Quoi de neuf ?

Bienvenue sur Psychonaut.fr !

Le forum des amateurs de drogues et des explorateurs de l'esprit

increases psychic activity after LSD?

And the more i Do it, the closer i get!

I have the feeling there's something very weird behind this ever-rotating corner I'm always trying to see through. I thinks it's nothing, just the rotating corner...that's actually me rotating.
:)

Testing the subconscious is also interesting, in what way do you do it?

I, observe the circumstances where something weird happens, both inner as outer. Observe the circumstances where something weird happens. Then, "Repeat. Repeat. Observe. Repeat. Observe. Repeat..."
I also take drugs, then I think about how I take them in relationship to what turned up at the end of the session. then I "Repeat. Repeat. Observe. Repeat. Observe. Repeat..."
Then I dance my ass off and be happy.
I have a pseudo-project on lucid dreaming but that's doomed to failure. I always end up looking for stuff underneath rocks.
 
hey, interesting post, and good replies, I've wanted to do one test inparticular with psychedelics as a factor:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/ma ... illa05.xml


I think it would be interesting to see if there was link between psychedelic use and "seeing the Gorrila", hypnotism would be another one to try.

I mention this, because in my mind, the reporting of psychic ability seems much more likely to be linked to a connection with subconcious awareness - that of seeing the gorrila, and being aware that you saw the gorilla: or in your case we could suppose that you "saw" a policeman watching you and your friends, but didn't "notice" you saw it in the normal sense, but felt it as a "bad feeling."

- I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm just throwing ideas out there based on scientific understanding (that of space and time) concerning the requirements for predicting the future.

I myself have had intuitive moments in the past that have been right, but also many that have been wrong, what seems logical is that as the number of predictions go up, the number of correct predictions go up, however its easy to notice the right predictions and forget the wrong, because it doesn't give that moment of awe, where you think "whoa, that was weird."

again, not meaning to put the phenomenon (or you) down, ???????? said it well with: "fantastic claims need fantastic evidence."

The idea of psi in the traditional form has severe implications for science: practically saying that the laws of physics are way off - and although its always a possibility, any claim would need alot of weight behind it to be taken seriously.

Oh, and welcome to the forum!
 
[
Science would have been considered black magick in the days of the Inquisition.
Science laws are nothing if you haven't attached a self-actualizing [epistemological] circuit on them. This is, physics laws and the rest of the gang are constantly subject, both by themselves and everyone else, to skepticism; if not, they ossify just as the oldest of dogmas have graciously done.

not meaning to put the phenomenon (or you) down, but: "any claim needs coherent and consequent evidence" [this sentence will be constantly put to criticism every time I read it and I expect this much of any who reads it] [This applys to everything else I've said and will say]
]
I agree. Do I? Do you?

EDIT: in fact, for a law to be called scientific it must, by virtue of its own definition, be attached to a self-actualizing principle; i.e., constantly put to the test. If not, it's just a meme dependant on the vicissitudes of power in the collective history of us.
 
Outside of the previous bubble, that is, of [the supposed] objective existence. I think we are talking about god, that is, the subconscious and here we play by certain other rules among them NOT by the sense of truth. Here, in psyche, you do stuff and then some other stuff comes out. And as long as you know in which realm are you, its fine to play as long as you want with its constituents [otherwise, as I've said before, its just plain schizophrenic behavior]. I'm telling you how I play with my subconscious, that is all. I'm not making any claim at all, except the skeptical one.

I think it would be interesting to see if there was link between psychedelic use and "seeing the Gorrila", hypnotism would be another one to try.

This is very interesting, go ahead! Reminds me of what zen dudes called "every minute zen" where you can't help but observe in utmost detail, everything that goes around you. I have been conducting similar ones, where I try to see [focus] things that are out of my [usual] focused area of the [my] visual field.
 
Absoutely! thats it Nomada, the process we use in science is self referencing, I wish more people *would* understand that instead of following science like a religion, its the criteria of adequecy that really makes a theory "good" and not just a dogmatic unquestionable "fact":

what I mean is to what level does the theory have:

1) Consistency: less contradictions the better

2) Scope: how many phenomena are explained

3) Simplicity / *Reduction : the less untested assumptions the better. The less fundemental entities used the better (occam's razor).

4) Conservativism: how much existing knowledge is kept with the new theory (more kept the better).

5) Fruitfulness: the more avenues of research opened the better.

^thats what science really boils down to at the end of the day.

I was careful not to say "no, your wrong, psychic ability is a load of rubbish" because I know ful well that our understanding is constantly shifting as new theories areswapped for old, perhaps I should have been clearer.

