According to the entheogen theory of religion: religion is essentially rooted in the experience of intense psychedelic tripping, the world religions consist of collections of stories which serve as metaphorical descriptions of psychedelic experiences (in particular the experience of mystical death and rebirth/ressurection/transformation).

This theory fits with the scientific evidence that entheogenic drugs trigger mystical/religious type experiences when they are administered in an appropriately conducive setting (the recent Johns Hopkins psilocybin study concluded this).

It would be interesting to get the atheist take on this theory, the issue here isnt religious beliefs (such as the belief in God) but rather religious/mystical/transcendent experiences of the kind that people commonly experience under the influence of entheogenic/psychedelic substances.

Views: 3717

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Gallup: "It only "makes sense" if you blow your brains out on psychedelic drugs. For anyone who does exactly that and still knows it's woo-woo: it means you haven't done enough drugs."

I'm saying that the "entheogen theory of religion" can be considered as a plausible possibility even if a person hasn't taken psychedelics. This idea doesn't "only make sense" if you take the "heroic dose" of a psychedelic. So, it's not a "No True Scotsman fallacy," although people often confuse it with that.

You described to me in the McKenna thread a psychedelic experience you claimed you had with some of your friends after a mountain hike, Gallup, and from your description, I believe you were definitely at the very edge of this experience, although I wouldn't consider what you've described a breakthrough to the classical mystical experience, the boundary dissolving "ego death" experience which is what these things are truly capable of.

It's not ultimate woo, because it can be tested and Dr. Rick Strassman has done this by intravenously injecting volunteers with pure N,N-Dimethyltryptamine and recorded his research in his book "DMT: The Spirit Molecule." There's a passage entitled "Under the Influence" where he discusses that the full-blown psychedelic effects do not occur until a certain threshold dose range is administered. Lo and behold, when people are given the "threshold" dose, they experience a topos of universality.

So, you can argue the evidence, if you'd like, Gallup, but I don't think you've really gone into this deeply enough. I think I could point out certain things to you that would be interesting, because you see, these entheogens are something that you have to learn how to use just as you would learn how to use a microscope. There's a certain technique to it, supposing you're a biologist or bacteriologist, you've got to learn the art of using the instrument.

The parallels between eastern mysticism and M-Theory were part of Michael Talbot's interpretation of the mystical altered state. I attributed it to Talbot, and yet you've incorrectly intertwined Talbot's claim as though it's something I claimed in that post in regards to what I said about the theory not having to only make sense if one has had the psychedelic experience. That's just one person's interpretation of the experience, and why did you make that twist there? You seem to be fabricating woo where there is none.

What I clearly stated if you review my post is that the Entheogen theory of religion in which this thread points to does not require you to take psychedelics for it to "make sense." It seems you're misinterpreting what I've said and finding new was to restate your argument, but fail to acknowledge the evidence.

The evidence is in the book, and Strassman makes a point that the psychedelic effects did not reliably emerge until a certain dose range was administered. I posted a link to a .pdf of the book that's contained in the title of the book in my previous post if you want to satisfy yourself. So, dose range does matter when it comes to eliciting the full-throttle psychedelic effects, and with Strassman's findings, I think it would be pretty much pointless to argue that in light of evidence.

What I meant by "topos of universality," is that when various people were given the threshold dose, the psychedelic effects that occurred contained thematic imagery and universal archetypes, and so when the volunteers described their experience, a lot of their metaphors were overlapping with each other, because the experience itself elicits a phenomenon in consciousness that isn't necessarily a projection of the personal unconscious, it is instead often described as an impersonal or transpersonal experience, hence why I believe it has even become to be called "ego death."

So, this is definitely not a case of "No True Scotsman," because you claimed in the McKenna thread that the psychedelic experience you had after hiking the mountain was the last psychedelic experience you had, and I maintain you had a sub-threshold dose relative to the full-blown psychedelic experience. And I believe Strassman has thoroughly established the point that there is a physiological threshold that must be exceeded in order to even elicit the boundary-dissolving, reality-obliterating, mind-boggling, ego-shattering, category-reconstructing full-blown psychedelic experience.

So, you can phrase it anyway you'd like, "getting properly fucked up on drugs," "threshold dose," "physiological barrier," it's all the same thing, and I do believe that exceeding the threshold to induce the experience is necessary to have an inkling of what the experience is like, it's necessary to the understanding of the experience, just as it would be necessary to have an orgasm to truly know what that experience is like, but it's not necessary to undergo the psychedelic experience in order to consider the theory.

No Jimmy, that's just you, cornered, and lying in an attempt to disown and obfuscate what you posted: an incoherent mixture of your own woo-woo, the woo-woo of others, and a dash of incorrectly applied scientific terminology. 

Go back and read the post. I wasn't lying. I was merely giving an account of Talbot's interpretation of experience. The concept came from his book, but you seem to be accusing me of taking credit for the concept. In that paragraph, I only mentioned Michael Talbot's book and the concept behind it. 

Nothing you've stated is clear. There is no evidence. There is no Entheogen theory. 

Here's a link to Hoffman's website where he expounds quite thoroughly on this theory.

How exactly do we test that people on drugs are actually "experiencing" 11 dimensions, or whatever that crap is you want to call it, let alone explain how it's happening? By what means do we test how religion originated with psychedelic drugs?

It's been shown by John Smythies, Alexander Shulgin, and others that there are quantum mechanical correlates to hallucinogenesis. In other words, if one atom on the molecular ring of an inactive compound is moved, the compound becomes highly active. To me this is a perfect proof of the dynamic linkage at the formative level between quantum mechanically described matter and mind. However in order to prove something like Talbot's claim, I think, we'd first would have to have a grip on what consciousness is, and as of today, neuroscience is basically a shot in the dark in describing consciousness. Talbot, if you'd read the book, points out similarities in the notion of "Brahman" of Hinduism and the M-theorist's concept of "11 dimensional hyperspace." He's not the first to point out these parallels. Maybe you've read "The Tao of Physics"? It is speculation, but I find it a fascinating interpretation. 

Brahman and String Theory

Psychedelics and Surprises

So you're NOT telling us here that we can't understand this "theory" without undergoing your alien mushroom mind wipe? Please, Jimmy. It's amusing when you embarrass yourself, but probably not to you.

Yes, that's right. That's what I've been clearly articulating within the last few posts here that you needn't have the psychedelic experience in order to consider a theory like this. I think I've made that abundantly clear by now.

You claim this is "evidence" for the positions you are presenting: that religion originated with drugs, that one has religious/mystical experiences on drugs, and one is "guaranteed" to have this experience if a "barrier" is exceeded.

It cannot be explained, tested, or falsified based on the way you present it. There is no science involved.

No, I said the there's quite obvious evidence that psychedelics, in order to elicit the full-spectrum of effects, do require a specific dose range that must exceed a physiological threshold. This has been tested, and I even have given you a link to Strassman's book and the chapter which contains the threshold dosage which is necessary to induce psychedelic effects. I never said that there's evidence for the Entheogen theory itself, it's only a speculation that has been discussed in various forms. As I mentioned before, Huxley proposed this very idea in his book "Perennial Philosophy," likewise Richard M. Bucke discussed the same theory in his book "Cosmic Consciousness." It's nothing new, but the most contemporary form has been Michael Hoffman's angle which he does title "Entheogen theory of religion."

I didn't say the dose didn't matter. I said I didn't have a mystical/religious experience.

