"Trippy" Reality

Comments

• mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  All this brain hallucinating reality stuff pisses me off because people use it as a springboard to say that reality is subjective or something, as if a blood clot in my leg that I’m just not aware of can’t REALLY kill me. There is a uniform and self-consistent reality which we all have only limited perceptual awareness of. The great value of science is to give us greater access to that reality, not to fabricate wishy-washy arguments for how that reality doesn’t exist or doesn’t have meaning

  source

  • Kolanaki@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    The data of reality is consistent. How that data is interpreted by the brain may not be. Like the color red might not look the same to you as it does to me. We’ll never know since it’s impossible to describe a color and we can’t see the world with the other’s brain.

    source

    • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Given that color theory works the same for anyone that isn’t some variety of colorblind, I’d argue we probably see colors the same way or very very close to the same.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Yes I agree, sorry if that wasn’t clear

      source
    • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Okay. I'm going to fuck with your head. Don't click this unless you're sure.

      The color red is not even the same for you between each eye. Go look.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • i_love_FFT@jlai.lu ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      They did researchers with fMRI that showed that the same colors activated brains of viewers the same way, giving as much weight as possible to the idea that people perceive colors the same way.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Supervisor194@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    to say that reality is subjective or something, as if a blood clot in my leg that I’m just not aware of can’t REALLY kill me.

    It’s not that reality isn’t subjective it’s that acting as if it isn’t subjective isn’t useful for our everyday experience. So we act as if it is objective. But acting as if reality is objective so you can live your life does not mean reality is objective, and personally, I think being absolutely certain that it is objective leads to shit like “Jesus loves you and died for your sins” - not to great science.

    There is a uniform and self-consistent reality

    The great value of science is to give us greater access to that reality

    I’m really not trying to be shitty or anything about this, but science is increasingly showing us something considerably more complicated than that. Science absolutely gives us greater understanding of classical reality which is useful to us because airplanes fly. However, like it or not, science also is telling us that reality is a strange miasma of superpositions and that we actively participate in the creation of reality by simply existing/observing. At the very least, your outlook that it “is… uniform and self-consistent” does not appear to represent what is truly happening, it just represents what you think is happening, which is, ultimately, the point of the OPs meme. Everything you think you know is being filtered through your experience of it and whether is represents some objective reality or not, it represents it enough for you to live your life and feel like it is objective and consistent. But that isn’t necessarily so. As wild as it sounds, there may be an infinite number of branching realities and you are walking down only one, and considering it as “objective reality.”

    For anyone interested in this stuff, there’s a great video from Sean Carrol about quantum physics that outlines the uncomfortable unanswered questions in quantum physics and their implications about reality here.

    source

    • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I was wondering who would bring up quantum physics 🥲

      I don’t subscriber to any interpretations of quantum physics that require consciousness for observation, so to me any insights that this field may offer still don’t support that reality is subjective. Reality could be only locally real but still objective and consistent. And it sure seems that it is, in at least 99.999…% of all situations, especially situations that actually matter to us. Just my understanding, not a quantum physicist lol

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • pcalau12i@lemmygrad.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      science also is telling us that reality is a strange miasma of superpositions and that we actively participate in the creation of reality by simply existing/observing.

      It doesn’t tell us that at all. This is just bizarre metaphysics invented out of someone’s ass one day and became popular among academics, despite it having no empirical basis for it and not even being logically consistent if you take it seriously for more than five seconds.

      Quantum mechanics is just a statistical theory. You literally superimpose states in classical statistical mechanics as well. The only difference is quantum mechanics has an extra degree of freedom in the state description of the system that includes phases, and those phases evolve deterministically and influence the stochastic dynamics of the system. This gives a kind of “memory” effect whereby the same operator can have different behavior if the history is different, such as, a photon having 50%/50% chance of being reflected/transmitted by a beam splitter, unless its immediate previous interaction was of a beam splitter as well, then it is 100%/0% because the state of the phases are different.

