5 ms·

It's not that you lack the language skills to describe it, it's that you accessed a state of consciousness that exists before/beyond language. This is a state t

It's not that you lack the language skills to describe it, it's that you accessed a state of consciousness that exists before/beyond language. This is a state that has been extensively explored through meditation by yogis and which the foundation of Vedantic teachings if you want to learn more. The way I (poorly) understand it is that language is part of the veil that separates us from Source. You can't communicate what lies beyond the veil because the tool of communication is of the veil.

lostmsu 8y ago
So, basically, some unscientific bullshit, that probably has no real effect, except the bragging rights?
- rocgf 8y ago
  It's astonising to see what lengths people will go to in order to dispute something they simply don't comprehend because of pre-existing bias. It's a bit like trying to explain what being in love is like or what you feel when your child is born and he grabs your finger for the first time. You could just as easily dismiss those two, despite the fact that they are some of the most beautiful life experiences for any human. It doesn't really matter if one writes a sentence or a novel about a psychedelic experience, you won't be that much closer to understanding it either way.
  - lostmsu 8y ago
    I am not trying to understand the experience. I am trying to understand if it actually provides any enlightenment apart from "wow this brain failure mode is fun to experience".
    - Moodles 8y ago
      You probably won't understand by reading our HN comments. You come across as quite argumentative and not really ready to listen to a contradicting view. Maybe you're offended by the word "enlightening". I don't know why that's such a big deal? I suggest you either try some mushrooms to understand for yourself, or chill out.
      - lostmsu 8y ago
        > You probably won't understand by reading our HN comments. Why not? If nobody here, who had "enlightening" drug experiences, actually can mention something enlightening which they learned during a trip, it would reassure others, that there's no enlightening. > I don't know why that's such a big deal? Because we are talking about addictive and potentially dangerous chemicals, which people continue to suggest for some reason.
        rocgf 8y ago
        Your attitude is not one of desire to understand, but rather of desire to dispute. Someone that comes across as you do can rarely be budged, so I won't waste a lot of effort. First of all, the archetypal psychedelic (e.g. mushrooms, LSD) are some of the safest substances one can consume from a physical health standpoint. The dangers come only psychologically and, to be fair, you cannot know beforehand what your reaction will be. However, these risks can be mitigated by doing research beforehand, taking an appropriate dose, testing your substance. As for addiction, psychedelics in particular are on the lower end of the scale. Caffeine and sugar are more addictive by orders of magnitude (though this is personal anecdote). > actually can mention something enlightening which they learned during a trip Now, it seems like, for you to be content, you want some pearl of wisdom or utterance that would sound unlike anything that's ever been said before. That will not happen and it is an unfair yardstick. Enlightening is the state you experience during and after the experience; you simply would not believe that your brain is capable of taking you to that place.
        lostmsu 8y ago
        > Your attitude is not one of desire to understand, but rather of desire to dispute. That's how understanding works. In science this process is called peer review. > Now, it seems like, for you to be content, you want some pearl of wisdom or utterance that would sound unlike anything that's ever been said before. Nah, anything, that person did not know/think before would be good. > That will not happen and it is an unfair yardstick. Enlightening is the state you experience during and after the experience; you simply would not believe that your brain is capable of taking you to that place. That's about as enlightening, as having your brain before bungee jump to believe you actually gonna do it.
- mistermann 8y ago
  Rather than criticize that which you have utterly no knowledge or understanding of, why don't you go see what it really is for yourself?
  - lostmsu 8y ago
    Because of the alleged negative long- and short-term effects. Also, I am not actively seeking joy, that is induced by a drug.
    - mistermann 8y ago
      This is far from sufficient to support the statement "some unscientific bullshit, that probably has no real effect, except the bragging rights." And if you've read this thread and come to the conclusion that "seeking joy" is all that's going on here, it suggests yet another benefit you might realize from some small experimentation: a substantial improvement in your epistemological abilities.
      - lostmsu 8y ago
        >> Because of the alleged negative long- and short-term effects. > This is far from sufficient to support the statement "some unscientific bullshit, that probably has no real effect, except the bragging rights." Your question was formulated "why not just try". Why are you referring to the other part. If I have two choices, which you provided, and I kick one out with this answer, the other one is the only one left. > a substantial improvement in your epistemological abilities Are you claiming my "epistemological abilities" are somehow lacking, because I claim there's nothing enlightening but "wow, I can feel it on drugs" in drug-related experience, because multiple opponents on this thread fail to provide any concrete examples? How about you guys are just delusional, or unable to adhere to Occam razor? The later states, that the explanation of drug experiences via a failure of participants to recognize bullshit in their dreams due to their brains being partially off, is superior to the explanation, that throwing a random chemical into a complex system designed to live a normal life can somehow produce a very deep though via a mechanism unknown? My theory also have a very good easily falsifiable prediction, that the opposite does not: that none claiming to have an "enlightening" would be able to produce anything enlightening in this thread. And it holds so far.

