest that is why I'm unmarried, LOL!
My wife and I tried the group hypnotism to quit smoking and I tried my best to allow it to happen. Afterwards when they told us that we all had successfully been under their "spell" they suggested that in order to help with the process it would be wise to purchase their "natural drugs" that help eliminate the desire and reactions, that I started to feel that ole black magic wane.
Now technically you could say that it worked......five years later when I decided that the time was right and I quit....but not so for the wife.
Quote from: aitm on January 05, 2019, 09:38:25 AM
My wife and I tried the group hypnotism to quit smoking and I tried my best to allow it to happen. Afterwards when they told us that we all had successfully been under their "spell" they suggested that in order to help with the process it would be wise to purchase their "natural drugs" that help eliminate the desire and reactions, that I started to feel that ole black magic wane.
Now technically you could say that it worked......five years later when I decided that the time was right and I quit....but not so for the wife.
It is hard to say "the smarter the better", but well "the smarter the better". The better you are at recognizing reality, the less likely you are to accept external suggestions.
And to any of you who "hypnotizable", I would like to arrange a group meeting. Bring your best valuables please.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 05, 2019, 07:56:40 AM
While taking a "relaxation experience" in a college health class, I was not surprised to find I was not the least suggestible. The instructor even mentioned to me to be aware of that in the future.
I did not find that unusual, as I seem to be entirely unresponsive to external suggestions like advertisements, blandishments, and sales pitches, etc. I might be so bold as to suggest that is why I'm unmarried, LOL!
Color me unsurprised. I don't know how suggestible I am, but I almost never respond to advertising.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 05, 2019, 10:28:43 AM
It is hard to say "the smarter the better", but well "the smarter the better". The better you are at recognizing reality, the less likely you are to accept external suggestions.
And to any of you who "hypnotizable", I would like to arrange a group meeting. Bring your best valuables please.
Plato can recognize reality, so you are Plato?
Quote from: aitm on January 05, 2019, 09:38:25 AM
My wife and I tried the group hypnotism to quit smoking and I tried my best to allow it to happen. Afterwards when they told us that we all had successfully been under their "spell" they suggested that in order to help with the process it would be wise to purchase their "natural drugs" that help eliminate the desire and reactions, that I started to feel that ole black magic wane.
Now technically you could say that it worked......five years later when I decided that the time was right and I quit....but not so for the wife.
Hypnotism only works if you aren't trying ... that is how the induction gets to your subconscious. Most people here wouldn't be very suggestible, since they are highly analytical and critical.
Being suggestible to hypnotism isn't the same as being gullible. I don't know if I'm more or less gullible than the average person. This is from Wikipedia (so take it with a grain of salt):
Individuals of extremely high hypnotizability tend to have distinctive characteristics outside of hypnosis. In 1981, Sherl Wilson and T X Barber reported that most of a group of extremely high hypnotizables who they termed "fantasizers". The fantasizers exhibited a cluster of traits consisting of: 1) fantasizing much of the time, 2) reporting their imagery was as vivid as real perceptions, 3) having physical responses to their imagery, 4) having an earlier than average age for first childhood memory, 5) recalling "imaginary playmates" from childhood, and 6) having grown up with parents who encouraged imaginative play. In 1991, Deirdre Barrett examined a larger group of extremely high hypnotizables and confirmed that about 60% fit Barber and Wilson's characterization of fantasizers while 40% were what she termed "dissociaters" who: 1) experienced daydreaming mostly as "spacing out" and not remembering what had been going on for periods of time, 2) had later than average ages for first memories, and 3) had parents who had been harshly punitive and/or who had experienced other childhood traumas. Fantasizers tended to experience hypnosis as being much like other imaginative activities while dissociaters reported it was unlike anything they'd ever experienced.
I admit I relate to the "fantasizer" profile. I do fantasize a lot, have a vivid imagination and have physical responses to imagery, e.g. I laugh out loud when reading something funny or cringe when thinking about something uncomfortable.
Has anyone here used psychedelics? I notice when talking to people who have used psychedelics that they don't seem to use them for long periods of time. Unlike cocaine, alcohol, opiates, cannabis, and amphetamines, I haven't talked to anyone who has used them throughout adulthood. People seem to use psychedelics for a period of time and then give them up. One person told me LSD last too long and with her kids around she can't trip for twelve hours.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on January 05, 2019, 11:18:03 AM
Has anyone here used psychedelics? I notice when talking to people who have used psychedelics that they don't seem to use them for long periods of time. Unlike cocaine, alcohol, opiates, cannabis, and amphetamines, I haven't talked to anyone who has used them throughout adulthood. People seem to use psychedelics for a period of time and then give them up. One person told me LSD last too long and with her kids around she can't trip for twelve hours.
Grass, alcohol, hash (a couple times), white crosses at work (really "speeded" up stocking the auto dept shelves with antifreeze and oil). Not anything else. Especially not LSD. My mind plays with unreality as it is.
I will say that, after a hash/bong session in college, I leaned against a wall saying goodnight to my friends and the wall was a couple feet farther away than I thought. My friends said I just fell on it. *I* say, I spent a good half hour drifting quietly down toward a verdant valley and fell softly to the earth. Ah the earth. Like wildfire it was, dreaming softly of the fall but was it it a fall at all or rather a slow understanding of the stars ah, the stars, bright pinpoints of light, so sparkley and both dim and bright while I considered the meaning of the universe in the glory, oh the glory which I had never understood before but in the understanding, not understanding for it was too powerful, and yes she said and yes I said and we both said yes under the moonlight...
You get it, right?
"My mind plays with unreality as it is." ... you actually pretty stable since you arrived here. Egomaniac, curmudgeon sure, but nothing really psycho.