      No, Sean Carroll is just wrong and he presents nothing to justify his position. The cat doesn’t stop existing when you’re not looking, nor is there is a multiverse, nor do things spread out as infinite-dimensional vectors in configuration space when you aren’t looking. You just do not know its state because it is statistical as quantum mechanics is a statistical theory. Multiverse believers love to put their idea side-by-side another idea which is even more absurd in order to make it look more viable, but they never bother to defend their ideas on their own merit, without a comparison. Any time you ever encounter a multiverse believer, they will constantly bring up Copenhagen even if you never mention it.

      Carroll responds to a variant of Copenhagen that believes in a “spreading out” axiom that things diverge into a multiverse of every possibility represented by a vector in configuration space when you aren’t looking, but then suddenly “collapses” back down into a definite configuration in state space when you look. He then attacks the “collapse” as silly, and therefore we should believe things spread out as a multiverse forever. But nowhere does he ever give any convincing justification for the “spreading out” axiom to begin with. That axiom is not grounded in any empirical evidence or in the mathematics at all, and so multiverse believers can only make their position look coherent by putting it beside another silly belief which also presupposes that axiom, and thus they make it appear reasonable that they never justify it.

      Just look at the awful slide 24:35. Someone can make this same argument in a perfectly classical universe. If we could not track the definite states of particles because they behaved randomly, but in a classical sense which did not violate Bell inequalities, we would also only be able to track the states of systems as vectors evolved by matrices. Someone could also come along and claim that particles do not have real states when you are not looking at them because they are not there in the mathematics, and that they are being the “reasonable” one for believing that the universe just evolves as a big deterministic vector.

      We would all look at them as if they are silly. Yet, somehow, this is stated unironically among multiverse believers as if it is somehow made less silly by quantum mechanics, when absolutely nothing in the theory makes this a less silly position.

      source
  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    As a great scientist once said:

    “There’s no scientific consensus that life is important” - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth

    source
  • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Woah there, where are you getting this idea that any of this has meaning from? Reality being coherent doesn’t imply any kind of meaning. I can’t even think of a theoretical way to determine if we’re here for a reason (other than cause and effect) or if we’re just here.

    source

    • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Yeah sorry, horrible choice of words. I am a nihilist in fact. I was using meaning in the very dull sense, like how a red light has the “meaning” to bring your car to a halt. And similarly a blood clot in my leg means that I am at increased risk of death, the rising of the sun means that the air will heat up (even if I’m blind), cooking garlic means the air will be filled with scent molecules (even if I can’t smell), etc.

      I am so accustomed to only talking with IRLs who know what I mean by meaning that I forget what a loaded word it is.

      source
    • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Putting this as a separate comment because its unrelated. I think theoretically the problem is that the notion of “purpose” or “reason” is extremely fraught with psychological quirks. We say that flowers are colorful for the “purpose” of attracting pollinators, but it might be more accurate to say they just coincidentally ended up that way. But a more ironclad claim of purpose would be something like “I made this fruit salad for myself for the purpose of eating something healthy and sweet”. Here we are hard pressed to deny that the salad has a real purpose. In fact, anything that has real purpose seems to have been designed by a conscious entity. Only a conscious entity can imbue its creations with purpose, when we look at how we actually use the term in that sense. This also handily shows that purpose is not a physical quality, but purely a genealogical quality. A purposeful object doesn’t need to bear any physical markers that show that it came from a conscious entity - it is purposeful either way. Since “purpose” aka “reason for being” is now a matter of nothing more than being created by a conscious entity with some purpose in the mind of the conscious entity, it seems like the theoretical way to determine if humans have a reason for being, or if the universe has a reason for being, could ONLY be to determine if these things were created by a conscious entity.

      Obviously religion comes to mind, but outside of that unfalsifiable realm, theoretically we could learn for instance that humans were actually designed by aliens to be fun little pets to watch, like Tamagotchi. If we found that out then our purpose would factually be “to be entertaining”.