Do you work in science / philosophy nomada, or just well read on the subject?

[edit] *Reduction not deduction (was typo)
 
1) Consistency: less contradictions the better

Not necessarily, in the context of the self-actualizing principle contradictions will arise. Thus, contradictions must be taken into account. For example, in Marxist theory "tension" and "conflict" are never negative-that is, that you must avoid-principles, they just are, and any social structure prepared for anything most take into account that we are all both different and alike-for example.

Scope: how many phenomena are explained

Then again, not necessarily: how many phenomena are explained vs. what was initially intended to be explained and understood. You may just want to understand, from a particular perspective, how certain, for example, species of orchids develop reproductive patterns and it's fine, you don't want to explain the consistency of the cosmos. That there may be inherent contradictions with other scientific constructions its fine, and that would have to be resolved in an appropriate way.

Simplicity / Deduction: the less untested assumptions the better.

why?

The less fundamental entities used the better (occam's razor).

I particularly don't like Occam's construction. I think its because he's too medieval for me or something. Better: "The less fundamental entities used the better" vs. "how many entities are needed for a successful provisional explanation" in which case the opposite is as valid as the initial: The MORE fundamental entities used the better. My version of the Occam's razor comes without the "fundamental" adjective...don't know though...

Conservativism: how much existing knowledge is kept with the new theory (more kept the better).

No. how much existing knowledge is kept with the new theory is in direct function to the results of the experiment, not a nostalgic sentiment that we want to keep some of the old and now questionable past. "more kept the better" why? why? ...the function IS epistemology.

Fruitfulness: the more avenues of research opened the better.

Again, in function of epistemology and/or human needs.
 
Pariah a dit:
what I mean is to what level does the theory have:

1) Consistency: less contradictions the better

2) Scope: how many phenomena are explained

3) Simplicity / *Reduction : the less untested assumptions the better. The less fundemental entities used the better (occam's razor).

4) Conservativism: how much existing knowledge is kept with the new theory (more kept the better).

5) Fruitfulness: the more avenues of research opened the better.

^thats what science really boils down to at the end of the day.

O_ops! Where you being ironic!? :shock:

I'm now doubting because those 1), 2), 3), 4), 5) are inconsistent with:

Pariah a dit:
the process we use in science is self referencing, I wish more people *would* understand that instead of following science like a religion, its the criteria of adequecy that really makes a theory "good" and not just a dogmatic unquestionable "fact":
 
Hehe, I was trying to to demonstrate how much more flimsy our understanding is with the criteria of adequecy, but I guess I'll try to go into *why* they're "good."

I should also note that the use of these criteria aren't exclusive of each other, or meant to be overall rules for rejecting theories like you said, just because a theory has inconsistency doesn't mean it must be regected.

Here's an oversimplified example: say there are 2 theories that are identical, apart from the fact that one harbours inconsistency (when talking about inconsistency I refer to contradictions, be it with the data it's supposed to explain or self contradiction), it makes sense to me to put the one with less contradiction forward as the "better" one of the two because there's more reason to believe its false.

The example of uncovering inconsistency that springs out to me is socrates discussing piety with a guy taking his father to court because he thought it was "what the gods wanted"...

(see paragraph on "second definition"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro


I think we might be misunderstanding eachother slightly,I probably should have included that its to do with balancing one theory against another, not saying "a theory is no good if you can't explain the universe with it" (is this what you thought I was saying?).

For balancing a theory of orchid reproduction the exaggerated example would go something along the lines of: one theory explains the reproductive patterns of all orchids, the other explains the patterns of just one of them, but are equally matched in other respects.

"the less untested assumptions the better."

"why?"

an assumption is the thing you take forgranted for the theory to hold, the more untested assumptions, the less "safe" a theory is:

why make an assumption if it isn't required to explain a phenomen?

I would agree that simplicity is one of the weaker ideas presented, and occam's razor can be over used if you don't take other things into account from the criterea, but I'd say still useful if balancing two similar theories.

Conservatism is included for a very good reason, an example:

If you find a theory that explains our ability to see, through the idea that light is the absence of dark, not the other way round, then you throw out all we know about electromagnetic radiation - putting us back to square one where modern technology is concerned - I got taught this as the "dark sucker theory", where lights did't emit radiation, they "sucked dark" I don't know if its widely taught, but its a fun idea thats very memorable... anyway, you could argue that this is the case with psychic phenomena - accepting psi in its traditional form seems to throw space/time in the bin.

ofcourse there is a little "give" where conservativism is concerned: just because you lose some knowledge doesn't condemn a theory, there may be benefits where scope and simplicity are concerned.