Okay, now you're changing around what you've said. You tried to imply earlier that the dose didn't matter, and that was the whole reason for your "No True Scotsman" accusation. Now, that I've given you evidence that it does, in fact, matter, you can no longer argue that anymore. I know you didn't have a mystical experience, because what you described in the McKenna thread was a typical of a sub-threshold dose. So, at this point, to accuse me of falling victim to a "No True Scotsman" fallacy would be ludicrous.

Woo woo.

This was your response to my phrase "topos of universality," but if you'd actually read through Strassman's book, you'd find it's not woo-woo. The entire book is fraught with these universalities and overlapping ubiquitous motifs. 

You do realize that's still a no true scotsman fallacy, don't you?

Of course you don't.

It's absolutely not, and I've thoroughly explained why it's not, but if you want to keep persisting it is, then indulge yourself with that non sequitur. I believe the more this thread develops, the more you embarrass yourself. So, have at it.

So how many prof/grad students that study M-theory are also heavy drug users? A few I expect, but I also expect that one does not 'need' DRUGS to do the work, but only a good clear mind. If you are some super-person, while on drugs, but otherwise 'no-one-special', off drugs, is this about an internal self perception, or are the results subject to peer review? If your brain is mush, I expect that the results would be just more of the same! Ever experienced 'word salad' from some of the mentally disturbed? It can be very interesting... 

I said you claimed it's necessary to blow your brains out (with psychedelic drugs being the recommended method) to understand the entheogen "theory" of religion, which you are now denying.

I'm not denying that, I simply never said that, because I don't believe it's necessary for someone to use psychedelics in order to consider this theory. It's merely a concept or theory to mull into consideration. Why would you need psychedelics to mull over an idea? That's absurd and imbecilic. Now, what I did say that it's necessary to have this experience to have a better understanding of what this experience involves in and of itself and I'll give you a prime example of what happens when one doesn't have a direct experience. I posted the concept of "mystical experiences" resting at the origins of religion at "", but I didn't give it the title of "Entheogen theory of religion," and I got a follow up post which I'll quote below.

 The mystical experience is very much a feature of Homo sapiens. There exists a sense of wonder, just seeing water turn into ice or gas, or watching sunrises and sunsets, or the different features of the sky! Then, when one observes birth and death, a more mystical event does not exist as far as I am concerned. None of these involves a god/s. Nature, with all its diversity, presents wonder upon wonder.

So, you see, if someone has never had a "mystical experience," then this is basically the kind of conjuration one gets when they try and imagine what a "mystical experience" may be. In this post, the person is equating a "mystical experience" with the experience of watching a sunset or the emotional feedback one experiences in witnessing birth and death. You see, the "mystical experience" or "ego death" experience is of a different phenomenon altogether. It's instead better described as a colossal altered state of consciousness usually accompanied by intense hallucination. So, as you can see in the example of the post, if you're not familiar with this phenomenon by direct experience, you may be inclined to misinterpret it completely. And she's not the only one, I've had over and over the experience of attempting to describe what this experience truly involves, and eventually I found that it's thankless task. After all, when you have many people attempting to describe this experience by using terms like "four-dimensional" and "beyond dimensionality," this is not painting a comprehensible picture for the person who's never had this experience, you see. Now, hopefully I've cleared that up for you, Gallup, because you want to keep insisting on accusing me of something I didn't say.

 If there's no evidence, then as I said, Entheogen "theory" is not a scientific theory; it cannot be explained, tested, or falsified scientifically. So we're done here.

I wouldn't necessarily say that there's no evidence. That website I directed you to actually points out multiple instances of archaeological evidence of the use of psilocybin-containing mushrooms in ancient times when some of these religions were just getting traction.

No, that's you lying again. I said it's a no true scotsman because your 'guaranteed experience' claim cannot possibly be falsified: anyone who does not describe his experience as religious/mystical has not had enough, no matter what the dosage. I took more than a 'heroic dose' and was an atheist (albeit a fucked up one) throughout the trip. That is not me saying the dose does not matter, that is you saying the dose does not matter. No scotsman who has TRULY had enough would not have had a religious/mystical experience: so take MORE.

When you described your experience, you said you took a "fist-full" and so how can you be sure that you had the "heroic dose"? You do realize that even if you were to take the dose range that Terence recommends, it's well over multiple handfuls, don't you? I mean, there's so many factors involved, and even if you took it in the fashion Terence suggests, you would have had to do it on an empty stomach. There's also the factor of potency, etc. And you even took the time to describe your experience and judging by the details of your experience, I would say that it was definitely sub-threshold, but not meagerly sub-threshold. I believe you may have been at the brink of this experience, but I maintain by the evaluation of your account that it was definitely not the full-spectrum hit. 

Alan Watts speaks about the use of Psychedelics

You've done no such thing. You write content-free gibberish and assign it a meaning that it simply does not have, or a conclusion that does not follow the premise, and then attack me falsely for doing what you yourself are doing; citing nonsensical "parallels" between acid trips and M-theory, referring to baseless speculation as a "theory", and "thoroughly explaining" why it's not a no true scotsman to modify an assertion to automatically exclude any case which falsifies it. 

You see, this goes back to what I pointed out in the post which I've copied and pasted from the "". Just as that person interpreted the "mystical experience" through the lens of her own eisegesis, likewise you've done exactly the same. Only you didn't equate the "mystical experience" to witnessing a sunset as the AtheistNexus user did, but you've interpreted as "woo." This is because neither of you have had the experience, and so obviously you really don't know what to think about it. That's why, again, I insist that the experience is necessary in order to understand what it's about.

Inability to accept the mystic experience is more than an intellectual handicap. Lack of awareness of the basic unity of organism and environment is a serious and dangerous hallucination. For in a civilization equipped with immense technological power, the sense of alienation between man and nature leads to the use of technology in a hostile spirit---to the "conquest" of nature instead of intelligent co-operation with nature. -Alan Watts

Oh, I'm quite sure you do believe that, and quite sincerely at at that. You believe all sorts of crackpot things, Jimmy. I'm sure, in your flip-flopped mind, you're not seen as a quasi-religious crackpot with a destroyed mind, lacking the ability to think and reason clearly, and who finds God and religion in psychedelic drugs. You're an intellectual Napoleon, leaving a trail of embarrassed, vanquished foes in your wake.

No, I don't see myself as quasi-religious nor do I believe that I've "destroyed my mind," because despite the fact that I do speak about these topics obsessively, I've only had a handful of these so-called "ego death" experiences. It's not something you return to right away or that's addicting.You will literally spend the rest of your days ever afterward mulling it over and if you ever do return to it, you really have to have a chat with yourself before you eventually chicken out. You know, Terence McKenna once mentioned a friend of his who claimed he had a vile of DMT which he was saving for his grandchildren to able to use one day when they were old enough, and Terence replied, "But you're not even married!" Lol. The point being that this is not an endeavor that you engage in every few weeks or months. If anyone is using something like DMT twice or thrice a year, then they're abusing it. And I don't "believe" these ideas, I put them into consideration and some I even believe to be plausible. If they're crackpot ideas, then I'll simply discard them.

Bukkake on, Jimmy. Your entertainment value is the reason I come to TA. (No pun intended.)

Sure, if I'm going to do it, I may as well go out in the ejaculatory fashion of Peter North on all the trolls of the thread.

