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: 2386

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You haven't really considered any of this, you just keep repeatedly saying "woo" and posting Looney Tunes clips.

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

Gallup: 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.
Jimmy: Well, this is precisely the problem.

It's only a problem for you, Jimmy, in that it still means exactly dick as evidence.

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

That's one connection to the Aztecs. Do you know how many other religions there are and have been in human history?

Jimmy: 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.

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?

Jimmy: 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.

Your evidence to support it? None.

Jimmy: You're always going to have this kind of skepticism toward it, because nothing can convince you short of having the experience for yourself.

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.

Jimmy: So, you want to pin me with semantics,

No, that's you lying again. Sematics refers to the meaning of words in a particular context. You specified that the experience of blowing your brains out with psychedelic drugs was a condition of producing worthwhile opinion and thought on the entheogen theory of religion. That was the context. You've since tried the intellectually dishonest tactic of switching contexts to claim you were referring to not understanding the experience of being wasted unless you've had the experience of being wasted. But that's nothing like what you wrote. So when you say, 'pin you with semantics' you mean, 'catch you in a lie.' That's what I did.

Jimmy: 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.

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

How droll.

Jimmy: 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."

Poor Jimmy. You've still got it backward. As I've explained: I took a heroic dose back you were still riding big yellow school buses, and did not have an experience I would describe as religious or mystical. I was just indescribably fucked up on drugs.

It's you who persists in ascribing more to it than that, saying nothing about it but woo.

Jimmy: 5 dried grams would fill an entire baseball cap.

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.

Jimmy: 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 AtheistNexus.com, you have no experience to draw from to imagine what it's like.

You've still got it backward, Jimmy. It's you who refuses to accept. It's you who insists upon invalidation. It's you proclaiming that my experience was non-experience. I'm not a true scotsman, because in your wacky little quasi-religion and there's no possible way anyone can drink enough Kool-Aid and still be a non-believer.

Jimmy: 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.

Theoretical physics uses mathematical models to suggest answers to scientific questions. (You do understand the difference between a question and a scientific question, right?) It's not just a bunch of shit that people yank out of their asses. Successful theoretical models offer actual explanations for observable phenomena and can be tested and falsified: they predict things. Some of the criticisms of m-theory are precisely along these lines. There's no way to test it, it doesn't really predict anything, and (as Stephen Hawking observes) there are doubts it can be formulated using a finite number of principles, meaning it would be impossible ever to complete.

Jimmy: So, just because something cannot be scientifically tested or falsified, doesn't mean we stop our scientific and theoretical hypothesizing.

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.

Case in point:

Jimmy: And of course, something like that cannot be proven, 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.

So there's no proof. Understanding the connection depends on a subjective mystical impression, obtained while utterly stoned, but after the connection has been described to stoner. BWAH-HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!

Jimmy: I do nothing of the sort. I argue rationally, honestly, and perhaps a bit obsessively, but you seem a bit obsessive yourself.

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 just consider 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!)

Scratch 'rationally' right off the list too. Your ongoing 'no true scotsman' fallacy about the "guaranteed" religious-mystical experience. 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. 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.

Jimmy: However, I believe you argue emotionally and dishonestly, so maybe you ought to consider that it's perhaps you that is the troll.

Granted, my laughter has run deep. This is what keeps me coming back for more.

But demonstrate my dishonest argument. Quote it. Explain it as I have explained above how you are a liar and irrational. Be specific. Because I haven't been presenting an argument. I've been dismissing yours for lack of evidence.

Jimmy: After all, who is this bukkake landing on?

Well Jimmy, your trousers are down and you're a walking creamsicle. You're the star of these shows about magic mushrooms. I'm just a tourist, laughing and taking pictures.

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 "www.egodeath.com" 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?

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

Jimmy: I have, in fact, reference Michael Hoffman's "www.egodeath.com" website where he goes over tons of archaeological evidence,

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 espousing his "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.

Gallup: It's a gigantic leap. And no matter what size it is, your evidence to support it? None.
Jimmy: If you actually had taken the time to review the evidence a little more closely...

Oh, I have, Jimmy. The site is full of baseless supposition. That's not scientific evidence. That's just you showing me you don't know what evidence is.

Gallup: 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.

Jimmy: 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.

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.

