☮ Social ☮ PD Social Talk Thread 2022-2023 v. Year of the Phenethylamine

[Psychestim]

So I just caught this today somehow

The Nobel prize for 2022 went to some people who *proved* that physical objects do not have an existence of their own, but are ONLY the product of being observed.

For a material rationalist, that's as close to proof for God as you can get. For who else can keep the physical universe together, then, but One observer witnessing it all? And foolish of us to be so solipsistic as to think that we are he

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It

Elegant experiments with entangled light have laid bare a profound mystery at the heart of reality

www.scientificamerican.com

Anton Zeilinger is such a smart and likeable person, an inspiration for future generations. He actually was a prof at my uni teaching quantum optics and other physics stuff.

 

[Bagseed]

but are ONLY the product of being observed.

well quantum mechanics says nothing about if the "observer" is a conscious being. it is all unfortunate wording imo.

 

[JackARoe]

well quantum mechanics says nothing about if the "observer" is a conscious being. it is all unfortunate wording imo.

I sometimes like going on to the skeptics forums to see how they take in such knowledge. A lot of the argument is sort of old hat in that arena though. I really appreciate people like Sam Harris and Michael Pollan. Total materialists in the past that can now say they don't know and agree there is more than meets the eye. And it was psychedelics that did that.

However if a human consciousness does not focus on an item how can it be observed at all? A computer can observe, but it needs to be driven by a more organized consciousness.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one observes it we have two results. Logically we know it made a sound but we can't swear to it because it was not observed. Not sure how we ever get past this. But being skeptical helps otherwise we just start believing anything.

I remember on a trip I had when I was young realizing there could be no universe if I did not observe it. It seemed so clear. Then back to regular waking consciousness is sounds fluffy. lol

 

[Xorkoth]

The Nobel prize for 2022 went to some people who *proved* that physical objects do not have an existence of their own, but are ONLY the product of being observed.

For a material rationalist, that's as close to proof for God as you can get. For who else can keep the physical universe together, then, but One observer witnessing it all? And foolish of us to be so solipsistic as to think that we are he

I wonder how you prove something like that? I need to read those links!

My conclusion from all my experiences is that we are all "god", or as I think of it, the universe itself, experiencing itself subjectively. We're all a slice of that "divinity", though I see it more as the universe itself has the property of consciousness, and it infuses all life that arises. Or something like that.

 

[porkstock]

Yeah I don't think God necessarily has to be observing it all. Or maybe I do. I sorta subscribe to the thought that "God" is nature or the universe, so maybe it observes itself.

If a tree falls in the woods, do you think IT knows? Who cares if a human is there to hear the sound?

 

[Bagseed]

I sometimes like going on to the skeptics forums to see how they take in such knowledge. A lot of the argument is sort of old hat in that arena though. I really appreciate people like Sam Harris and Michael Pollan. Total materialists in the past that can now say they don't know and agree there is more than meets the eye. And it was psychedelics that did that.

However if a human consciousness does not focus on an item how can it be observed at all? A computer can observe, but it needs to be driven by a more organized consciousness.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one observes it we have two results. Logically we know it made a sound but we can't swear to it because it was not observed. Not sure how we ever get past this. But being skeptical helps otherwise we just start believing anything.

I remember on a trip I had when I was young realizing there could be no universe if I did not observe it. It seemed so clear. Then back to regular waking consciousness is sounds fluffy. lol

ok let's put it that way: what they mean in quantum mechanics by "observing" is just two systems interacting with each other. example: at first the spin of an electron is undetermined, in a superposition if up and down. if one was to observe it they would have to have it interact with another quantum system, and it is this interaction which lets the direction of spin manifest itself to us. the common interpretation is that the wave function "collapses". but there are also other interpretations (branching of the wave function "many worlds").

I don't know if there is any god allthough I don't believe in any... just saying that quantum mechanics truly makes no statement about if consciousness has anything to do with reality. the wording "observe" just has a lot of baggage to it.

 

[Kaden_Nite]

Hey swirl crew, just dropping in to say hi. I've been really busy with work, getting overly fatigued and all the not-fun that goes with it, so I haven't really felt like posting much.