No, that's you lying again. I didn't say you claim one needs psychedlic drugs to consider your woo-woo. (Indeed, any drug-free folks who express their "pointless" thoughts and opinions are showing they have considered it.) I said you claim one needs psycheledic drugs to understand your woo-woo crap about religion, drugs and m-theory. And you do.

I can definitely stand by what I've said. Just take a look at this thread, it's a fine example. Does this thread seem fruitful to you towards unbias and open-minded opinions toward it? I'd wager not. I mean, to truly judge it, I believe one must experience it. Otherwise, it takes a great deal of open-mindedness to really consider what's being laid out here. Of course, you don't want to be so open-minded that the wind whistles between your ears, but open-minded enough to really take into consideration what is being claimed here. Take your own example. You haven't really considered any of this, you just keep repeatedly saying "woo" and posting Looney Tunes clips.

Describe a sunset to a blind man. Describe a symphony to a deaf woman. Describe being fucked up on drugs to someone who has spent a lifetime being sober. The inability to do these things, or getting wasted on drugs or not, means exactly dick as scientific evidence regarding the entheogen "theory" of religion or the "parallels" between m-theory and eastern mysticism.

Well, this is precisely the problem. That you cannot describe a symphony to a deaf women in the same way that you cannot describe a mystical experience to someone who's never had one. The analogy that you've used here is common amongst those who've had this experience. For instance, I recall someone describing their mystical experience with the analogy of an entire world that is blind, and for a brief moment, he was the only person that could see, then of course, because this experience is usually of a temporal duration, he returns to blindness and of course, cannot describe his experience to others. So, if an atheist, in that world, were to approach him and tell him that this moment of being able to "temporarily see" was simply "woo," he of course is not going to accept that answer.

Zen Monk who undergoes "Satori"

Evidence that psilocybin-containing mushrooms were used in ancient times is not evidence that religions originated with the use of psilocybin-containing mushrooms.

Obviously, shamanic religions such as practiced by Aztecs regarded the mushroom as sacred, they called it "Teonanácatl," which is translated "divine mushroom." So, obviously, there is a connection between psychedelics and religious experience even in ancient times. I don't think it's a big leap to consider that perhaps Jesus, if he was a real person, was simply someone who had undergone a mystical experience that maybe could have happened naturally, likewise the other founders of the major religions, i.e. Gautama and Muhammad, etc. That's why I'm reluctant to call it the "Entheogen Theory of Religion," because that implies that all the founders were using substances. I believe Gautama may have induced it naturally through meditation.

I believe it's very credible that Christ being as human as you and I, who over the course of his life sometime had this experience of "cosmic consciousness" is definitely more plausible than that he was a sole son of a deity who was born through a virgin birth, so forth and so on.

Nothing needed clearing up. You wrote exactly what I said you wrote. I quoted it: "pointless to ask for opinions or thoughts on a theory like this of those who have never had these types of experiences". You were specifically talking about understanding the theory, not understanding the experience of being wasted. Don't hand me this crap that you didn't say that. You did.

You know, Terence McKenna once said something that I whole-heartedly believe, because I've come across it over and over again, and he said that as rationalists, we have no right to expect that this phenomenon exists. He believed that because this phenomenon is so beyond anyone's expectation and understanding whether you're a respected physicist or professor of philosophy, you're still in a way intellectually set-up to doubt it. You're always going to have this kind of skepticism toward it, because nothing can convince you short of having the experience for yourself. I know if I hadn't had it for myself, I would probably be inclined to think there's "woo" involved. So, even aside from all that, most people by virtue of psychedelics' illegal status and the obfuscation of techniques that induce this state, don't know that it exist.

So, you want to pin me with semantics, when I believe you're entirely missing the point. Another thing Terence said that seems to make more and more sense all the time is that there's two types of people: Psychedelic and clueless.

From the looks of the thread and the people who participate it that have not had this experience, i.e. yourself, it may be pointless because up to this point you haven't really said anything about it beyond "woo."

I said I ate half a baseball cap full. That was over 20 years ago, so I don't recall how many mushrooms, but if we were to weigh that volume, I promise you it exceeds McKenna's 5 grams (which is the weight of a nickel).

Terence said that for someone who weighs about 140 lbs, as a general estimation, you'd want to take at least 5 dried grams. So, of course, if you weigh more than 140 lbs, then obviously you'd want to go a little higher. You know, again, half a baseball cap isn't much even if we're talking about 5 dried grams. 5 dried grams would fill an entire baseball cap.

I know exactly what to think about it: I was fucked up on drugs. That's all. Telling me that I don't know that is exactly why, again, you're a looney tune pushing a no true scotsman fallacy. I've done it, Jimmy. Don't insist that I haven't truly done it because I don't buy your ridiculous woo-woo. That's all you're doing.

From all that you've described, from all what you've laid out here on the forum, the evidence points to a sub-threshold dose. You see, there's many factors involved when it comes to something like mushrooms, even if you do have 5 dried grams, if they lack the potency, they're not going to produce the effect. I've had this happen to myself with 5 dried grams, and it was my second time having this experience after about 2 years so I don't believe this was simply some kind of tolerance I had built up. It took me about fifteen to twenty minutes to chew 'em up and eat all of them, but unfortunately, I did not have the full-blown experience. I didn't even get closed-eye visuals (which usually are present within high doses), but only got distortions. So, I believe you simply cannot accept the possibility that you had a sub-threshold dose. That's why I insist that you don't know how to think about this, because like that woman on, you have no experience to draw from to imagine what it's like.

Right. You don't "believe" them. You believe they're plausible. You'll discard them once they're shown to be crackpot ideas. But since they can't be scientifically explained, tested, or falsified, you'll cling to them for the rest of your days. *Wistful sigh* I remember that time I visited the 11th dimension while I was on drugs, like the eastern religious kooks do. I would discard that notion as totally nuts, but fuck it, it's plausible!

You know, there's one endeavor that theoretical physicists engage in wherein that cannot rely on the "scientific method," they instead have to make huge leaps of logic in order to hypothesize, and that is string theory or its culmination M-Theory. So, at the very frontier of science, we arrive at M-Theory, which is basically science's best shot at describing the universe. So, just because something cannot be scientifically tested or falsified, doesn't mean we stop our scientific and theoretical hypothesizing.

If you look closely into notions about M-theory and ideas born out of the mystical experience, such as "Brahman" in Hinduism, there is without a doubt striking similarities. It's as though both the mystic and the physicist have arrived at the same conclusion about the universe. The only difference is that the physicist found his way intellectually to his conclusion while the mystic found his way intuitively to the conclusion. And the difference between the concepts "Brahman" and "11-dimensional hyperspace" is that the mystic uses "Brahman" to also point to an experiential intuition while the physicist points to conceptual model. So, that the physicist only understands "11-dimensional hyperspace" through a conceptual model while the mystic understands "11-dimensional hyperspace" as a direct experience. Look into it, if you'd like. I'd imagine Google has hundreds if not thousands pages on this concept, not to mention the plenty of books that have been written about this stuff. And of course, something like that cannot be proven or disproven (yet), but it is an overwhelming impression in the mystical experience, but of course, if one is unfamiliar with M-Theory, they're of course not going to interpret it through that filter, but if it were described to them, I wouldn't doubt that they could relate.

Poor, Jimmy. You've still got it backward. You argue emotionally, obsessively, and dishonestly. You ARE the troll of the thread.

I do nothing of the sort. I argue rationally, honestly, and perhaps a bit obsessively, but you seem a bit obsessive yourself. However, I believe you argue emotionally and dishonestly, so maybe you ought to consider that it's perhaps you that is the troll. After all, who is this bukkake landing on?