Fruitfulness is a good one if you think of the amount of fruitful avenues brought about by the current theory of DNA.



Anyway, are we on the same track now? Maybe I'm not understanding what your saying, if so let me know. I think where we've gone awry is that I should have specifically stated its a method of balance, not exclusive treatment of theories.

*sigh* a little off track there but hey.

Going back to the "gorilla test" It does run into practical problems: you need oblivious participants (which now excludes everyone whose read this :P), who don't mind taking psychedelics, as well as a control group. tricky, but doable with enough organisation i'd say.
 
the problem with this is that is a matter of belief... even science is nowadays for many a matter of belief which is kind of ridiculous, but then... science is in the traditional meaning just the finding out how it works with sometimes theories how it works in between the process of having the evidence that it works like that (or not)...

so i might say some phenomena might be observed but yet not believed, althought having observed them and therefore having the evidence of the phenomena being real... but the paradox remains .... if you don't believe it you will try to find an explanation or just take an explanation that is offered to you...

i mean the fact that someone does not know how exactly it works or well at least how it could be possible that it works could interfere with beliefs that are strongly present in you and a part of you and denying these beliefs would be denying yourself depending on how strong you make yourself dependant on these beliefs... maybe you see that i am pointing to inner conflicts that might arouse when struggling against ones own false proven beliefs (if thats the case)...


well of course this doesn't applies to all people but to many and i might say the least to open-minded psychonauts :P


the weirdest thing that happened to me which i even now can't really believe, because my mind can't grasp the concept or whatever lying underneath it was when i was in thailand and one day in the morning i was walking through chiang mai ... it was 10 in the morning i went to an internet cafe and i was only 20 minutes or so in there and afterwards i just went for a walk because it was a nice day and like maybe 15-20 minutes later i went into a 7/11 (supermarket) to get somethin to eat.
after that it got fucked up, because it was suddenly 5 'o clock.... i can assure you i was perfectly aware of what i had been doing in this day as i described everything that happened before in this day... it was really weird that it was in fact like 5 hours or so later, because i could see the sun going down and it was in a different spot obviously...but i hadn't done anything special in that time nor was i standing somewhere without noticing for 5 hours or something like that lol....
well i was in a weird mindset in that time, but especially because of that i was more aware of everything than at any other time so it can't be that i was maybe too confused or something to be aware of what was actually happening, but after this i was really confused indeed... and i wasn't on drugs ... i had smoked some weed in the night before but still...

also other strange things happened to me in that trip to thailand, but that probably would take too long to write it all down :P


peace
 
I must correct myself in regards to Ockham's cutting instrument. I was working traducing some of the original version of the core aphorism, don't know if by chance [:P], last week:
"non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necesitate"
Goes:
"Entities [not only of the causal species] are not multiplicated without necessity"
The necessity is the function of the linguistic apparatus, it can be anything, in the case of science it could be a coherent [conceptual] articulation [explanation] of [the supposed] reality.
Thus conversively "the number of entities are not diminished without necessity" is a logical conclusion to the initial aphorism.

well of course this doesn't applies to all people but to many and i might say the least to open-minded psychonauts

I've heard skepticism is the beginning of every [coherent] belief. :)
Thailand must be madness...
 
yes the madness from the west has reached thailand as well, sadly, but some people there are still really the most chilled out and friendly people you could imagine...

nomada what are you driving to ??? :P i'd rather say there doesn't always lie skepticism in the beginning of every coherent belief... it is more like the skepticisim would be there until the point of really believing... but of course real believing is seldom and therefoe it seems always like a mix of skepticism and belief.

peace
 
Psyolopher a dit:
Well i dont usually share this, but i think im psychic!
It is in my bloodline, and i have enough evidence for myself that there deff is something going on that i cant understand!
My mother for an example, knows stuff before i do them!
Even if i met a blonde chick downtown, she knows about it!
HOW?!?!?!
She's into this tarot thing(Which never made any sense to me)

Anyway, so yeah....
I see Auras on people and living things, and they become more clear when i smoke cannabis or do drugs!
After Hawaiian baby woodrose, i've become extremely aware of some kind of energy flowing through living things(and not living things)!
For an example, like stones....and tree's(esp tree's, i sense great amount of energy from there)

I can read people extremely well, I see deep through thier eyes!
And its not entirly connected through Cold reading or NLP!
I dont manipulate the conversation so i can be right on my analysis!
I can tell people i meet(if i can really look into it), deep things that they never shared with anyone!
Call me crazy, but everytime im in this mood!
IM AWAYS RIGHT!
That 'reading' development has not much to do with psychedelics directly, but as i become more aware of myself!
There more i become aware of the other person, it has something to do with letting myself go and to recieve info that i cant describe, i just express it first hand!

