| ▲ | theturtletalks 5 hours ago |
| I read many years ago that psychedelics are what lead to the formation of consciousness. And it’s supported by the fact that psychedelics are also a network like the brain is. And when taking them, your brain experiences plasticity and that’s what allows profound changes. A big part of our consciousness is the default mode network (which is a default of how we operate day to day, things we think about, etc). Psychedelics allow us to change that DMN, but may it have created it too? |
|
| ▲ | fugalfervor 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| There is no evidence of that. What you say is not supporting, but rather "conveniently makes sense". I don't dispute the utility of psychedelics. But I have observed (and this is anecdotal) that the fanatic devotees of the drugs tend to engage in magical thinking around the power/history/whatever of psychedelic substances, no matter their intelligence or accomplishment, or rigorous critical thinking in other areas. |
| |
| ▲ | archonis 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Reconciling the profound interiority of the experience with a mere external catalyst can be quite challenging. Consider the question yourself next time you are in the throes of an exoerience and see how hard it is to maintain objectivity... | |
| ▲ | theturtletalks 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s a controversial theory, but it does exist[0]. As far as I know, there is no prevailing theory about where consciousness came from so speculating based on existing theories isn’t claiming it’s the truth. Is it such a leap that fungi are one of the few natural drugs that cause brain elasticity so maybe our early ancestors took it to get the evolutionary process started. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoned_ape_theory | | |
| ▲ | robbiep 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | One of the reasons this is such a long bow to draw is that, as you have absurdly reiterated and an earlier commenter posited, this is Lamarckism.
If it is true, where are all the sapient reindeer and other animals that have consumed these substances as a species for as long or longer than we have existed? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | talon8635 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How are psychedelic chemical compounds “a network”? Are you referring specifically to fungal mycelium? Of course there a tons of non psychedelic mushrooms and tons of non-mushroom psychedelics |
|
| ▲ | whakim 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There are a number of problems with these statements, but a major one is that psychedelics are associated with reduced activity within the DMN (but increased activity between the DMN and other networks). It is not clear the direction in which this causality runs. |
|
| ▲ | anramon 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > psychedelics are what lead to the formation of consciousness This reads like recycled lamarckism. |
| |
| ▲ | nephihaha 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | "This reads like recycled lamarckism." Recycled Lamarckianism would be Lysenkoism. :) |
|
|
| ▲ | plufz 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just for clarification. The default mode network is what activates when we are at rest or ”not focused on the outside world”. Ie daydreaming and mind wandering, even if it also can be active during detailed thinking. It has also been shown to have negative correlation to networks in the brain associated with attention. |
|
| ▲ | BigTTYGothGF 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I read many years ago that psychedelics are what lead to the formation of consciousness I have never taken psychedelics but I believe myself to be conscious. |
| |
|
| ▲ | titanomachy 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > psychedelics are also a network like the brain is Sorry to be rude, but what the hell does that mean? |
| |
| ▲ | theturtletalks 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Fungi grow as a vast interconnected network and can communicate to other fungi. Similarly to how the neurons in the brain communicate. In fact, when you take fungi, it tones down common neural pathways and allows new ones to form between new places. | | |
| ▲ | titanomachy 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok, but there are plenty of psychedelics that don't come from fungi. | | |
| ▲ | theturtletalks 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | True, but my point isn’t that. It’s that fungi operate as an interconnected network so it makes the connection between them, neural networks, and consciousness interesting. | | |
| ▲ | boothby 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Meth is a crystal, and crystals vibrate in synchronous harmonicity. What does this tell us about meth? ... no, the fact that some hallucinogens are derived from fungi does not give rise to consciousness. I accept that you read that somewhere; that does not make it true. But, really bad ideas do seem like amazing epiphanies if you're under the influence! | | |
| ▲ | quchen 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Or take DMT as a crystalline, naturally produced substance. As far as I know, there's no Methamphetamine in nature, although I've become very careful with the terms none/all in biology. | |
| ▲ | theturtletalks 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Nice strawman you got there. Meth is a man made synthetic compound. Fungi cover this earth and are one of the few natural drugs that cause brain elasticity and can cause personality change. The theory is real and, of course, controversial[0]. The formation of consciousness is still a mystery and I’m simply discussing a theory. If you have another theory you deem right, let’s argue on merit, not personal attacks. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoned_ape_theory | | |
| ▲ | boothby 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | A theory can be "real" in the sense that people believe it, and also controversial because it has little consistent evidence behind it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth Nowhere in my comment did I attack you personally. I made an analogous argument; reductio ad absurdum. LSD is also a man-made synthetic compound, and promotes neuroplacticity. And if you've ever known a meth addict, you'll know that the substance can cause significant and enduring personality change. You're advancing a pseudoscientific theory, and I'm ripping it on its utter lack of merit. Please don't take that personally. |
| |
| ▲ | LoganDark 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > really bad ideas do seem like amazing epiphanies if you're under the influence! Sometimes really bad ideas can actually turn around when taken to irrational extremes. Tons of evidence in history of people who are batshit crazy, somehow figuring out something amazing simply by being impossibly committed to something really, really stupid. But of course, being batshit crazy has other problems, and nearly all of the really stupid stuff does not turn around like that. |
|
|
|
|
|