You haven't posted any legitimate scientific evidence to consider. You just keep saying woo and posting looney tunes.

I have, in fact, reference Michael Hoffman's "" website where he goes over tons of archaeological evidence, the Aztec example is one of MANY. Another big one is "soma" in Hinduism, which historians suspect to have been an entheogen of some sort, very likely psilocybin-containing mushrooms. Another powerful example is DMT which does, in fact, produce these type of experiences far more reliably than even psilocybin, and the evidence is piling on of it being omnipresent within nature, including the human brain.

DMT found in pineal gland of rats

It's a gigantic leap. And no matter what size it is, your evidence to support it? None. 

And you said you didn't really believe it. Now you do?

I believe it's quite plausible, yes, and if you actually had taken the time to review the evidence a little more closely rather than just reviewing the little that I've said about it in my posts and attempting to criticize that, you'd find there is plenty more examples other than the religious and shamanic use of entheogens.

No true scotsman. Nothing will convince you I've had "the experience" short of full agreement that it produces the "religious/mystical" experience that you claim it must.

This is definitely not a No True Scotsman fallacy, because there is a physiological threshold, and I pointed towards evidence in that in Strassman's book "DMT: The Spirit Molecule," so I'm not sure why you insist on denying this.

A false dichotomy makes more and more sense to you all the time. 

It's not necessarily a false dichotomy, because people obviously reside on a spectrum. There are people who've never had this type of experience, people who've taken sub-threshold doses of psychedelics (you), and people who've had it either through psychedelics or another type of phenomenon as in the near-death-experience, a stroke as in the case of Jill Bolte Taylor or the natural means as by meditation, etc.

No, that's you lying again. It's easy to find pictures of weighed amounts of mushrooms and subsequently easy to estimate how many would have fit into my inverted baseball cap. My estimate based on the photos I've seen like the one below (which shows 5 grams) and the type of ball cap is at least 20-25 grams.

Oh, my God! Do you actually believe that was a picture of five dried grams? You showed me a picture of basically what looked like three broken stalks and three caps. Now, mushrooms are, of course, different in weight and size, but five dried grams of psilocybin mushrooms usually contains between 15 to 25 caps and stems. That would quite easily fill a baseball cap. Even if you manage to get five dried grams, again, I said there's also the factor of potency. The mushrooms may not even contain the amount of psilocybin that's needed to induce the experience. Again, you DID NOT take a heroic dose, you may have thought you took one, but you, in fact, did not. And I'm not simply judging this by the amount, I'm considering all factors, including your description of it, and I concluded in the McKenna thread that it was definitely sub-threshold.

You don't know what you're talking about, Jimmy. Science requires empirical evidence and falsifiability. All that crap about m-theory, psychedelic drugs, and eastern religions is neither science nor scientific. It's just woo-woo.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you implying that M-Theory is woo-woo? It's obviously science's best shot at describing the universe. What I think a lot of these theories imply is that consciousness cannot be explained without including what these M-theorists are raving about, and plenty of respected theoretical physicists such as David Bohm, Eugene Wigner, etc. have all spoke on the topic of "quantum mind." Since, psychedelics produce a phenomenon in consciousness, I don't believe it's so far-fetched to believe that all these things may be intertwined. So, you have no case in point. I think if you really took the time to study this stuff and examine all the evidence, you'll find that it would point more and more to what I've been saying all along, that what all these religions have been spouting for millennia, etc.

You can take 'honestly' right off that list, Jimmy-boy. You're a liar. First, you opened by saying the brain wipe is necessary to understand the theory, then denied it, and then denied the denial with various forms of dishonesty. (You don't need drugs to justconsider it, Gallup! I meant you need to experience being stoned to understand being stoned, Gallup! I didn't lie, Gallup, YOU just pinned me contextually!

Allow me to rephrase what I've said, because you've obviously taken it way out of proportion, and I'm going to start by quoting one of John's statements, because I'm inclined to agree with it.

You need to take psychedelic drugs in order to know what these kind of experiences are like, but it is still possible to understand to some extent that psychedelic drugs cause religious experiences without ever taking the drugs because there is plenty of testimony and scientific evidence about what the drugs do.

I agree with everything that John has written here, but noticed he added "it's still possible to understand to some extent that psychedelic drugs cause religious experiences without ever taking the drugs," I agree, it could be understood to a certain extent, but in order to truly have a platform from which you can speak about the experience and truly judge it properly, undergoing the experience would give you that. However, I want to add that because psychedelics have been so tainted by the media, by what we've been told by certain anti-drug organizations, it's possible that some people might meet such theories and concepts with great disgust and close-mindedness as to automatically see them as unreliable and regard anything associated with them as "woo." You're a prime example of that. So, obviously there's going to be some people meeting these idea with a little bit of open-mindedness, and other people who are going to flat-out dismiss it as "woo" without even really examining the evidence.

    I'm just a tourist, laughing and taking pictures.

Yeah, you definitely seem content sailing outside near the shore, but why don't you try making your way deep into the jungle?

You have, in fact, referenced crackpot speculation. Hoffman comparing the shape of a table in a Christian painting to a mushroom, or the a halo on a portrait of the Virgin Mary to a mushroom. Hoffman espousinghis "theory" as to why Europeans kept cows:"Suppose in an average region of Europe, a person has a cow in their yard. How many psychoactive mushrooms per year will result, in their yard?" That is not scientific evidence. That is you backing woo by citing more woo.

See, all you're doing is simply acknowledging and only taking into account examples I've mentioned and then attempting to criticize. Do you actually believe that the Aztec example is the only example? Of course, it isn't. As I've mentioned, there is an abundance of evidence. I also mentioned "soma" of Hinduism and the Eleusinian mysteries of ancient Greece. However, I'm not going to do your homework just because you're ignorant on the topic.

No, that's you lying again. I didn't insist on denying there is a threshold dose. I said I exceeded the threshold dose and this falsified your claim that I was guaranteed to have a "religious" experience. It's you who insists on denying this.

This right here is what you call a contradictory statement. You claim that you do not deny that there's a threshold, yet you also want to claim that you had "well over the heroic dose." So, an experience that you somehow clearly recall over "20 years ago" compares to a picture you've obtained through Google images. "Oh, yeah, 20-years-ago I took this big fist-full of psychedelics and I didn't experience much." You do realize that your description of your experience is completely incongruent  with a full-dose experience? 

Yeah, sure Jimmy. Considering all the factors-- especially the ones where you're caught telling a whopper on the dosage and where I didn't have a religious experience-- you hereby conclude that I'm not a true scotsman.

No, I conclude that you didn't receive the full-spectrum dose. As I mentioned that there are plenty of factors, major ones being the potency the of mushrooms as well as the amount, how much sleep you've had, whether or not you eat during the time you take these things, etc., etc. You'll find that some people even when taking 5+ grams do not always succeed into breaking through to a full-spectrum experience, and this could be due to many factors, like I said, the potency of the mushrooms, if they've fasted, the weight of the person can be a contributing factor, etc. But you want to believe that you've "falsified" the threshold dose. This is pure bullshit. No one is invincible to this stuff, if you take the right amount, this stuff is ruthless.

Now, if you had something like DMT, on the other hand, perhaps you'd have a better chance of exceeding the threshold, but you'd probably cough anyway and come back with the same horseshit you're telling me here. Because even with DMT, the ability not to cough makes all the difference between "sunyata" and "try again, Sam."

