4 ms·
The kind of insight that we value is obviously not a state of mind. Let's not nitpick verbiage and risk missing the point. Valuing different states of mind and
by Retra 8y ago
The kind of insight that we value is obviously not a state of mind. Let's not nitpick verbiage and risk missing the point.
Valuing different states of mind and interesting artwork is not the same as valuing insight. Just because psychedelics produce value does not mean the value is indicative of insight.
- coldtea 8y ago>The kind of insight that we value is obviously not a state of mind. Let's not nitpick verbiage and risk missing the point I'm afraid the nitpick is necessary. For example, nobody said or implied that an LSD user comes out with full schematics for a CPU or some new laws of mathematics. So, to avoid further confusion: 1) I wasn't referring to some technical or quantifiable "insight that we value" and that is "obviously not a state of mind". 2) While not on par with the discovery of calculus or the internal combustion engine, I (and many others I presume) also value the kind of insight people do get with psychedelics (and several other means, including philosophy). Even if it doesn't arrive in a readily communicable form. 3) That doesn't mean there's also no mere sentiment manipulation done by these drugs. But, even though those are there too, people have used them to come to significant personal and artistic etc insights for millennia. 4) That said, other drugs, have helped people (including scientists and engineers) achieve actual technical insights of the "kind we value", and perform impressive feats of concentration etc (amphetamines etc).
- Retra 8y ago>I (and many others I presume) also value the kind of insight people do get with psychedelics (and several other means, including philosophy). Even if it doesn't arrive in a readily communicable form. I hear what you're saying, but I don't understand why you're calling it insight. You can spend an hour talking to a AI chatbot about philosophy and value the experience. That doesn't mean the bot has some special insight. This is especially true if you're talking about things which can't be communicated effectively. If you're finding patterns in word salad, markov chained sentences, or the rantings of doped up philosophers, the insight still needs to be demonstrated independently.
- ThomPete 8y agoInsights do not have to be demonstrated in some scientific sense they just have to be useful. Some will be demonstrated some will be used, some are kept secret and many will be ignored. Even dreams will provide you with insights or melodies or perspectives or ideas because it frees up your pre-conceived thinking about a certain subject matter or even a whole set of subject matters. Insights aren't some scientifically testable hypothesis, they are utilitarian. You asked me to look it up. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insight https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insight It's pretty obvious that insights aren't as rigid as you seem to imply.
- Retra 8y ago>Insights aren't some scientifically testable hypothesis, they are utilitarian. "Utilitatian" in the sense of demonstrating value, which requires the utility of said insight to be communicated. I didn't imply any rigidity. I'm saying that the only way to know if your psychedelic ruminations are insightful is to communicate something of value to someone else... a feat which requires other people to see the value -- using their own capacity for insight. There's no point in being a brain-in-a-vat whose every thought is a brilliant revelation who nobody else shares. There's no reason for anyone else to call that insight or value. >You asked me to look it up. I asked you to look it up because you kept conflating insight with value. They are not the same thing, but you kept asking questions which presume they are. Gold is valuable. Gold is not value.
- coldtea 8y ago>"Utilitatian" in the sense of demonstrating value, which requires the utility of said insight to be communicated. I didn't imply any rigidity. Such an insight can have utilitarian value to the person experiencing it (to the point of improving their life etc) -- it doesn't have to be communicated to have utilitarian value. (Even more so it can have non-utilitarian value, e.g. they can derive enjoyment out of it). Besides, an insight that turns into a work of art, a song, etc, a philosophical rumination, etc, is still communicated, and depending on one's stance can be said to have utilitarian value (for a base example, many a drug-inspired songs have put food on the table for their songwriter). >I'm saying that the only way to know if your psychedelic ruminations are insightful is to communicate something of value to someone else... a feat which requires other people to see the value -- using their own capacity for insight. Well, the value millions of people have attributed to writings from people like Terrence McKenna, Huxley, Timothy Leary and so on, is enough to cover this, no? (We can of course argue of their "actual" value, but as concerning the "requires other people to see the value -- using their own capacity for insight", that's pretty much covered).
- ThomPete 8y agoHow can it not be indicative of insight if it produces value? Isn't insight value to begin with?
- Retra 8y agoI don't understand the question.