Jimmy: There are two kinds of people: psychedelics and clueless.
Gallup: A false dichotomy makes more and more sense to you all the time. How Droll.
Jimmy: It's not necessarily a false dichotomy, because people obviously reside on a spectrum.

LOL! Riiiight.

Jimmy: 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.

Ohhh, bad move, Jimmy. You say you've done this many times, huh? Now I know you're full of fucking shit.

So, according to you, 5 grams FILLS a ball cap. You do understand that 5 grams is just 0.011 pounds? Here is a photo of 21 grams on a scale, shown with a pack of cigarettes for size. That is roughly the same amount I carried in my ball cap over 20 years ago, which no more "filled" my cap than would three packs of cigarettes, which take up about the same volume.

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.

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.

Gallup: 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.
Jimmy: I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you implying that M-Theory is woo-woo?

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

Jimmy: 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."

See my reply here.

Jimmy: You're a prime example of [closed-mindedness]. 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.

Beyond the Aztecs, you haven't presented any scientific evidence to examine; not for the entheogen theory of religion, not for the "parallels" between m-theory and drug-induced mysticism, not for the guaranteed "religious" experiences of being stoned on mushrooms. You're free to speculate, but don't tell me it's science.

You've only generated obscurity and speculation, then backed it by citing more speculation which you falsely claim is evidence (Mary's halo looks like a Mushroom! Europeans kept cows because mushrooms grow in cow shit!) and using various forms of dishonesty (You pinned me semantically! 5 grams would FILL a ball cap!) and flat-out ignorance (not knowing what a scientific theory is, not knowing that science requires evidence, testing and falsifiability), coupled with a child-like sense of credulity in place of scientific skepticism and intellectual rigor.

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

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? 

 

Gallup: 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 espousing his "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.
Jimmy: See, all you're doing is simply acknowledging and only taking into account examples I've mentioned and then attempting to criticize.

I'm writing the completely valid criticism that Hoffman is providing conjecture, not scientific evidence, and you continually fail to address this point substantively.

For example, for Hoffman to establish these as evidence of the origins of Christianity in mushroom trips, he would have to establish the intent of the painters versus a coincidence that a halo or a table could look like a mushroom, and that the paintings dated back to or had some other connection with the origins of Christianity. He doesn't. Hoffman leaps straight to the incongruous conclusion that it was an intentional representation of a mushroom and that this counts as "proof" for the origins of Christianity. It simply does not follow. The Hoffman site is packed with that kind of sloppy, irresponsible thinking: not evidence.

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.

That's three examples, the Aztecs, the ancient Indian soma cult, and the cult of Demeter, the latter two of which may have included rituals using some kind of hallucinogen. That proves drugs were used in rituals of worshipping these gods, not that the concepts of the gods and religions themselves originated with the use of drugs.

However, I'm not going to do your homework just because you're ignorant on the topic.

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.

Gallup: 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.

Jimmy: 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."

*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.

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?

No, that's you lying again, uttering fabrications and attributing them falsely to me.

I didn't say "I didn't experience much". I said my experience defies description, which is completely congruent with a full-dose experience. I said I did not have a religious or mystical experience. I am a scientist, atheist and skeptic. I did not experience it that way, nor would I use such words to describe it, since they misleadingly convey a supernatural aspect which was not part of my experience.

I produced photos from third-party sources showing weighed amounts and volumes, including 21 grams on a scale. That proves the amount is approximately what I said would fit into half a ball cap. That also proves you have no fucking clue what you are talking about with this '5 grams would fill a whole ball cap' bullshit, this while you're lecturing me about incongruence.

Gallup: 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.

Jimmy: 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.

No, that's you lying again. I didn't say I'm invincible to the effects or that I've falsified the threshold dose. I said I took a heroic dose (at least 20 grams) and did not have a religious experience. I was, and still am, an atheist.

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

Jimmy: 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.

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.

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.

It's not science.

Jimmy: It would surprise me if they hadn't had a type of "ego death" experience.

Yeah, at least with Talbot. He sounds like he was twice the stoner mind-wiper that you are.

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!

Jimmy: 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.

Right. Like you know for a fact that 5 grams fills a cap, that the universe is a hologram, and that I can't see these quite apparent connections because I haven't properly blown my brains out on drugs, like a true Scotsman.