No, I'm saying your crap about m-theory, psychedelic drugs, eastern religions (and now, quantum mind) is woo-woo, not science.

Again, I have to remind you that I'm presenting the ideas of others, such as David Bohm and Michael Talbot, when it comes to making these obvious connections between eastern philosophy and M-theory, and I happen to agree with their line of thinking. It would surprise me if they hadn't had a type of "ego death" experience. You, on the other hand, I know for a fact you haven't had it, and I know you haven't looked into any of this stuff, otherwise you'd see the quite apparent connections between eastern principles and string theory.

See my reply here.

See my reply here.

My mind is open Jimmy, just not so much that my brains have fallen out.

Are you sure about that? 


That's a burden of proof fallacy. The person presenting the argument owns the homework to support it. If you want to keep presenting it, then do so and cite your sources of information. You've still got Christianity, Islam, Judaism, the ancient Egyptians, the Norse gods, and many, many other pantheons and religions to go.

Don't even get me started in ancient Indian religious practices. I believe it's quite obvious if you examine eastern religions closely, the entire goal is to produce an effect in consciousness, i.e. the samadhi or moksha of Hinduism, 'nirvana' in Buddhism, 'satori' in Zen, 'tao' in Taoism, etc. It's quite obvious that these religions emphasized this phenomenon in consciousness, it was what these religions were obviously all about. I believe any fool can see that.

Christian mysticism contains the phenomenon of 'quietism,' a techinque that is used to induce the "Beatific vision" quite similar to the Buddhist meditation of Japan that's involved in undergoing 'satori' in Zen Buddhism, the Shekhina in Judaism was also a term used by Kabbalist mystics in the description of witnessing the divine, Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, shivering in his cave then receives a divine vision which is quite akin to a classical shamanic experience, St. Paul on the Damascus Road encounters a blinding light which completely alters the direction of his life, the Egyptians used a cornucopia of visionary plants such the hallucinogenic blue water lily and the ancient Egyptian "tree of life" has been recently identified as the Acacia nilotica, a tree which is rich in DMT alkaloids, and so forth and so on if you go back to the source of any of the great religions, you are going to find shamanic experiences. So, please, do not try and accuse me of "shifting the burden of proof," because the evidence is out there, I just don't feel obligated to do your homework.

*Laughing* No, that right there is your brain sputtering. There is no incompatibility between the two statements, Jimmy. One must take a certain amount-- which your boy McKenna himself famously stated was 5 dried grams-- and I took about quadruple that amount.

Like I said before, McKenna's recommendation was a rough estimation for anyone who weighed about 140 lbs, and he often referred to the species Psilocybe cubensis, which is not particularly low in its psilocybin/psilocin ratio, but it isn't necessarily high either. And if you did take "quadruple the amount," like I said, in some cases, if the mushrooms lack the potency, they will not produce the effect. I don't believe your description was congruent to a full-spectrum hit, and I know you didn't take no "20 grams," because your description would have been orders of magnitude different from what you described, and if you did, obviously, you had weak mushrooms.

You're like a cousin of mine who sometimes argues with me that he cannot pass out on alcohol. If anyone drinks enough alcohol, it doesn't matter who you are, you will eventually black out or pass out. Likewise, if you take a sufficient amount of a psychedelic, it will deliver this phenomenon on the money. People aren't invincible to thresholds nor are they impervious to this phenomenon that psychedelics produce. You really want to put your claim to the test that you took a "heroic dose and didn't have a religious experience"? Why don't you try ayahuasca? I doubt you'd be spouting this nonsense, then. Otherwise, you can go ahead and be fooled that you took the "heroic dose" and didn't have such experience.

Again, I have to remind you that you are presenting speculation, not evidence-based science, whether you are originating the idea, parroting the idea, or distorting the ideas of others.

Well, no shit, Sherlock. M-Theory hasn't even been proven yet. Did you know?

Even a cursory review of Bohm's work explains that he presents 'holonomic brain' as conjecture. And guess what! That same overview actually mentions you, Jimmy, in "the misinterpreted adoption of similar ideas by certain pseudoscientific groups, including some quantum mysticists".  And Talbot speculates that m-theory shows the universe is-- I'm trying to keep a straight face here-- a giant hologram. Again, no supporting evidence, no way to test it, no way to falsify it.

I'm not sure what you're interpreting "hologram" as in this context, but I'm quite sure that the picture you're getting is deviating from Talbot's description. You know, Einstein once said, "Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Talbot means "hologram" very similar to the context that Einstein uses "illusion" in that context, but I'm not going to take my time to explain it to someone who's already close-minded to begin with on these topics.

Yeahhhhhh maaaannn, but I think m-theory proves we're all just atoms in the fingernail of a giant, cosmic hippopotamus! Hey, don't Bogart that joint, d00d!

This is further proof that you probably don't understand any of these concepts, let alone the concepts of string theory or the factors involved in exceeding a threshold when dosing.

Thanks for confirming that.

Not religious experiences. 
Not mystical experiences.
Mystical-type experiences.

If you refer to the literature, mystical and religious experience are used synonymously, and I'd wager John's hyphenated phrasing of it is also in congruence.

Then the name contains a built-in assumption fallacy, unless the person who named it also provided scientific evidence that God exists.

If you're going to literally interpret it that way, then you foully misunderstand the argument. Entheogen is also translated as "generating the divine within," because these psychoactive plants and fungi can produce these religious experiences, they can produce a kind of God-like phenomena in consciousness which when people attempt to make sense of all of this, sometimes reach for religious metaphor as in "witnessing God," "one with Brahman," experiencing the "flowing of the Tao," etc., etc. I've seen even atheists undergo this experience and use more kind of mathematical metaphors as in "glimpsing a higher dimension," or the common "one with the universe," etc. In any case, there is an overall sense of transcendence, profoundness, and sense of interconnectedness that accompanies these experiences.


You are shifting the burden of proof, which is exactly what is a burden of proof fallacy. You are presenting the claims, so it's your homework, not mine. The little that you bothered to provide still means dick: you cited no sources of your information. You're also an unreliable and disreputable source of information, given your extensive history of dishonesty, child-like credulity, lack of intellectual rigor, fallacious reasoning, and penchant for pseudo-scientific quackery.

I think only someone like Daffy Duck would use the word "quackery." And it's not "my homework." I mentioned plenty enough evidence, most of which I needn't cite here, because they're well-known facts such as what I said about the acacia tree being highly regarded as sacred by Egyptians, what I said about eastern philosophy surrounding itself and emphasizing altered states of consciousness and what I said of the experiences of various religious figures that are well known in various cultures. The religious figures experiences which depict classical shamanic experiences. I don't think you can deny that. A lot of this stuff is common knowledge to anyone who even dabbles in theology. Google will give you dozens of credible sources for any of that stuff. Like I said, at this point to simply accuse me of "shifting the burden of proof" is just plain lazy! You've got the internet. If you want to satisfy yourself, there's plenty of resources containing the citation you'll need that will confirm the evidence. 

You want me to guide you like a child and conveniently place all the links here for you?

Okay, so the heroic dose McKenna recommended, which I quadrupled, was a rough estimation, and not the right body weight, the wrong species, too low in go-go juice, too high in go-go juice, lacking in potency, just plain weak, and you just KNOW I "didn't take no 20 grams", because my description would have been different from my description. Obviously.