      So I actually think the theoretical path of establishing the existence of a reason or purpose is quite clear! Its just that the path clearly leads to the conclusion that there isn’t one.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    There is a uniform and self-consistent reality

    Quantum says otherwise, doesn’t mean hallucinations are reflective of really at all, but reality is a lot more bizarre than classical scientists could ever imagine.

    source

    • pcalau12i@lemmygrad.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      No. There is an obsession many people have, from laymen to academics alike, with quantum woo and trying desperately to extrapolate bizarre metaphysics from the linear algebra, but nothing in the mathematics of the theory necessitates their crackpot ideas.

      source
    • jjj@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I believe you’re speaking about General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics refers to “quantum” aka discrete, non-smooth things like the energy levels of electrons.

      General Relativity indicates that the temporal ordering of events may appear different to different observers, although there is a way to objectively switch between perspectives it describes.

      In all cases, the theories point to a uniform, self consistant reality, as that is in fact their very purpose. If they didn’t work as expected, your GPS wouldn’t be a thing.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Welcome to materialism lol

    www.marxists.org/reference/archive/…/09.htm

    source

    • king_comrade@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Careful, you’ll trigger the libs

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • droans@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Are you still alive? How’s that blood clot doing?

    source

    • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Well I stopped observing it so it should now be 50/50

      source
  • happydoors@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I agree with you but in defense of the image in front of us, they still show atoms in the rest of the photo. I take that as the representation of “reality” and the commentary as being more about perception and not some alternate reality.

    source

    • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Yes that’s true, and I did think about this, but really this just makes the image even dumber, because we can see atoms nowadays too, and even if we couldn’t, all our knowledge of them would still come from what this comic implies is our hallucination 🤔 kinda crazy to say that if you just zoom in on a hallucination it suddenly becomes real

      source
  • LodeMike@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    It’d be like saying reality is a series of pixels in frames because that’s how computers “comprehend” reality.

    source

    • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Oh I’m not arguing that reality is different from how we perceive it. Just arguing with the sneaky little trick where people say “reality isn’t what we perceive… Therefore reality is subjective”

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    One thing I took away from learning more about philosophy was to be unsure of pretty much anything except my own existence.

    The idea that there is an objective mind independent reality is a nice idea and neatly fits my worldview but there are compelling arguments for this not to be the case.

    I’d only ask what makes you so certain of this “uniform and self-consistent reality” because if you’re relying on your senses to gather information for this fact I regret to inform you that humans senses are awfully unreliable.

    source

    • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I also have read quite a bit of philosophy! So this should be fun to discuss.

      First, I agree that 100% certainty is virtually impossible. However, there comes a point when we say we’re “certain”, depending on the severity of the outcome and the probability of it.

      For instance, if I offered for you to play a game where we spin a big spinner, and 99.9999999999999% of the wheel is red, which means you pay me ten thousand dollars, and the rest of it means I pay you ten thousand dollars…you’d probably not say “I might win ten thousand dollars!” You’d probably say “this forces me to give you ten thousand dollars”. And if I said “whaaaat, no, we can’t be certain of that!”, you’d probably think I was being nonsensical.

      So let’s acknowledge that while Descartes’ arguments for solipsism are indeed basically undefeated on a first order logic basis, we really should be evaluating the claim on a probabilistic or statistical basis instead, since the argument is fundamentally about our degree of sureness in something.

      You’re correct that ultimately my senses alone are my only exposure to the world. However, there are some interesting things I can notice. If I lock 1000 people in a room with an undetectable poison gas, then they all will die - even though none of them had any sensory awareness of the gas! If it was just one person in the room, maybe we could argue that reality isn’t consistent, but the fact that all 1000 people due suggests that the gas affects everyone the same consistent way. Similarly, a blood clot in my leg can kill me even if I’m not aware of it.

      Acknowledging now that things can certainly affect things regardless of their sensory awareness of each other, the only way to preserve our radical doubt of our senses is to suspect that perhaps the 1000 people in my room are actually not really people, but instead something me and my senses have imagined. If we suppose (against all other evidence, mind you, and purely on the basis of being able to achieve an impossible100% certainty to the contrary), that my senses really do deceive me at every turn, then we have other situations that will puzzle us:

      For example, I’m studying math as a 7 year old and coke across a fancy integral equation, which I absolutely cannot make sense of, and I don’t even know what the symbols mean. Later in life, in my 20s, I have learned enough math to understand the equation, and remarkably, I see that it made sense all along. The equation was always right, even before I had the mental capacity to understand it. How could this be, if my perception of the world was not mapping to some consistent reality? These are things that we must come up with strange explanations for, like claiming that my consciousness actually fully understands all workings and states of the universe, and I’m only playing a game with myself where I pretend to forget about it, or something like that.