This, after you spent all that time insisting the mushroom mind-wipe wasn't necessary to understand "this stuff".

Stop it, Daffy! You're killing me!

 

 

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.

 

Gallup: 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.

Jimmy: 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.

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.

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 you 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.

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.

So did you figure this out before or after you just KNEW that, Oh my God, 5 grams would just FILL a baseball cap, Gallup?!

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.

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

Gallup: 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.

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

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.

Jimmy: You know, Einstein once said, "Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

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)

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.

Yeah, sure Daffy. You know all about the way Einstein uses illusion in that context, except for what he said or what he meant. In his excellent 1952 book Relativity (which I read last year) 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?

Jimmy: 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.

Don't be silly. It's further proof that I'm calling you out as a loon.

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 in Relativity, 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.

Jimmy: 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.
Gallup: Then the name contains a built-in assumption fallacy, unless the person who named it also provided scientific evidence that God exists.
Jimmy: If you're going to literally interpret it that way, then you foully misunderstand the argument.

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.

Jimmy: 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.

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

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.

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.

Jimmy: I think only someone like Daffy Duck would use the word "quackery."

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.

And it's not "my homework." I mentioned plenty enough evidence, most of which needn't citing, because they're well-known facts [...] 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. You want me to guide you like a child and conveniently place all the links here for you?

I'm afraid it is your homework. That's the "burden" in "burden of proof". Your intellectually dishonest attempt to shift that burden to me-- with the ad hom fallacy that I'm childlike and lazy for not doing your work for you-- is the "fallacy" in "burden of proof fallacy".

Find the information. Cite your sources; every last one of them, so they can be checked and verified as evidence that actually supports your claim. This is necessary because, as I said, you're an unreliable and disreputable source of information, given your extensive history of dishonesty-- like this most recent episode above-- child-like credulity, lack of intellectual rigor, fallacious reasoning, and penchant for pseudo-scientific quackery.

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). Anywhere you dispute that I have done this, provide the link to the post, quote it, and explain the incongruity. Be specific. You do not get say anything you want is evidence, or ignore falsifications of that evidence.

Jimmy: After all, it is called "ego death" for a reason, you see. According to your description, you still had a vague sense of reality.

I can only describe the parts where I HAD a vague sense of reality. The rest is none of your damn business. I'm not here to win your approval; that is wasted time because my trip was not religious, so I can never be a true scotsman.

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.

Haha! I know [mushrooms] work,

Just not how much they weigh.

Gallup: 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.

Jimmy: 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 lying again. I didn't insist they were your concepts. I said "you are presenting speculation, not evidence-based science, whether you are originating the idea, parroting the idea, or distorting the ideas of others."

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.

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!

Damn right I got you. Daffy stepped on his dick and ol' Gallup is a-pointin' and a-laughin'.

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.

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

Jimmy: 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.

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

Jimmy: 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.

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

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

That's what I thought. You're selling religion...

Jimmy: Until you can come to terms, then I believe you'll continue to circumambulate the true mystery that lies at the root of religion for.Ever.

...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.

Oh, moderators?

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.

Jimmy: And I'm no charlatan.

Of course you are, Jimmy.

Look at the record of our discussion from the beginning. Every time you've lied, I've explained your lie. Every time you've engaged in intellectual dishonesty, I've specified what it was. Every time your reasoning is unsound, I've called it out and explained specifically how and why it is fallacious.

That's the difference here, Jimmy. When you lie and I call you a liar, it is factual. When you write something daffy-- like misquoting Einstein to pair him with a pseudoscience writer who says the universe is a giant hologram-- and I say you are daffy (silly or strange in a way that is funny) or loony (crazy or foolish) it is factual. And you do those things a lot. It's all there, specified and on the record: demonstrably true.

In contrast, when you accused me of dishonesty, you provided no explanation or specifics. I responded with a challenge that you produce examples of my dishonesty and explain how it was dishonest. You ignored that, stopped responding, and provided not a single example or any explanation. All you did was post a baseless, fact-free personal attack.