Other thing, that when I was a child i believed that i saw dead people are spirits as some people like to call them!
I am aware of many spirits around me, but I dont see them!
I can get information out of them, but its hard!

Buuut. dont get me wrong!
I critize this, because im no new age neo-hippy!
I cant even understand this myself, but this is in me!
And its hard to share this with somebody, because the majority of people havent experienced this!

Psychedelics do create more stuff to think about, but in a way i think it has played a good role on getting to know this better!

So in a way, im in a constant battle!
Because, if im wrong and all of this i take to be the truth is insanity!
Then, im just insane creating stuff that isnt there?
How come im right most of the time(And my family)?!

Yeah, im abit drunk....but i believe in honesty, and i believe that there should be no line of it!
So, dont be to judgemental on me because i cant even understand it myself
(btw im Agnostic)

I have psychic abilites too, mostly empathic. I also see auras like you describe, however there is no color involved, it is just an energy field. I have also had telepathic experiences following the thought dialog and emotions that go along with it when under the influence of LSD. Psychedelics definately can expand these abilities, but I am of the opinion that you have to have them first, hence why we have so many skeptics. Many people have not experienced these kind of things because they don't have these abilites, therefore they are skeptical. If you experience them yourself however, there is no room for skepticism. If I skeptically looked at my own experiences and tried to convince myself that they were not real it would be like convincing myself that I have no sense of sight, or sound. It is a sense and I live with it day in and day out. It is not sporatic, it is consistent. However it is definately amplified with psychedelics.

I sense entities on psychedelics, but have not been able to communicate with them. Well, actually, I did once after 150 micrograms of LSD, but that was a mistake. They were liars, not too pleasant.

If you have these abilities I would recomend a little excersize that I do. See if you have the abiliy to feel the landscape around you with your sense. For example, if you are on a road trip see if you can feel the mountains, the plains, your physical surroundings. Then close your eyes. See if you can sense the changing landscape without looking. Have a friend there to tell you if you are right. Or, what I do is just take a peek every once in a while. This experience may suprise you. You can sense what you focus your attention on.

It may sound like some kind of jedi trick but in my opinion it strengthens the ability to focus on the state of mind that allows this perception. Once it is strong, there is no room for skepticism.
 
Thanks Skah, that was really interesting!
I've never tried this before, but i certainly FEEL the landscape but in terms of creativity!
I do music, and i try to create vision for the blind in a way!

So, yeah I'm gonna try this out!
And thanks a lot for the comment about skepticism....I really needed to read that!

Btw, i havent read alot of previous posts....But will tomorrow!
 
"the number of entities are not diminished without necessity"

Sounds about right if I'm reading it correctly. Is there any reason for focusing on the opposite of multiplication, or is it just to demonstrate that it works both ways / the importance of necessity?



Here's a question I'd like to throw out to everyone:

How would *you* explain Psi (how do you think it works)?



Also wondered:

To those that see auras:

Can you see auras without being aware with your other senses: if an object was behind a screen can you still see its aura, can you tell whether something is living or inanimate without any other evidence that might suggest either way?

The discriptions always sound a lot like synesthesia to me (but with living / inanimate or facial features etc. instead of musical input)... but maybe thats just my skeptical side kicking in again...
 
i would explain psi by the interconnectedness of all things. there are also aspects of everything that one cannot perceive, yet they are there. like electromagnetical fields, but they are just a part of it. and then the appliance of psi is: being able to be aware of the connection and "flowing" through it.
basically you could see it as a form of projection of your mind into other things.
i think on some psychadelics this might happen spontaneously... for example after smoking salvia, a friend said he "had been" the couch....

peace :weedman:
 
psi is metamind and it's mind [and thus metamind] and objective ramifications [notice for a start, this is a loop]
metamind is: operate to infinity {[[ mind - universe ] - mind ]}
you get something like: ...{...{{{{{{{{M-U}-M}-M}-M}-M}-M}-M}-M}-M}-M}...}...