      And if we were to make such a fantastical interpretation for the world as that, what would be our evidence for that interpretation as opposed to the “default” one that the world is self consistent and maps consistently to the our sensory interpretation? Our evidence could only be “we can’t prove with 100% certainty that this isn’t the case”! But if that’s a good reason to believe things, I could just as well say that we can’t prove with 100% certainty that my default interpretation isn’t the case either, and now our claims (and any claim) are on equal footing - since nothing can be 100% certain. All that this really does is show to us that this justification is completely useless, as it makes all claims equally viable and negates itself.

      source
• ceenote@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  It’s just more efficient for my brain to only render what I’m looking at.

  source

  • chortle_tortle@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Dismissing: lacks object permanence. Embracing: optimizes render load.

    Have we considered I don’t have ADHD, just triple A blockbuster brain engine??

    source
  • aketawi@quokk.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    god learned from steam frame

    source

    • ceenote@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I think this has actually been a standard method of optimization for about as long as there’s been 3d games.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• ascend@lemmy.radio ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  The one time I tried shrooms I died, then I saw everything I needed for what I was going through and woke up the next day after all the nightmares feeling at peace with life and had a new perspective. Kind of like a speed run midlife crisis. I wouldn’t do it again but I’m glad I did

  source

  • ToastedRavioli@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Im a big fan of doing small amounts, but sometimes it definitely gets you feeling like

    Image

    source
  • BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I assume you mean ego death and not literal death

    source

    • Sculptor9157@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      You have to type louder for them to get your message in the spirit world.

      source
    • shneancy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      fun(?) fact! ego death feels like death :D

      you know that thing people say about how everyone’s last thought is of their mother or their home?

      when i first took LSD i experienced an ego death, and just before fully letting go i thought to myself “how will i tell my mum i died?”

      it was, to put it blunt, quite fucking terrifying. thankfully i had enough logic in me to calm myself down and fully let go to experience it, after the you dies the world becomes so– fresh. i felt like an alien experiencing the Earth for the first time, there was no barrier between me and the world, because for a few hours there was no “me”

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • peteypete420@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Nope, literal death.

      source
  • yuri@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    bad trips can be really really enlightening. i got the cliché “i am so tiny and the universe is so big” and it changed the way i think about things on a fundamental level.

    source
  • Deceptichum@quokk.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Last time I did shrooms I saw geometric cats on everything.

    Can’t wait for next season.

    source
  • JadenSmith@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Same thing with me and LSD. It is insanely powerful when used therapeutically, however that is also why I don’t talk about it irl at-all. The short explanation is that I don’t believe many people can handle these things and come out with similar clarity.\

    If anyone is interested, please do as much research if you can. I would recommend James Fadiman’s Psychedelic Explorer’s Guide.

    source
• sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Bitch don’t do this to me

  source

  • fleem@piefed.zeromedia.vip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    but please do do this to me

    source
• Zerush@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Image

  source
• CubitOom@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  amanita muscaria will give you the shits for hours. There are better psychedelics.

  source

  • BanMe@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    There’s a valuable lesson here, and it’s to avoid using comic strips to identify the mushrooms you should eat to trip.

    source

    • GandalftheBlack@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Instead, rely on the comments

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Banana@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    He’s got the mushroom in his hand as well as a pipe and a tab, I think they’re just referring to psychs in general, but you’re right, maybe they should’ve put more of a brown mushroom

    source
  • GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Amanita muscaria is NOT psychedelic though, it’s a deliriant. It can cause hallucinations, but it is not serotonin based, and psychedelics work on serotonin receptors.

    source
  • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    its also a deleriants, so it wont give you pleasant hallucinations. people try to do this with diphenhydramine too, but you would have to tak a ton of it.

    source
  • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Bullshit!