My friend contacted me recently saying he'd taken part in a psilocybin trial (pure synthetic psilocybin at 35mg!). It was conducted in similar fashion to the 1950's LSD therapy sessions by the sounds of it; sleep shades, headphones, lying on a couch.

I asked if it was different to mushrooms and he said something to the effect of 'a bit different, but that could have been due to the setting'.

I might ask if he can write a trip report since pharmaceutical grade psilocybin is very rare these days.

Anyway, hope everyone's well.

Cheers.

 

[pharmakos]

well quantum mechanics says nothing about if the "observer" is a conscious being. it is all unfortunate wording imo.

This sort of changes that. The authors that won the prize don't go so far as I do to mention God, but they admit that this profoundly changes the way we perceive reality and the way we perceive quantum mechaincs. This is a new paradigm shift in understanding reality.



If the non-conscious observer you describe is a physical object then it too would need to be observed in order to exist and do any observing. Leading to a paradox.



Perhaps one could use this instead to argue for panpsychism. Tho the line between panpsychism and pandeism is rather thin.

I wonder how you prove something like that? I need to read those links!

My conclusion from all my experiences is that we are all "god", or as I think of it, the universe itself, experiencing itself subjectively. We're all a slice of that "divinity", though I see it more as the universe itself has the property of consciousness, and it infuses all life that arises. Or something like that.

But in order for that to be the whole story, the physical universe would need to disappear when there are no conscious creatures observing it. And that fails the rational materialist test that seems to apply to literally everything else we experience.

Yeah I don't think God necessarily has to be observing it all. Or maybe I do. I sorta subscribe to the thought that "God" is nature or the universe, so maybe it observes itself.

Yeah I don't think God necessarily has to be observing it all. Or maybe I do. I sorta subscribe to the thought that "God" is nature or the universe, so maybe it observes itself.

If a tree falls in the woods, do you think IT knows? Who cares if a human is there to hear the sound?

If a tree falls in the woods, do you think IT knows? Who cares if a human is there to hear the sound?

Yeah ultimately I'm a warm deist despite being a Christian. Trees do fall in the woods without people around tho. We find felled trees all the time. Seems absurd to think that the tree didn't fall until we walked out to the woods and see it on the ground.

 

[pharmakos]

Sorry for multi posts getting lost trying to reply to everyone on Mobile

However if a human consciousness does not focus on an item how can it be observed at all? A computer can observe, but it needs to be driven by a more organized consciousness.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one observes it we have two results. Logically we know it made a sound but we can't swear to it because it was not observed. Not sure how we ever get past this. But being skeptical helps otherwise we just start believing anything.

I have yet to watch this whole video, but this physicist seems to have taken the Nobel prize result and used it to imply that human level AI might be impossible OR that large scale quantum computing isn't possible.

 

[pharmakos]

Change of subject: still working on music lately. Been trying to put some of the Catholic hymns from my youth to music. Here's a blissed out doom metal arrangement of "Make Me a Channel of Your Peace.". My friend says my vocals in the chorus sound like James Hetfield lol.

Make Me a Channel of Your Peace, by pharmakos

from the album Worship Songs

pharmakeus.bandcamp.com

Make me a channel of your peace
Where there is hatred, let me bring your hope
Where there is injury, your pardon Lord
And where there's doubt, true faith in you

Make me a channel of your peace
Where there's despair in life let me bring hope
Where there is darkness, only light
And where there's sadness -- ever joy.

Oh Master, grant that I may never seek
So much to be consoled as to console
To be understood as to understand
Or to be loved as much to love with all my soul

Make me a channel of your peace
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned
In giving to all men that we receive
And in dying eternal life

Oh Master, grant that I may never seek
So much to be consoled as to console
To be understood as to understand
Or to be loved as much to love with all my soul

Make a channel of your peace
Where there's despair in life, let me bring hope
Where there is darkness, only light
And where there's sadness -- ever joy

 

[pharmakos]

P.s. I found my faith again but via Gnostic versions of Christian apologetics that synthesize aspects of Eastern religions into their understanding. Especislly the writings of Carl Jung and CS Lewis (who was an atheist for most of his youth as well!). So don't worry. Not an Old Testament Bible thumper.