You've also accused me falsely several times of being not just a troll, but a "continual troll". A troll sows discord by deliberately outraging, angering or hurting people to disrupt a discussion, which is done by posting inflammatory, extraneous, off-topic messages with the deliberate intent of provoking emotional responses which derail the conversation. Again, you provided no specifics. Where exactly have I sown all of this off-topic discord? In what way have I "continually" disrupted our discussion with flaming extraneousness, as opposed to continuing it? I haven't. I'm on point, on target, and factual, and that includes the basis of the Daffy Duck satire. Calling me a troll is another baseless, fact-free personal attack.

Here is the latest example of your latest sham:

Jimmy: 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.

No, Daffy. That is another thinly veiled personal attack. It contains factual inaccuracies and a claim you fabricated and attributed to me falsely: lying to me, about me.

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.

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

Gallup: 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).
Jimmy: Well, there's an admittance of laziness. You've done nothing of the sort. I mentioned plenty of instances [...] You never explained why any of these claims were inadequate, you just completely ignored them.

...into the realm of gainsaying of the burden of proof fallacy, adding a personal attack for my correctly pointing out the burden is yours and not mine, and willful ignorance of what has actually occurred.

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.

Here you are, blaming me for your lack of sourced citations. (That lazy ol' Gallup. He won't do it for me!) That's a tacit admission that it's true: you're not providing most of your sources of information. But you're lying that I "never explained" why this is necessary. I explained (1) burden of proof, (2) burden of proof fallacy, and (3) that your credibility is questionable given your history of dishonesty, child-like credulity, lack of intellectual rigor, fallacious reasoning, and penchant for pseudo-scientific quackery.

On the few sources you actually did provide, here are some examples of the explanations I gave as to why they are inadequate or incongruous:

explained that: "Hoffman is providing conjecture, not scientific evidence, and you continually fail to address this point substantively. For example, for Hoffman to establish these as evidence of the origins of Christianity in mushroom trips, he would have to establish the intent of the painters versus a coincidence that a halo or a table could look like a mushroom, and that the paintings dated back to or had some other connection with the origins of Christianity. He doesn't. Hoffman leaps straight to the incongruous conclusion that it was an intentional representation of a mushroom and that this counts as "proof" for the origins of Christianity. It simply does not follow. The Hoffman site is packed with that kind of sloppy, irresponsible thinking: not evidence."

[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, (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."

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

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).

It is you who is lying, you who has provided virtually no supporting evidence, you who has provided few sources of information to back your claims, and you who has provided little or no substantive explanation as to why these things are not the case.

That Jimmy, is being a charlatan.

Jimmy: 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. [...] Apparently, neither do you [know how much they weigh] since you obviously didn't have a scale. You basically eyeballed your dose, and I'd wager grossly over-estimated it.

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.

Charlatan, Jimmy.

Jimmy: I really doubt you'd be able to come back and say, "I didn't have any mystical experience of the sort."

I came back and said "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."

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.

Jimmy: Oh, you still don't understand. You misrepresent it here as though Talbot specifically speaks on such subjects. He's actually interviewed and asked for his thoughts on those subjects.

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."

Charlatan, Jimmy.

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

I'm afraid not, Jimmy. You see, a delusion is "a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary."

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.

That's yet another personal attack.

Gallup: Falsely calling someone a "continual troll" is a personal attack. Watch yourself.
Jimmy: Well, I don't do it falsely, so I guess I have nothing to worry about. And what about your Loony Tunes name-calling?

Oh, but you are doing it falsely, as I've explained in detail above, in addition to the other personal attacks.

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.

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)-- it is not a personal attack.

Jimmy: You know, moderators will look at that, too.

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.

Gallup: Are you now modifying your "guarantee" that one will undergo a religious or mystical experience to make room for scientific minds?
Jimmy: No [...]
Gallup: That's what I thought. You're selling religion, 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.
Jimmy: 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

RSS

Atheist Sites

Forum

Analyzing Ferguson

Started by Unseen in Crime and Punishment. Last reply by Davis Goodman 19 minutes ago. 9 Replies

The Movie Kiss: Romance or Rape?

Started by Unseen in Society. Last reply by Unseen 2 hours ago. 65 Replies

"Probably won't report".....

Started by Belle Rose in Society. Last reply by Davis Goodman 4 hours ago. 19 Replies

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Erock68la 6 hours ago. 63 Replies

Blog Posts

Rounding Up?

Posted by Carol Foley on November 20, 2014 at 3:17am 2 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service