    Says who? I have done it both wet and dry many many times and never experienced that, and I’ve talked to people online about it a lot and nobody has mentioned that. So where are you getting this claim? I say that knowing that there are groups trying to make it illegal that have been spreading lies including that ibotenic acid causes brain bleeds based on a single

    source
  • blargh513@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    So you clean out your pipes while you clean out your pipes?

    What’s the downside here?

    source
  • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I want a source for that disparaging comment which is incorrect. Also it’s not a psychedelic and the fact that you described it as such destroys your credibility. You have no idea what you were talking about in a repeating puritanical propaganda. For shame. Maybe you should go talk about the reefers online.

    source
• merc@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  It’s more “I want to continue to hallucinate in the super useful way that all humans normally do, and not fuck up my brain so that useful hallucination of reality gets knocked out of whack.”

  A series of still images, if the frame rate is fast enough, appears to us as smooth motion. Our eye can only focus on a tiny spot at any given time, but our brain fills in the rest of the visual field as if it’s high res based on the last time we glanced somewhere, some extrapolation and interpolation, etc. We’re somehow able to pull the sound of someone’s voice out of a crowd of noises and ignore all the irrelevant sounds to hear what someone’s saying. And then these sounds get somehow directly translated to words and concepts in our head. And if you’re looking at someone in the face as they’re talking, you can read emotions there, instead of just seeing a wrinkly slab of meat with some wet spheres near the top and some disgusting wet holes below. That’s all “hallucination” in some way. But, it’s all incredibly useful.

  I know that 99% of the time if someone takes hallucinogens they come back to reality just fine. Sometimes the trip even makes them feel better. But, is it really worth messing with your brain’s delicate and super useful hallucination of the world around you?

  source

  • shneancy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    not really 99%, more 99.9%

    the only time when you as a person should never take psychadelics is when you have a pychoaffective disorder (or a history of it in your family) as it can trigger psychosis

    other dangers come from heavy abuse of the substances, nothing you can do accidentally (psychadelics are non-addictive chemically speaking, but we humans can abuse anything so there’s been cases of it) or taking the substances when you’re depressed or anxious (can turn into a bad trip, cure you of those in a day, or just be a normal trip, it’s a gamble)

    99.9% of the time people who take psychadelics come back to normal after the effects wear off. even bad trips can be beneficial. the normal becomes broader, and many lessons are learnt, the useful hallucinations gain more meaning. i often compare psychadelic trips to having a mirror put in front of yourself and being forced to look at it for hours, now - do you like what you see?

    source

    • yistdaj@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I thought such disorders were much more frequent in the human population than 0.1%

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • bobo@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Right, and a single marijuana cigarette will drive you to a murderous rape rampage of white women (or whatever else American bullshit propaganda you want to peddle today)…

    Image

    I know that 99% of the time if someone takes hallucinogens they come back to reality just fine.

    “I know that 99% of the time someone masturbates they don’t go blind” - that’s the level of nonsense you’re spouting…

    Just turn on your brain for a second. Psychedelics have been legal/decriminalised in some countries for years or decades. You’re saying 1 in a 100 trips leaves you insane. Try to make sense of those two statements and support it with literally any shred of data from the last couple of decades.

    All of the traditional psychedelics are significantly healthier for your brain than having a few drinks. One can literally regrow neurons, the other kills them.

    Sometimes the trip even makes them feel better. But, is it really worth messing with your brain’s delicate and super useful hallucination of the world around you?

    And sometimes it can cure serious psychological conditions, autoimmune disease, allergies, and a host of other issues.

    There’s a very good reason an increasing number of places are legalising them for therapeutic use.

    source
  • jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Over time, psychedelics tend to clean off the lenses, so to speak, making the “useful hallucination” more accurate and reliable.

    source
  • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I dunno if I’d call this hallucination, although I get what you’re saying and I agree with you! But wouldn’t “interpretation” be a more apt description?