lostmsu 8y ago

So, basically, some unscientific bullshit, that probably has no real effect, except the bragging rights?

rocgf 8y ago
It's astonising to see what lengths people will go to in order to dispute something they simply don't comprehend because of pre-existing bias. It's a bit like trying to explain what being in love is like or what you feel when your child is born and he grabs your finger for the first time. You could just as easily dismiss those two, despite the fact that they are some of the most beautiful life experiences for any human. It doesn't really matter if one writes a sentence or a novel about a psychedelic experience, you won't be that much closer to understanding it either way.
- lostmsu 8y ago
  I am not trying to understand the experience. I am trying to understand if it actually provides any enlightenment apart from "wow this brain failure mode is fun to experience".
  - Moodles 8y ago
    You probably won't understand by reading our HN comments. You come across as quite argumentative and not really ready to listen to a contradicting view. Maybe you're offended by the word "enlightening". I don't know why that's such a big deal? I suggest you either try some mushrooms to understand for yourself, or chill out.
    - lostmsu 8y ago
      > You probably won't understand by reading our HN comments. Why not? If nobody here, who had "enlightening" drug experiences, actually can mention something enlightening which they learned during a trip, it would reassure others, that there's no enlightening. > I don't know why that's such a big deal? Because we are talking about addictive and potentially dangerous chemicals, which people continue to suggest for some reason.
      - rocgf 8y ago
        Your attitude is not one of desire to understand, but rather of desire to dispute. Someone that comes across as you do can rarely be budged, so I won't waste a lot of effort. First of all, the archetypal psychedelic (e.g. mushrooms, LSD) are some of the safest substances one can consume from a physical health standpoint. The dangers come only psychologically and, to be fair, you cannot know beforehand what your reaction will be. However, these risks can be mitigated by doing research beforehand, taking an appropriate dose, testing your substance. As for addiction, psychedelics in particular are on the lower end of the scale. Caffeine and sugar are more addictive by orders of magnitude (though this is personal anecdote). > actually can mention something enlightening which they learned during a trip Now, it seems like, for you to be content, you want some pearl of wisdom or utterance that would sound unlike anything that's ever been said before. That will not happen and it is an unfair yardstick. Enlightening is the state you experience during and after the experience; you simply would not believe that your brain is capable of taking you to that place.
        lostmsu 8y ago
        > Your attitude is not one of desire to understand, but rather of desire to dispute. That's how understanding works. In science this process is called peer review. > Now, it seems like, for you to be content, you want some pearl of wisdom or utterance that would sound unlike anything that's ever been said before. Nah, anything, that person did not know/think before would be good. > That will not happen and it is an unfair yardstick. Enlightening is the state you experience during and after the experience; you simply would not believe that your brain is capable of taking you to that place. That's about as enlightening, as having your brain before bungee jump to believe you actually gonna do it.
mistermann 8y ago
Rather than criticize that which you have utterly no knowledge or understanding of, why don't you go see what it really is for yourself?
- lostmsu 8y ago
  Because of the alleged negative long- and short-term effects. Also, I am not actively seeking joy, that is induced by a drug.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    This is far from sufficient to support the statement "some unscientific bullshit, that probably has no real effect, except the bragging rights." And if you've read this thread and come to the conclusion that "seeking joy" is all that's going on here, it suggests yet another benefit you might realize from some small experimentation: a substantial improvement in your epistemological abilities.
    - lostmsu 8y ago
      >> Because of the alleged negative long- and short-term effects. > This is far from sufficient to support the statement "some unscientific bullshit, that probably has no real effect, except the bragging rights." Your question was formulated "why not just try". Why are you referring to the other part. If I have two choices, which you provided, and I kick one out with this answer, the other one is the only one left. > a substantial improvement in your epistemological abilities Are you claiming my "epistemological abilities" are somehow lacking, because I claim there's nothing enlightening but "wow, I can feel it on drugs" in drug-related experience, because multiple opponents on this thread fail to provide any concrete examples? How about you guys are just delusional, or unable to adhere to Occam razor? The later states, that the explanation of drug experiences via a failure of participants to recognize bullshit in their dreams due to their brains being partially off, is superior to the explanation, that throwing a random chemical into a complex system designed to live a normal life can somehow produce a very deep though via a mechanism unknown? My theory also have a very good easily falsifiable prediction, that the opposite does not: that none claiming to have an "enlightening" would be able to produce anything enlightening in this thread. And it holds so far.