Yes, that's right. Because you see, if you actually had any experience with this stuff and the "ego death" phenomenon, you'd know that what it elicits is an experience that is far removed from any ordinary experience of reality such that experience as you ordinary understand it and perceive it literally becomes unrecognizable and is replaced with something else that is quite incomprehensible wherein you can no longer distinguish yourself from what's going on. After all, it is called "ego death" for a reason, you see. According to your description, you still had a vague sense of reality. Now, I personally do not believe you had taken 20 grams, because any psilocybin aficionado knows that when you raise the dose with psilocybin, it begins to resemble more and more a DMT-like experience. The full chemical name of psilocybin is, in fact, is O-phosphoryl-4-hydroxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine. There's a DMT molecule attached to the compound, so perhaps it's no surprise that the experience becomes more and more DMT-like. This is why I ask people to describe carefully their experience, because having experienced both N,N-DMT and psilocybin, I find it quite easy to gauge one's experience. So, yes, I maintain that you didn't breakthrough to what these things are truly capable of. 

No, you've got it backward. I'm the one saying the shrooms worked. You're the one saying they didn't.

Haha! I know they work, what I'm saying is that they have a vast potential, and they can work at exceedingly greater and greater levels.

Yeah, Daffy. I knew that. Only I was referring to your crackpot woo-woo, not theoretical physics and m-theory, which, as conjecture goes, is old news.

Again, you're referring to what? Apparently, I have to repeat myself over and over before you finally understand. I presented the concepts of Bohm and Talbot, and I said I happen to agree with their concepts. I don't present them as my own concepts which you seem to keep insisting.

No, that's you, still not doing your homework. That's a common misquote of a comment Einstein made after a friend died in March, 1955: "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." (source)

LOL! So, the misquote seems to imply that it wasn't verbatim, because the other translation doesn't deviate from the original meaning. Oh, yeah, you really got me on this one!

Albert explains what he means: simultaneity. There is no "now" because time is relative; a direction in space-time. There's more to it, but then, you know all about it, right Sherlock?

Yes, that's because Einstein was a hard determinist. He saw the universe as an unchanging block quite akin to the notion of Eternalism.

You know what's really funny? Hawking never mentioned psychedelic drugs in The Grand Design or in A Brief History of Time, and neither did Einstein inRelativity, and neither did Krauss in A Universe From Nothing, nor did Neil deGrasse Tyson in Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution, and it never came up in any of the other six or seven books I've read on physics, cosmology and astronomy in the last couple of years. (My reading has drifted away from science and into a history kick lately. Currently: Stalin. On deck: Operation Mincemeat. Before that: The Apollo Missions. Before that: various books about the shuttle missions.) The beating out of brains with serious drugs just doesn't come up as a requisite for grasping any of this stuff.

Hmm.. It's funny. You only mentioned the theoretical physicists and astrophysicists that, in my own reading of their material, don't really explore the concepts of eastern philosophy. Now, if you had mentioned someone like David Bohm, Schrodinger, or Michio Kaku on the other hand, maybe then you would have found instances where this has been pointed out. May I suggest "The Tao of Physics"?

No, that's just you, not knowing what you're talking about. Literal means taking words for their ordinary, factual meaning, which is exactly what I'm doing. There is no "interpretation" involved. Mystical-type does not mean the same thing as mystical, and if it does, then why the hyphen and the distinction? If it's a failure to communicate, foully or otherwise, then it's the fault of the communicator, not the one he was trying to communicate with.

No, this is you just continually trolling by obfuscating the matter. Mystical-type would obviously mean of the nature of a mystical experience. Besides, I said you literally interpreted "entheogen," which I've already typed a response to.

What the fuck, Daffy. Now you're saying one can have a mathematical experience? Are you now modifying your "guarantee" that one will undergo areligious or mystical experience to make room for scientific minds?

No, Porky, I said they interpret through mathematical metaphor. In other words, it's quite common that you'll hear descriptions of this experience described with such terms as "fourth dimensional" or "beyond dimensionality," because as I said, when a person tries to make sense of this experience of "ego death," words can scarcely say what it is. It's as though what this experience does can’t be downloaded into as low dimensional a language as English.

I've said it all along: I didn't have a religious experience. I would call it a scientific experience of the mind, in that a powerful drug drastically altered my thinking, perceptions, consciousness, and sense of self, but I did not feel the slightest bit of religious, mystical, or any other kind of new-age hoke about it.Ever.

While your experience may have been profound to yourself, as I've said all long, you ultimately didn't come close to what psychedelics are truly and completely capable of. This is not new-age stuff, either, I believe people have been having these experiences for millennia. Until you can come to terms with this, then I believe you'll continue to circumambulate the true mystery that lies at the root of religion for.Ever.

Well, I haven't seen you use the word, but it definitely applies to you. Quackery is the promotion of unproven or fraudulent medical practices. (In your case, you advocate the administering of dangerous and illegal drugs for quasi-religious purposes: quackery.) A quack is a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan.

Of course, I don't use that word. I'm not Daffy. And I'm no charlatan. A charlatan would be a person who claims they had well beyond a heroic dose (when they in fact not have) and claims they didn't have any type of "ego death" experience. Now, that's a charlatan.

Oh, and the "evidence" you claim to have provided? It's all been either unsourced or I've reviewed it and provided explanations as to why it's inadequate or incongruous to be cited as backing for your claim (and that's all the homework I'm obligated to do). 

Well, there's an admittance of laziness. You've done nothing of the sort. I mentioned plenty of instances where mystical experience is definitely being practiced as in the shamanic experiences of the various religious figures I mentioned, and I think it goes without saying that eastern religion is definitely about producing altered states, and the visionary plants used in ancient Egypt, etc. You never explained why any of these claims were inadequate, you just completely ignored them.

What I do know is that you're clueless; about 5 grams versus 20 grams, about what my trip was like, and how ridiculous you look as a self-appointed arbitrator.

I've already explained how the effects of psilocybin, when taken at higher doses, lead into what appears to be quite similar to what's seen in the DMT-flash that people get when it's smoked. Your description in no way resembles this, although if you had taken a high dose, as you claimed, it would have. Your description instead did seem quite congruent to a mid-range dose of psilocybin. Like I said before, if you really want to put your claim to the test, that you  were impervious to the "ego death" phenomenon, then why not try ayahuasca? Ayahuasca actually contains DMT and is more powerful than psilocybin. I really doubt you'd be able to come back and say, "I didn't have any mystical experience of the sort."

Just not how much they weigh.

Apparently, neither do you since you obviously didn't have a scale. You basically eyeballed your dose, and I'd wager grossly over-estimated it.

In Bohm's case, it's distortion as referenced in "the misinterpreted adoption of similar ideas by certain pseudoscientific groups, including some quantum mysticists". In Talbot's case, it's parroting. In both cases: woo-woo. So there's no need to repeat yourself. It's not for lack of understanding, but for lack of supporting evidence that I dismiss nonsensical claims.

David Bohm's regarded as one of the greatest quantum mechanical physicists that ever lived. Whatever claim you read that he "misinterpreted and adopted pseudo-science" is patently absurd!

I'm not implying that it wasn't verbatim. It wasn't verbatim, period. There is no "translation". Einstein wrote it in English. The rest is your Daffy horseshit that "Talbot means "hologram" very similar to the context that Einstein uses "illusion" in that context". Einstein was referring to human perceptions of space-time, not that reality is an illusion in a giant hologram. For fuck's sake, Jimmy. Talbot hawked videos of himself gibbering about ghosts, ESP and flying saucers in his 'giant hologram' for $34.95 a pop and you're saying his work is very similar to Einstein's theory of relativity.