Yet: [ psi C metamind ], that is, metamind contains psi but not necessarily backwards. Since any human activity can be made meta: music, paint, sculpture, social complexes, cultural complexes, politics, poems, novels, phylosophy.
Psi usually refers to metamind that puts into question what is regarded as true within [the inherently schizophrenic] cultural boundaries. It's a nominal debate, use any name you want. But whatever you say, be sure to sail the mind to where the water falls into the violet expanse where sacred and utter confusion lies. But whatever you say, be sure to sail the mind to where the water falls into the violet expanse where sacred and utter crystal vision lies. But whatever you say, be sure to sail the mind to where the water falls into the violet expanse where being and not being is the same. [whatever you do, ignore what I've just said]

metamind's giratory wings is the coalescing of being and not being.
White bones under black sky.
 
Wow. :)

In the hopes of getting energy better directed, I'll share my own observations, and conclusions about this whole process I see happening here...

If you dont want to end up like Thomas Aquinas, spending years trying to explain the Trinity, and failing, you'll reconsider a few things!

First, the notion of "Psi" is both ancient and nascent.. and it is ineffable. What that means is we simply do not have the tools to understand it at the moment, at the level of language and the reasoning mind. It is like the old idea of limited understanding.. if a dog is confronted with a refrigerator, what does he understand about it? It is cold inside, and there is a light in it, and it makes a humming noise sometimes. No matter how long he sits in front of the refrigerator, his dog brain simply does not have the ability to Reason how HVAC works, the properties of refrigerants and compressors, electricity, and so on.

It is the same for us, and "Psi". Call it what you will ... metamind ... collective unconscious ... God. For us it is ineffable. Today.

So, secondly, what we CAN do is determine how to use it, the rough parameters of it, the edges of it... but not WHAT it is. Once we think we have found something, and start down the long path of reasoned madness, we truly enter the rabbit hole.

Not only that, but it is subjective in many respects, so what works for one, may not work for another. Also, although experiment is king, we have no way of knowing all the influencing factors since we do not understand the underlying mechanisms. So successes may not be reproducible.

I'd strongly suggest that if you really do want to discover more in this realm, you stay away from trying to discern WHAT it is, and rather focus on HOW it works, through observation and experience. Like the dog that learns how to open the refrigerator, it may give you access to new things.

However, if you tread the path of reasoned madness, you'll end up wondering what you have really accomplished. I put a few questions to a numerologist that flustered her to no end, for example: "Ok..I understand that, however WHY do you multiply here? Why not divide? Subtract? Square root? What is the fundamental rule that governs these things and from where does it come? And why doesn't numerology use calculus or analytical math? Why always just variations on addition and never integration and power rules? Doesn't the field ever advance?" There are many pat answers, but none of them actually tell you WHY. Only that somebody, at some point, decided that such and such an operation was significant, often after experiencing some success using it in their circumstance.. but no real reason ever appears except "somebody tried it a few times" and then over the years rules were built up around it. Tracing it back leads to some person in the late 1800s, who based their work around "pythagorean mysteries", and so on.

There is truth in the old work, but when you realize that they knew much less than we do about the physical world, you have to see that words wont work here, and we have to quest for the experience that defines the magic. Then we can talk about it.

How do you explain tripping to someone who hasn't tripped? Answer: You cant, not really. They have no context.

Seek the mysteries! Just don't get caught up in blind alleys! Do things which improve yourself and your intuitive mind, like meditation/contemplation and you will have a much better chance at realization. Use your experiences to guide others into their own personal realizations, and remember.. you cant actually explain it to them, or to anyone else. Even fellow travelers.

Like Morpheus said, " Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. "
 
Pariah a dit:
Also wondered:

To those that see auras:

Can you see auras without being aware with your other senses: if an object was behind a screen can you still see its aura, can you tell whether something is living or inanimate without any other evidence that might suggest either way?

The discriptions always sound a lot like synesthesia to me (but with living / inanimate or facial features etc. instead of musical input)... but maybe thats just my skeptical side kicking in again...

See is the improper word. It is a sense other than sight, hearing, feeling, taste, or smell. It is probablly closer related to feeling than seeing. People give off a vibe, it is unique with each invidual, and it changes when their focus is changed, their mood, etc. It is not like looking at someone and saying, oh, I see your aura, its blue!!
 
So its psychelogical . And what you are saying is your opinion of a psychelogical phenomenon .

Have you sought medical advice and been examined ? If so what was the diagnosis ?
 
I know a person who sees auras too...
I myself have learned, studying science, more than tripping, that everything is connected and patterns can be observed, consciously and not. we have a natural affinity for patterns and some minds are more aware of these patterns than others, it's definitely connected with NLP, even though not strictly.

GOD your quest for taking down bullshit is often irritating, though i agree with you on trying to hunt it down. if you see people getting too excited about something, don't go and break it to them, learn to appreciate "anormality"
 
Retour
Haut