3 ms·

Okay but the brain exists to provide an accurate model of reality. Changing it so as not to do so and then thinking that new model is "real" is fooling yourself

Okay but the brain exists to provide an accurate model of reality. Changing it so as not to do so and then thinking that new model is "real" is fooling yourself. > Some people do gain deeper insights of themselves and reality No they don't. Literally anyone who thinks they do is "deluded" (in the Buddhist technical sense)

imiric 3y ago
> Okay but the brain exists to provide an accurate model of reality. There's no such thing. Reality is subjective for everyone who experiences it, as our senses dictate how we perceive it. The model of reality we agree with is a general overlap of our collective senses, and is not any more "real" than the one experienced when under the influence of mind-altering substances. And this is fine. The way we all experience life is different, but claiming one way is "real" and the other "delusional" is a mistake.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  > There's no such thing. Reality is subjective for everyone who experiences it, as our senses dictate how we perceive it. The model of reality we agree with is a general overlap of our collective senses, and is not any more "real" than the one experienced when under the influence of mind-altering substances. I honestly think it's a cope to assert that there aren't really existing objects out there. The best you can do is a Hegelian argument, i.e. that everything is undetermined without a pure concept or language, but that doesn't really tell us whether or not there is "stuff" out there. Here's a question for you: do you think that there was no universe before sentient beings started to see it? Your argument here would mean you should answer "yes"
  - imiric 3y ago
    That's the age old question of a tree falling in a forest. I'm not disputing the claim that the universe exists even if there is no observer. What I'm saying is that the perception of that universe depends entirely on our senses. After all, to a blind person, the universe appears much differently. In that same vein, altering our senses by taking various substances expands our perception of the universe in a way a person who doesn't will never experience. My point is that choosing to do so or not is fine, and neither is better than the other. So my objection is to your claim that the people who do make that choice are deluding themselves, or not experiencing "true" reality.
    - bowsamic 3y ago
      > What I'm saying is that the perception of that universe depends entirely on our senses. And there is a right way to perceive it, and a wrong way to perceive it. > After all, to a blind person, the universe appears much differently. And? They still perceive the senses they can still access accurately. > In that same vein, altering our senses by taking various substances expands our perception of the universe in a way a person who doesn't will never experience. I agree except replace "expand" with "confuses". It makes our perception of reality incorrect. > My point is that choosing to do so or not is fine, and neither is better than the other. One is objectively better than another. Try driving a car on a strong LSD trip. You can't, because it isn't allowing you to have an accurate perception of reality. > So my objection is to your claim that the people who do make that choice are deluding themselves, or not experiencing "true" reality. You haven't adequately justified your objection.
saiya-jin 3y ago
Well, to sum it up what you wrote - you are a proper mess, you took drugs without supervision despite literally everybody, everywhere, all the time since 50s advising to NOT take any drugs (including alcohol and cigarettes/nicotine) in such conditions. Then unsurprisingly you got hurt, and now you are sour on whole world and want to tell everybody how to live their lives, since you obviously know what's best for all of us. And of course you understand very well literally every single human being in this world in these ways. Did I miss anything? With great power comes great responsibility, you skipped the second part. Me, just like many others, had wonderful, enlightening experiences and I've done the best decisions in my life with help of those (but not only those). Those decisions stood the test of time and literally decades after they happened they are still right ones and I am profoundly thankful for them. And it literally doesn't matter what anybody sour writes on internet, you do you and we do us, in both good and bad ways.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  > Did I miss anything? I mean, yes, since this quite poorly summarises the situation. (I was not born in a place where I was told not to do drugs, I did drugs in a very safe environment with people I love who were supervising and caring for me, I dosed accordingly and carefully, I thought my mental state was conducive to the experience, etc. etc. etc.) > Me, just like many others, had wonderful, enlightening experiences and I've done the best decisions in my life with help of those (but not only those). I mean, yes, it's called being on drugs. When on MDMA people feel very empathetic and happy, similar on psychedelics. In Buddhism we call it "delusion" > And it literally doesn't matter what anybody sour writes on internet If you don't care at all, why are you even telling me? Your response does not read like an enlightened person. My Buddhist teacher did not speak in the way that you are speaking
  - saiya-jin 3y ago
    I am responding to what I perceive as incorrect subjective statements, welcome to internet and its forums :) It may shock you but not everybody strives to be buddhist or adhere to their core values (not everything in that religion is a-OK as per modern moral standards). I don't even care about some enlightenment, its some concept of one specific religion not particularly close to my heart. I like buddhists in their original countries a lot, shiny glowing people regardless of their often hard lives, westerns lost wannabes eternally looking for salvation usually not so much. Some of us, 'enlightened' by spiritual aspects of psychedelics (just to be clear, I talk about psylocibin, it gave me all I ever needed from it and much more, no need for me to go into MDMA or further) realized that spirituality tells us a lot how humans are wired internally and what happens when you mess with brain's receptors, but absolutely nothing about existence of actual higher power(s). And I don't need the existence of those powers, since I don't believe in them any more than in Santa claus. I am content with my own death (as extreme sports bring you close to it often), life so far figured out, I know exactly what my purpose in this life is, how to make myself long term content and happy, caring for my wife and kids, have cca good creative work, living in amazing place in Switzerland, taking care of my body. I really don't need anything else, and for none of that any kind of religion or ancient philosophy is necessary.

