I think you are missing the referential frame. I don’t know if someone who has never taken psychedelics can adequately understand what it is like, unless they

I think you are missing the referential frame. I don’t know if someone who has never taken psychedelics can adequately understand what it is like, unless they have experienced something similar without taking psychedelic substances. (That is, spontaneous, visionary experiences). There’s an intellectualization of what the person thinks this experience is about, as a substitute for direct experience. A physicist might study physical phenomena, but what they work with are models about those physical phenomena, and then call that “reality”. That isn’t reality. Those are models of physical phenomena with high degree of predictive ability. Rather, if you want to use an example of someone who attempt to directly experience reality, we’re talking about Zen practitioners or one of those non-dual teachers. If you hear them talk, they spend a lot of time saying very plainly, you don’t really experience reality directly. But people hearing it pretty much nod their head and think that they do. As far as oncology research goes, you are right. It is biased towards study participants with cancer. Not only do the _researchers_ themselves are not experiencing cancer themselves (unless they got cancer), but what is _not_ being studied is what health and wholeness looks like and contextualizing cancer that way. Instead, we’re getting to know a lot about the mechanisms of cancer, and the various causal chains of cancer, and this limits our view to that of the body as a machine. That by somehow understanding all the fiddly bits, we would understand the whole, and we won’t.