Answer to Job Revisited : Jung on the Problem of Evil

Answer to Job Revisited : Jung on the Problem of Evil. by David Sedgwick.

jungpage.org

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." -- CS Lewis

Lewis’s Rejection of Nihilism: The Tao and the Problem of Moral Knowledge

C. S. Lewis published The Abolition of Man in 1944 in the midst of World War II. We can perhaps imagine the ominous and suggestive nature of this timing. But, as readers soon discovered, the book w…

www.cslewis.org

The Dalai, the Dinosaur, and the Tao

The teachings of the Dalai Lama stand largely in accord with C.S. Lewis's Tao. Conservative principles should be recognized, even from surprising sources.

theimaginativeconservative.org

"You have to be the change that you want to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi

 

[Chris Timothy]

This sort of changes that. The authors that won the prize don't go so far as I do to mention God, but they admit that this profoundly changes the way we perceive reality and the way we perceive quantum mechaincs. This is a new paradigm shift in understanding reality.



If the non-conscious observer you describe is a physical object then it too would need to be observed in order to exist and do any observing. Leading to a paradox.



Perhaps one could use this instead to argue for panpsychism. Tho the line between panpsychism and pandeism is rather thin.


But in order for that to be the whole story, the physical universe would need to disappear when there are no conscious creatures observing it. And that fails the rational materialist test that seems to apply to literally everything else we experience.

Yeah I don't think God necessarily has to be observing it all. Or maybe I do. I sorta subscribe to the thought that "God" is nature or the universe, so maybe it observes itself.



If a tree falls in the woods, do you think IT knows? Who cares if a human is there to hear the sound?

Yeah ultimately I'm a warm deist despite being a Christian. Trees do fall in the woods without people around tho. We find felled trees all the time. Seems absurd to think that the tree didn't fall until we walked out to the woods and see it on the ground.

What rational material test? Quantum physics experiments have been failing materialist tests for a while now.. which is to say their results conflict with 19th century common sense, the Baconian notion that the only knowledge of nature is the conquest and submission of nature into purely billiard-ball mechanics. You wouldn't say Galileo failed the Christian test either, right? He did, of course, in a sense.. but in retrospect we prefer to call it ossified preconceptions resisting adaption to novel evidence.

If some sort of monotheist being would be observing everything, there would be no particle-wave duality, for they would be always be observed and thus collapsed into particle form.

If you want to move away from quantum mysticism within the body of contemporary scientific evidence, you have to be more crafty about it. Roger Penrose for instance argues that what looks like the bizarre effect of consciousness collapsing waveforms, rather highlights a confounding element, a commonality between consciousness and elementary particles. So consciousness wouldn't be collapsing waveforms, consciousness IS a collapsing of waveforms. In short, a quantum model of consciousness, like the microtubule model he's working on, would be able to reinstate some classical materialist notions.. but only by fleshing out all that underlies the quantum experiments, which includes the observer. (Because Penrose doesn't like the idea of trees not falling without people around either.)

 

[Xorkoth]

Hey swirl crew, just dropping in to say hi. I've been really busy with work, getting overly fatigued and all the not-fun that goes with it, so I haven't really felt like posting much.

My friend contacted me recently saying he'd taken part in a psilocybin trial (pure synthetic psilocybin at 35mg!). It was conducted in similar fashion to the 1950's LSD therapy sessions by the sounds of it; sleep shades, headphones, lying on a couch.

I asked if it was different to mushrooms and he said something to the effect of 'a bit different, but that could have been due to the setting'.

I might ask if he can write a trip report since pharmaceutical grade psilocybin is very rare these days.

Anyway, hope everyone's well.

Cheers.

Hey man, nice to hear from you. I hope work gets more manageable soon. I've been working a whole lot, myself, though it has calmed down since 4th quarter of this past year. I really enjoy my work, though... do you do something you enjoy, too?

I hope your friend does write a TR. Few people have been able to try pure psiloc(yb)in. I am one of those few who has, back in I believe 2006, some synthetic 4-HO-DMT went around. I found it distinctly different from mushrooms, but definitely much, much closer than 4-AcO-DMT is. It came up much faster and was very ego-crushing, without a lot of the physical aspects of mushrooms.