    If someone is seeing a message out of this very text, rather than the strict “material reality” of each individual letter just being an arbitrary glyhph, or each pixel, or each little diode or electron forming those pixels…

    …to call this miraculous level of ascribing meaning “hallucinating” seems a disservice right?

    Your comment just brought me a lot of wonder and awe, because you’re right, our brains’ wiring to tell stories and weave concepts and interpret the world around us in a way that’s useful, and beautiful, is a wonderful part of being alive and setting us apart from mere machines, rather than simply a feed of raw unfiltered data input from the world around us “as it is.”

    Truly marvelous. :D

    source
  • gnufuu@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Duuude, totally

    source
• Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  This is why when I want to cross a busy road I just pretend reality isn’t real, close my eyes, and cross the road. Can’t get hot by cars if I don’t accept that they are there.

  source
• GraniteM@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  The podcast “You Made It Weird,” with Pete Holmes is great. He has a lot of smart and funny people on, and the pattern is usually to start with “What’s going on with you? What are you working on? What makes you laugh?” for the first two thirds of a given episode, and then the last third is stuff like “Do you believe there is a purpose to life? Have you ever seen a ghost? Have you ever tried psychedelics?” Pete is clearly on his own spiritual journey and has a lot of heavy stuff to talk about and share, and he makes good a great conversation.

  Two highlights were when Reggie Watts talked about going on a trip in a bathroom where he traveled to a parallel universe and met with a sentient planet, and when Judd Apatow talked about how ayahuasca brought him into a meeting with the embodiment of his childhood self.

  I don’t necessarily want to get into psychedelics, but it’s a very interesting topic of conversation, if the person is smart enough to ask and answer intelligent questions.

  source
• ieGod@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  What an apt comic. The first time I tried mushrooms I came to the conclusion we are essentially peeking through the keyhole of a door trying to understand an environment we can’t even be sure is limited to the ‘other side’.

  source
• mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I really object to this idea that hallucinogens unlock some kind of higher plane of existence that can’t be experienced by people who don’t do these drugs.

  If it were true that people who did hallucinogens did gain some kind of additional knowledge why is it they aren’t achieving things at some obviously higher rate?

  If you want to use recreational or therapeutic drugs be my guest, just don’t come back telling me you’ve uncovered the secrets to the universe…

  source
• Psychodelic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  It’s wild how conservative and square the community is here.

  Thanks for posting the comic! It’s neat

  source
• Grail@multiverse.soulism.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  If everything we experience is a hallucination, then we should use psychology to engineer a just and useful hallucination. For example, we should hallucinate trans people as closer to their preferred gender presentation.

  source
• sexy_peach@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I really didn’t like the personality changes I saw in others after taking LSD, that’s why I have no interest in psychedelics.

  source
• cotus@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  ITT: people who have never taken psychs talking shit and people who have being like chill. Who do you think knows more? The folks swallowing D.A.R.E. propaganda like water, or the open minded people who actually experienced it??

  source
• Jaimesmith@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Plot twist: you’re already hallucinating, your brain just calls it reality 😂

  source
• thedarkfly@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Makes me think of Outer Wilds!

  source
• LogicalDrivel@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  IDC what y’all say. I like this comic. I liked doing psychedelics in college. I may do more eventually…

  YAY DRUGS!

  source
• grrgyle@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  The image really does illustrate a fascinating thesis

  source
• A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  People will go great lengths to mentally justify to themselves they’re not addicts somehow.

  And sure, many will be functional addicts, DrHousing around life without apparent crazyness, but many won’t, but still try them because people like this swear it’s the panacea.

  Sure, in some cases they can do good and be therapeutic, but in so many other not.

  Is like marijuana, for years people swore up and down that it was harmless and not addictive, but now science shows that can cause addiction, and that it can cause long term cognitive damage.

  What I will agree tough, is that marijuana and some psychodelic drugs are, even if harmful, way less so than things like alcohol and cigarettes, so then is the question to be asked if those are legal, why these aren’t, and that’s a good argument to say they shouldn’t be illegal.

  I still won’t take any of them tough.

  and still is quite BS the comic’s copium as many have pointed out.

  source
• Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  If offered in good faith the answer should be yes.

  source