Oh, you still don't understand. Past, present, and future yes, are a reference to space-time, not specifically "time" in and of itself. So, your perception of any point in the continuum is an illusion in the sense that the mind can only project patterns. The idea behind M-Theory is that there is an unmanifest "whole," which is often referred to as "11-dimensional hyperspace." You can sort of think of "11-dimensional hyperspace" as a "place where all possibilities are contained." Of course, we do not perceive all possibilities at once. The universe, is then, a magnificent vast symphony of vibratory strings that oscillate between these higher dimensions by which certain possibilities go between "on and off" which then casts this illusion of what we call "reality."  I'd recommend the book, it goes over these concepts quite eloquently, but you'd probably close-mindedly refuse to read it, anyway. That video you linked to is actually free to view on YouTube, and I've seen it. You misrepresent it here as though Talbot specifically speaks on such subjects. He's actually interviewed and asked for his thoughts on those subjects.

I swear, Jimmy. I'm going to rupture a muscle from laughing if you keep this up!!!!

This is quite a funny image, because I imagine this laughter to be quite delusional, as you seem to interpret this in a way you want, and then laugh at that abstract notion as though it were true, when it's not. Now, that's funny.

They don't explore the concepts of Odinism either, which is just as relevant and essential. 

I don't even know how you've manage to come to this conclusion, but then again, delusion is your strong point.

Falsely calling someone a "continual troll" is a personal attack. Watch yourself.

Well, I don't do it falsely, so I guess I have nothing to worry about. And what about your Loony Tunes name-calling? You know, moderators will look at that, too. 

Gallup: Are you now modifying your "guarantee" that one will undergo a religious or mystical experience to make room for scientific minds?
Jimmy: No [...]

No, I'm not modifying anything nor do I have anything to sell. The psychedelics speak for themselves if one can avail themselves to them in a shamanic fashion.

...and not just religion, but the "true" magic mushroom religion. And it's unfalsifiable, untestable, exclusionary of science, and anyone who tries it and disagrees as to its religiosity is not a true scotsman. Not thought: faith.

It is testable. That was the entire point of Rick Strassman's book "DMT: The Spirit Molecule." And when the threshold dose was met, people did, in fact, have mystical experiences. So, this has nothing to do with faith. It doesn't care whether you believe in it or don't believe it in. It's not dogmatic. It's a tried-and-true phenomenon in consciousness.

McKenna himself is famous for specifying that "5 dried grams" is "a heroic dose". I included both the citation where he says this, and an image showing that the approximate volume I ingested, when placed on a scale, was 21 grams; four times the "heroic" amount. That is all factual. You have no reasonable basis to claim as "fact" that 5 dried grams is not the heroic dose and that 21 grams is not well beyond it. You are simply lying again, flat out.

First of all, I haven't lied about anything. I'm not sure could say the same about you.  The citation you've provided is pretty weak in that it doesn't differentiate between dried or wet grams. Now, I used to be a huge fan of McKenna, and I've heard just about every audio piece you could find on YouTube of his talks. I mentioned earlier that McKenna would point out as a general estimation for anyone who weighs about 140 lbs, that one should at the very least take five dried grams. The reason he added "if you weigh 140lbs," is, of course, because he understood that the dose is relative to plenty of factors. So, below I'll post a more elaborate comment on dosing by Terence than your citation, and I'm linking to the 5h10m59s mark.

Terence McKenna - Heroic Dose

Furthermore, you often refer to this experience as happening over 20 years ago, and it's also an experience that you cannot prove that you, in fact, had. 

Moreover, there is an extensive record in our conversation in this thread where I assure you, not once but repeatedly, that I experienced the full effects of the drug. You willfully ignore this, not once, but repeatedly, most recently in the section above, and say I claim not to have experienced "any type of" effects resembling the experience you insist upon calling "ego death." You are simply lying again, flat out. I have made no denials apart from the religious-mystical aspect.

Now, I know I cannot prove on TA that I've had any psychedelic experience myself, but since I'm taking your word for it, I suppose you're going to have to take my word for it. I've had multiple instances where I've dosed well over five dried grams but not receive the "ego death" phenomenon. As I've mentioned before that there are even instances where I didn't even get hallucinations, but subtle distortions that are often common of lighter doses. So, I still maintain that there's many factors involved when dosing, and the fact that you only refer to this one particular experience means that you really have no way to distinguish what, in fact, does occur when one exceeds the threshold. Of course, you can flat-out lie and say, "Well, no, in my college days, I went berserk with psychedelics." That really cuts no mustard here, you see.

Now, that kind of insidious lying, that kind of personal attacking, that is a charlatan. That's you. And your act continues...

I could say the exact same for you, because you could continue to claim you had this experience when there's really no way to prove this.

I've done exactly what I said I did: provide explanations as to why the (rather few) sourced claims you've made are inadequate or incongruous. I did not do what you say I did: "completely ignored them" and never explained their inadequacies. That is another lie and personal attack.

The only reason I mentioned Hoffman is because that was the entire basis of John's thread. "The Entheogen Theory of Religion" is Hoffman's concept, and in Hoffman's website, I was specifically referring to the citation of the archaeological evidence he's gathered. I lean more towards Huxley's interpretation in the "Perennial Philosophy" or Richard M. Bucke's "Cosmic Consciousness" which also holds that mystical experiences lie at the root of religion, but doesn't necessarily pin psychedelics as the sole route to this phenomenon. So, Hoffman aside, you did ignore them, because I made specific references to the "Tree of Life" in ancient Egypt as well as the experiences had by such religious figures as Muhammad and St. Paul. And I also explained that it's impossible to deny that eastern religion heavily deals with altered states. You ignored all of this, so I didn't lie.

[Pointing out the inaccuracy and irrationality in] (1) "your saying that "just because something cannot be scientifically tested or falsified, doesn't mean we stop our scientific and theoretical hypothesizing" when the scientific method requires testing and falsifiability

I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread that there's one endeavor of theoretical physicists that cannot rely on the scientific method, and that is of course, M-Theory. They instead have to make extreme extrapolations governed, of course, by logic and reason. An experiment would be quite difficult to perform in cosmology, you'd have to create a baby universe.

(2) your presenting the ancient use of psychedelic mushrooms as "evidence" for the Entheogen "theory" of religion when that conclusion cannot possibly be derived from that kind of evidence. The list goes on."

No, I'd say Hoffman is presenting that, and John posted that in this thread in which I'm participating in. As I've said, I'm more inclined to agree with Huxley's "Perennial Philosophy." I believe it's reasonable to suppose that mystical experience may lie at the root of religion, but I don't believe that psychedelics are the sole route to having a mystical experience. Take the case of Moses, for instance. If you were to literally interpret the story that Moses fasted for 40 days and 40 nights, this is definitely quite similar to shamanic route to a mystical experience.

Now, of course, we don't have evidence that Moses existed, nor Christ, but if you were to consider that such an event did take place, it is definitely akin to a shamanic experience, and likewise, the other religious figures I've mentioned experienced something very similar.

My explanation that you had misquoted Einstein as saying reality is an illusion, when in fact he said thattime is an illusion, which as evidence does not support that Einstein believed Talbot's psuedoscience that the universe is a hologram.