I sorta subscribe to the thought that "God" is nature or the universe, so maybe it observes itself.

Yeah that's where I'm at. Or I also think of it as the universe is dreaming and we're part of the dream. We dream to escape a dimensionless, isolated void. I don't know if this is true, but I've experienced waking up from the dream several times and it's hard to refute those experiences.

 

[Kaden_Nite]

Hey man, nice to hear from you. I hope work gets more manageable soon. I've been working a whole lot, myself, though it has calmed down since 4th quarter of this past year. I really enjoy my work, though... do you do something you enjoy, too?

Hey mate.
Yes, ultimately, I do like my job, am grateful for it and really like being around the people I work with. The owners treat me like family.

Early starts, falling behind on tasks, accumulating a significant sleep debt and the subsequent crash aftetwards, especially in this Summer humidity though.. I have a difficult time with that.

My brain totally broke down last Friday night and I had hallucinations of my house defragmenting into a completely different place. That happened about 5 times in the space of an hour or so. Scared the hell out of me. It was like being suddenly struck by a gram of ketamine lightning. I think it might have been a nightmare due to sleep deprivation, but, I'm not certain.

Sleep I'm realising is very important.

hope your friend does write a TR. Few people have been able to try pure psiloc(yb)in. I am one of those few who has, back in I believe 2006, some synthetic 4-HO-DMT went around. I found it distinctly different from mushrooms, but definitely much, much closer than 4-AcO-DMT is. It came up much faster and was very ego-crushing, without a lot of the physical aspects of mushrooms.

I think they use psilocybin as it's more stable than psilocin. I was thinking about how 4-AcO-DMT might compare to pure psilocybin, I would have thought they are pretty interchangeable, but 4-AcO may have it's own way of metabolizing, possibly getting psilocin places where mushroom alkaloids can't? I'm clearly no expert in pharmacology, but I've heard enough people say it's different to mushrooms. Maybe I'll send him some 4-AcO, ask for a comparison, I'm sure he'd be happy to oblige.. for science of course

I'm due for some mushrooms and mescaline once things hush a bit, so I'll be back soon.

Be well trippers!

 

[pharmakos]

What rational material test? Quantum physics experiments have been failing materialist tests for a while now.. which is to say their results conflict with 19th century common sense, the Baconian notion that the only knowledge of nature is the conquest and submission of nature into purely billiard-ball mechanics. You wouldn't say Galileo failed the Christian test either, right? He did, of course, in a sense.. but in retrospect we prefer to call it ossified preconceptions resisting adaption to novel evidence.

If some sort of monotheist being would be observing everything, there would be no particle-wave duality, for they would be always be observed and thus collapsed into particle form.

If you want to move away from quantum mysticism within the body of contemporary scientific evidence, you have to be more crafty about it. Roger Penrose for instance argues that what looks like the bizarre effect of consciousness collapsing waveforms, rather highlights a confounding element, a commonality between consciousness and elementary particles. So consciousness wouldn't be collapsing waveforms, consciousness IS a collapsing of waveforms. In short, a quantum model of consciousness, like the microtubule model he's working on, would be able to reinstate some classical materialist notions.. but only by fleshing out all that underlies the quantum experiments, which includes the observer. (Because Penrose doesn't like the idea of trees not falling without people around either.)

The next thing I was going to bring up in this thread was Penrose and OrchOR theory actually.

"Penrose doesn't like the idea of trees not falling without people around either" that's what I mean about the rational materialist test. Quantum strangeness shouldn't point to nihilism. The weirdness isn't proof that nothing is real.

As far as wave-function collapse's existence contradicting God's existence -- what if, in the absence of human intervention that triggers collapse, all collapses are directed by God? How would we be able to see that as anything other than a probability field from our perspective here inside the physical construct?

 

[pharmakos]

This paper is a pretty incredible combination of a bunch of different cutting edge physics into one comprehensive theory, including a cool way of looking at OrchOR, and connecting it to how psychedelics seem to increase the amount of superposition in the brain :

A Fractal Topology of Time: Implications for Consciousness and Cosmology

"Layman's Abstract: This dissertation looks at how there is a texture to our temporal experience, how sometimes time seems to go faster, or slower, and how, on rare occasions, it seems to stop altogether. I suggest that this is a result of

www.academia.edu

If that's true about superposition it actually confirms a theory I had ages ago when I first started taking psychedelics -- that psychedelics allow us to see the universe in the state in which it exists BEFORE wave function collapse. Literally letting us glimpse into the realm of the possible. With a dose dependent response up until the point where you fully melt into the aether for awhile.