imiric 3y ago

> Okay but the brain exists to provide an accurate model of reality. There's no such thing. Reality is subjective for everyone who experiences it, as our senses dictate how we perceive it. The model of reality we agree with is a general overlap of our collective senses, and is not any more "real" than the one experienced when under the influence of mind-altering substances. And this is fine. The way we all experience life is different, but claiming one way is "real" and the other "delusional" is a mistake.

bowsamic 3y ago
> There's no such thing. Reality is subjective for everyone who experiences it, as our senses dictate how we perceive it. The model of reality we agree with is a general overlap of our collective senses, and is not any more "real" than the one experienced when under the influence of mind-altering substances. I honestly think it's a cope to assert that there aren't really existing objects out there. The best you can do is a Hegelian argument, i.e. that everything is undetermined without a pure concept or language, but that doesn't really tell us whether or not there is "stuff" out there. Here's a question for you: do you think that there was no universe before sentient beings started to see it? Your argument here would mean you should answer "yes"
- imiric 3y ago
  That's the age old question of a tree falling in a forest. I'm not disputing the claim that the universe exists even if there is no observer. What I'm saying is that the perception of that universe depends entirely on our senses. After all, to a blind person, the universe appears much differently. In that same vein, altering our senses by taking various substances expands our perception of the universe in a way a person who doesn't will never experience. My point is that choosing to do so or not is fine, and neither is better than the other. So my objection is to your claim that the people who do make that choice are deluding themselves, or not experiencing "true" reality.
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    > What I'm saying is that the perception of that universe depends entirely on our senses. And there is a right way to perceive it, and a wrong way to perceive it. > After all, to a blind person, the universe appears much differently. And? They still perceive the senses they can still access accurately. > In that same vein, altering our senses by taking various substances expands our perception of the universe in a way a person who doesn't will never experience. I agree except replace "expand" with "confuses". It makes our perception of reality incorrect. > My point is that choosing to do so or not is fine, and neither is better than the other. One is objectively better than another. Try driving a car on a strong LSD trip. You can't, because it isn't allowing you to have an accurate perception of reality. > So my objection is to your claim that the people who do make that choice are deluding themselves, or not experiencing "true" reality. You haven't adequately justified your objection.

saiya-jin 3y ago

Well, to sum it up what you wrote - you are a proper mess, you took drugs without supervision despite literally everybody, everywhere, all the time since 50s advising to NOT take any drugs (including alcohol and cigarettes/nicotine) in such conditions. Then unsurprisingly you got hurt, and now you are sour on whole world and want to tell everybody how to live their lives, since you obviously know what's best for all of us. And of course you understand very well literally every single human being in this world in these ways. Did I miss anything? With great power comes great responsibility, you skipped the second part. Me, just like many others, had wonderful, enlightening experiences and I've done the best decisions in my life with help of those (but not only those). Those decisions stood the test of time and literally decades after they happened they are still right ones and I am profoundly thankful for them. And it literally doesn't matter what anybody sour writes on internet, you do you and we do us, in both good and bad ways.

bowsamic 3y ago
> Did I miss anything? I mean, yes, since this quite poorly summarises the situation. (I was not born in a place where I was told not to do drugs, I did drugs in a very safe environment with people I love who were supervising and caring for me, I dosed accordingly and carefully, I thought my mental state was conducive to the experience, etc. etc. etc.) > Me, just like many others, had wonderful, enlightening experiences and I've done the best decisions in my life with help of those (but not only those). I mean, yes, it's called being on drugs. When on MDMA people feel very empathetic and happy, similar on psychedelics. In Buddhism we call it "delusion" > And it literally doesn't matter what anybody sour writes on internet If you don't care at all, why are you even telling me? Your response does not read like an enlightened person. My Buddhist teacher did not speak in the way that you are speaking
- saiya-jin 3y ago
  I am responding to what I perceive as incorrect subjective statements, welcome to internet and its forums :) It may shock you but not everybody strives to be buddhist or adhere to their core values (not everything in that religion is a-OK as per modern moral standards). I don't even care about some enlightenment, its some concept of one specific religion not particularly close to my heart. I like buddhists in their original countries a lot, shiny glowing people regardless of their often hard lives, westerns lost wannabes eternally looking for salvation usually not so much. Some of us, 'enlightened' by spiritual aspects of psychedelics (just to be clear, I talk about psylocibin, it gave me all I ever needed from it and much more, no need for me to go into MDMA or further) realized that spirituality tells us a lot how humans are wired internally and what happens when you mess with brain's receptors, but absolutely nothing about existence of actual higher power(s). And I don't need the existence of those powers, since I don't believe in them any more than in Santa claus. I am content with my own death (as extreme sports bring you close to it often), life so far figured out, I know exactly what my purpose in this life is, how to make myself long term content and happy, caring for my wife and kids, have cca good creative work, living in amazing place in Switzerland, taking care of my body. I really don't need anything else, and for none of that any kind of religion or ancient philosophy is necessary.