8 ms·

Me too, however unless one think there is some magical component to consciousness then couldn't it be as good an explanation as many others? I am a pretty skep

Me too, however unless one think there is some magical component to consciousness then couldn't it be as good an explanation as many others? I am a pretty skeptical person when it comes to these things too (doesn't even believe in god) but it doesn't strike me as such a far out explanation although as I said I have no base other than what is out there. It's at least a contender that should be taken seriously IMO.

azernik 8y ago
> One other interesting item of note about McKenna; his research led him to conclude that human consciousness would undergo a dramatic shift around the year 2012. He predicted this back in the late 1980s. I’m not sure how logically or scientifically valid his theory about “time wave zero” is, but there can be no denying that humanity is about to undergo some major socio-economic and political changes. The bond bubble has yet to blow, and when it does, it will take the entire machinery of the state down with it. The state's present spending trajectory is unsustainable. This is pretty darned crackpot. As to "as good an explanation as many others" - it really really isn't. We're getting into Lamarckian, inheritance-of-acquired-characteristics territory here, where this theory is positing a) that mushrooms being an aphrodisiac increases reproductive fitness of people who take them, and b) somehow this means the effects of the drug are passed on?? This is junk science.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Oh yes that is crackpot but that doesn't mean everything is crackpot just like a scientific theory can be wrong in many ways and still right about something more fundamental. I am not supporting any single interpretation I am just saying that in this area we don't really have anything firm to grasp on to and given that mushrooms where here before us I am not going to rule out that there is something to this even though it might not be McKennas theories. I don't know how it can be junk science when it's not even science. I am asking a question there are more people than McKenna (people who didn't have any opinion about 2012) who have theories. Those theories will need to be testable to be science I don't think we have any test even by most rigorous scientific standards that allow us to test this area, at least not yet. Right now I am just speculating not putting forward any specific theory but just to repeat. Mushrooms were here before us apparently covering the planet. So whatever was here originally we are a part of and that's at least to me worth exploring a little more than just calling it junk science.
nicoburns 8y ago
Not really? If we assume that consciousness arises out of brains somehow, then we have a relatively good understanding of how psychedelics affect consciousness: they (roughly speaking) disrupt the normal pathways that electrical signals take in the brain, and cause different (pseudo random) pathways to be taken. This of course leads to all sorts of unusual thoughts and experiences. But this explanation doesn't apply in the case where there is no consciousness in the first place. Personally I think consciousness is super-interesting. Once you realise that we have no real explanation as to how consciousness arises from the brain, and also that reactions to outside stimuli can occur without conscious awareness, it suddenly becomes much more plausible that things like trees or even rocks could have some kind of consciousness. I'm not saying I live my life as if this is true, but we really have no evidence that it's not the case...

azernik 8y ago

> One other interesting item of note about McKenna; his research led him to conclude that human consciousness would undergo a dramatic shift around the year 2012. He predicted this back in the late 1980s. I’m not sure how logically or scientifically valid his theory about “time wave zero” is, but there can be no denying that humanity is about to undergo some major socio-economic and political changes. The bond bubble has yet to blow, and when it does, it will take the entire machinery of the state down with it. The state's present spending trajectory is unsustainable. This is pretty darned crackpot. As to "as good an explanation as many others" - it really really isn't. We're getting into Lamarckian, inheritance-of-acquired-characteristics territory here, where this theory is positing a) that mushrooms being an aphrodisiac increases reproductive fitness of people who take them, and b) somehow this means the effects of the drug are passed on?? This is junk science.

ThomPete 8y ago
Oh yes that is crackpot but that doesn't mean everything is crackpot just like a scientific theory can be wrong in many ways and still right about something more fundamental. I am not supporting any single interpretation I am just saying that in this area we don't really have anything firm to grasp on to and given that mushrooms where here before us I am not going to rule out that there is something to this even though it might not be McKennas theories. I don't know how it can be junk science when it's not even science. I am asking a question there are more people than McKenna (people who didn't have any opinion about 2012) who have theories. Those theories will need to be testable to be science I don't think we have any test even by most rigorous scientific standards that allow us to test this area, at least not yet. Right now I am just speculating not putting forward any specific theory but just to repeat. Mushrooms were here before us apparently covering the planet. So whatever was here originally we are a part of and that's at least to me worth exploring a little more than just calling it junk science.

nicoburns 8y ago

Not really? If we assume that consciousness arises out of brains somehow, then we have a relatively good understanding of how psychedelics affect consciousness: they (roughly speaking) disrupt the normal pathways that electrical signals take in the brain, and cause different (pseudo random) pathways to be taken. This of course leads to all sorts of unusual thoughts and experiences. But this explanation doesn't apply in the case where there is no consciousness in the first place. Personally I think consciousness is super-interesting. Once you realise that we have no real explanation as to how consciousness arises from the brain, and also that reactions to outside stimuli can occur without conscious awareness, it suddenly becomes much more plausible that things like trees or even rocks could have some kind of consciousness. I'm not saying I live my life as if this is true, but we really have no evidence that it's not the case...