I've attempted to explain this already, but I don't think you seem to grasp the concept. This stuff isn't easily described, but if you're interested, I'll give it a shot.

My pointing out that Bohm presented 'holonomic brain' as conjecture (not evidence) and that current overviews of his work specifically mention "the misinterpreted adoption of similar ideas by certain pseudoscientific groups, including some quantum mysticists" (such as Talbot).

On almost any radical idea you'll find on Wiki, you're always going to find a section entitled "criticism." This doesn't necessarily make the concept "untrue." There's always going to be the Victor Stengers of the world that doubt or reject such notions in the same fashion that you reject "mystical experiences."

You're actually claiming that I provided you with a complete description of my trip; that you get to tell me what it resembled and what it means; and that a volume of dried mushrooms equal to half the space inside a baseball cap, eyeballed by you to have been 2.5 grams, eyeballed by me to be have been 20 to 25 grams, and then later shown on a scale to be 21 grams, is gross over-estimation on my part.

Oh, so you're holding back, all of the sudden? Please, do tell. Wait a second. Are you talking about a scale you took on the mountain hike or the scale on Google images? You must have such an Eidetic memory to recall an instance of eyeballing over 20 years ago. Seems fishy to me. You know, in your original post, you claimed at first that it was a "2-gallon freezer bag stuffed half-full" that you shared with your roommates, and that you only took a "fist-full." Now, suddenly we're talking about taking a baseball cap full. How the hell did that jump happen? Would you care to share the full story? 

The fact is, I don't much care what you believe. You will simply say anything-- anything at all-- from gainsaying, to personal attacks, to wagering after losing the eyeballing bet by 9 to 1, to flat out lying-- to protect your little 'ego death' religion.

And it is a religion, with the ultimate truth that everybody who trips MUST see the God of ego death. So anybody who trips without seeing the 'ego death' God didn't really have a "true" trip. That simply will not do. So no matter how many grams he had, he's not a true Scotsman.

The fact is that I don't care too much at all for what you believe, either, because you'll go to great lengths to deny the evidence, so what you've said here simply isn't true. I've had far too much experience with this stuff, and I've run across plenty of stories like yours. I've met a lot of people who claimed they were "heavy-hitters," who when examined closely, didn't even brush this state that "ego death" is all about. It's not at all about a "No True Scotsman" fallacy when it comes to psychedelics and thresholds, no one is invincible to exceeding a threshold or impervious to this phenomenon that occurs once that happens.

No, it's you who doesn't understand. Talbot argued extensively that "such subjects" as ESP and other paranormal phenomena are real, and a product of his holographic universe. He claimed to have psychic powers himself. That is not misrepresentation. A few quotes of his material"The fact that the paranormal cannot be explained by our current scientific worldview is only one of the reasons it remains so controversial. Another is that psychic functioning is often very difficult to pin down in the lab, and this has caused many scientists to conclude it therefore does not exist. [...] I grew up in a psychic family, and from an early age I experienced firsthand many of the phenomena that will be talked about in this book. Occasionally, and when it is relevant to the topic being discussed, I will relate a few of my own experiences."

If you actually read the book, Talbot explores these ideas through mysticism and speculates how such things as ESP or telepathy could be possible through this "holographic" interpretation which is heavily inspired by string theory and M-Theory. In other words, we'll take paranormal for example. Instead of imagining "apparitions" as normally conceived, say as in a "ghost." Most people's concept of "ghosts" are kind of like residual energy or a lingering soul of the dead. Now, if you posit Huge Everett's many-worlds interpretation, that parallel in time and space to our own universe are myriads of universes all existing simultaneously, so that you could have another universe very similar to and parallel to our own, and so the idea is that what you witness is not the ghost of your dead relative, but instead a glimpse into a parallel reality where someone who is atomically every way like your dead relative only that they're alive and well and didn't suffer the same fatal fate in their universe. Now, I don't hold Talbot to any high-esteem, but I do enjoy the read and how he plays with these ideas. Even Kaku explores stuff like this in his books, and in fact, even he's mentioned an example similar to this one, but points out that because of  the phenomenon of 'quantum decoherence,' we cannot glimpse into parallel realities.

Now you tell me specifically, Jimmy. What have I asserted that is not true, which you have shown to be true using indisputable evidence to the contrary, which I have then persistently maintained nevertheless? Find it. Link to it. Show me. You can't do it, because it did not happen.

Well, I just pointed out incongruities in your so-called "heroic dose" psychedelic experience story. Shall I link to the McKenna thread? So, you haven't been consistent, and so obviously if you're going to lie about your experience, then there's no point to this argument. If that's the case, then we're done here.

Satire is not name-calling. If you lie, I explain the lie, and I call you a liar, it is factual. If you say something daffy (silly to the point of inspiring laughter) and I explain how this is so, it is factual. Hence my selection of Daffy Duck to represent your style and argument.

And in every instance that you've attempted to call me out on something, I've pointed out how you've falsely accused me of being "a liar." Daffy's an insult no matter who you call it to, you know. Would you like me to refer to you henceforth as Porky?

Satire is a legitimate form of social criticism and-- provided the basis of the satire is accurate and truthful (in this case: that much of what you say is irrational and foolish to the point of inspiring laughter)-

Satire is a legitimate form of condescension, too. Stop trying to justify your insults.

Yes, I've asked them to. So I guess we'll find out if I'm legitimately a troll or if you're legitimately a daffy liar. Either way, I've spent enough time on this thread and on you, at least for now.

Well, I suppose we will. What's really funny is that this is what it comes down to.

The claim: When the threshold dose is met, people have mystical experiences. The "test" is the acid trip. But you insist that unless the subject feels his acid trip was "mystical", as opposed to a having a secular interpretation of the same acid trip, this establishes that the threshold dose cannot have been reached. That is an untestable and unfalsifiable claim. You ate 5 grams and saw God? See, it worked! You ate 21 grams but didn't see God? See, you didn't eat enough. Nothing, not even illustrating this simple no true scotsman fallacy, will persuade you otherwise.

The person doesn't necessarily have to refer to this experience as "mystical" or "religious." These are simply metaphors that refer to this experience, in the same way that samadhi, satori, Beatific vision, nirvana, etc. would. That's not what I'm arguing here. What I'm arguing is that when you do exceed the threshold dose, then you will have the "ego death" experience. It isn't simply a matter of semantics in that you describe your experience as "secular." I'm saying the description of your "so-called" experience does not tally with what the "ego death" phenomenon involves due to it being a sub-threshold dose. The threshold dose isn't a specifically fixed and rigid dose. Just because Terence says it's five-dried grams, doesn't mean that's the amount to take. Like I said, there's so many factors involved, and you'll find plenty of people who've taken well over five dried grams who didn't hit the "ego death" phenomenon. You know, far more powerful than psilocybin are things like DMT or even LSD. DMT only last five minutes, by the way. Surely, anyone has five minutes to invest in an experience that will alter one's entire ontology.

   Take a listen, if you will. 

Watts story above is quite akin to your experience. Would you mind listening about 10 minutes through from the 10 minute and 40 second mark?

That is unshakable faith, Jimmy. Not science. And your faith, by your own admission above, has no place for a mind which evaluates claims and experiences using evidence, reason, and falsifiability. The magic only works if you believe. And don't tell me you're not selling the "God is an acid trip" religion in here. Your reputation precedes you.

No, I'm not selling God in an acid trip. If that's what you've got out of this, then you've entirely missed the point.


© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service