 

[Xorkoth]

I think they use psilocybin as it's more stable than psilocin. I was thinking about how 4-AcO-DMT might compare to pure psilocybin, I would have thought they are pretty interchangeable, but 4-AcO may have it's own way of metabolizing, possibly getting psilocin places where mushroom alkaloids can't? I'm clearly no expert in pharmacology, but I've heard enough people say it's different to mushrooms. Maybe I'll send him some 4-AcO, ask for a comparison, I'm sure he'd be happy to oblige.. for science of course

Some people find 4-AcO-DMT and 4-HO-DMT to be interchangeable, but others (like me, but also a lot of others) find them easily distinguishable. I am certain I could tell them apart in a double blind study quite easily. 4-AcO-DMT feels like oral smoked DMT... the feeling, visuals, body high, everything feel exactly like when you smoke DMT, but much less overwhelming and slower to develop. Then around the end of the peak, it becomes indistinguishable from the same stage of a 4-HO-DMT trip. My theory is that 4-AcO-DMT (and probably all the acetoxy esters) is able to cross the BBB and has effects of its own, but it is also metabolized into 4-HO-DMT. My thought is that different peoples' bodies perform that conversion at different rates, so some will never get appreciable levels of 4-AcO-DMT in their blood, while some will.

My brain totally broke down last Friday night and I had hallucinations of my house defragmenting into a completely different place. That happened about 5 times in the space of an hour or so. Scared the hell out of me. It was like being suddenly struck by a gram of ketamine lightning. I think it might have been a nightmare due to sleep deprivation, but, I'm not certain.

Sleep I'm realising is very important.

Whoa, that sounds intense. And not good. Sleep is for sure very important. Long-term chronic sleep deficit can really fuck you over.

 

[Xorkoth]

If that's true about superposition it actually confirms a theory I had ages ago when I first started taking psychedelics -- that psychedelics allow us to see the universe in the state in which it exists BEFORE wave function collapse. Literally letting us glimpse into the realm of the possible. With a dose dependent response up until the point where you fully melt into the aether for awhile.

In my +4 2C-E experience where I experienced ego death and first experienced waking up from the entire dream and remembering we are just a dimensionless point of awareness, all alone, I experienced this very convincingly during the loop I was experiencing that refuted all logical claims I tried to make to assert my existence. I began to see reality break apart, and towards the end, it was like I could see all possible futures both ahead of me, and behind me, all converging on the current instant of time I was in. I could see myself taking a step forward, or to the left, or to the right, and then see all of the moments play out, in frames, extending in front of me (I go to the kitchen; I go upstairs; I don't move; etc), and likewise all possible past paths leading up to exactly where I was in the moment. As I moved, it all shifted to accomodate it. Probably the most psychedelic thing I've ever experienced, except for another time on DMT where I experienced stuff on that level or maybe even beyond.

 

[pharmakos]

In my +4 2C-E experience where I experienced ego death and first experienced waking up from the entire dream and remembering we are just a dimensionless point of awareness, all alone, I experienced this very convincingly during the loop I was experiencing that refuted all logical claims I tried to make to assert my existence. I began to see reality break apart, and towards the end, it was like I could see all possible futures both ahead of me, and behind me, all converging on the current instant of time I was in. I could see myself taking a step forward, or to the left, or to the right, and then see all of the moments play out, in frames, extending in front of me (I go to the kitchen; I go upstairs; I don't move; etc), and likewise all possible past paths leading up to exactly where I was in the moment. As I moved, it all shifted to accomodate it. Probably the most psychedelic thing I've ever experienced, except for another time on DMT where I experienced stuff on that level or maybe even beyond.

I remember reading that trip report on Erowid like.... What 16 years ago now?

 

[Xorkoth]

Yeah, I believe so. Damn... I had that trip in like November 2005, it got published in 2006.

We're old!