how is it irrational to say everything is connected?
if you can show me two things that AREN'T connected, you'll have proven him wrong. but you can't, because you just connected the two things you named by putting them into the same sentence.
It's not particularly irrational or mystic. That experience he describes is quite common for people who use mushrooms a few times. What is the difference between you and a chair? What makes your brain so special, and why is it so important that it continue to exist? Why shouldn't a stick held in your hand be considered part of your body (in fact, one of the big differences between humans and most animals is that, unconsciously, we do think that). And why stop there?
And so on.
They sound like stupid questions to dwell on, and they sort of are. They don't have concrete answers, but it's the asking that's important. The drug merely helps a person to honestly take them seriously.
I'm not against philosophical questions. I myself had them while on shrooms.
Still, there is no reason whatsoever to refuse materialism due to a mushroom experience, that is why I called it mysticism. The fact that your brain state alters because you consumed a tiny amount of a certain chemical should be proof of materialism.
The statement that "everything is connected" is meaningless without defining what you mean by "connected". In some quantum-physics way your brain atoms are connected to the atoms on the Jupiter, which is fascinating to think about, but without any real consequence. This fact doesn't change when you are high on shrooms.
Now this post is one that will definitely warrant down-votes.
Modern science, understandably, does not know that the human constitution is comprised of more than the physical body.
They don't know this because they don't have the instruments to detect the other bodies (such as the astral or etheric).
So, all of their efforts in research are pointed to determine the effects in the physical body. Actually, when taking psychedelics it is the astral and etheric body that is being stimulated (the cause) with effects seen in the physical body.
If you truly care to learn more about this I suggest Astral Dynamics by Robert Bruce. You can learn conscious separation of the astral body from the physical body. There's even an exercise that will allow you to determine if the whole experience is objective or subjective - you go into one room to project and in another room someone writes a number on a paper and tapes it against the wall. You quickly project into the room, read the number, come back to your body and go see if you were right.
> They don't know this because they don't have the instruments to detect the other bodies (such as the astral or etheric).
If there is no way to demonstrate the objective reality of those things, they are by definition in the realm of mysticism.
> You go into one room to project and in another room someone writes a number on a paper and tapes it against the wall. You quickly project into the room, read the number, come back to your body and go see if you were right.
"If there is no way to demonstrate the objective reality of those things, they are by definition in the realm of mysticism."
Sure, that is your classification of concepts. However, know that your classification using semantics does not negate whether or not the actual reality exists. Furthermore, they cannot be demonstrated with current tools. Electrons were not able to be detected thousands of years ago, but now we have the tools to prove their existence. This does not mean electrons did not exist prior to our development of tools to detect them.
The Randi challenge is a great point and I have already thought of reaching out to Robert Bruce on his forum to ask him why he himself does not submit a proposal to the institution, seeing as how he is an advanced projector.
Personally, I am in the beginning states of consciously projecting and controlling the astral body, my fear usually gets in the way of completely separating, though I have floated out of my body and into the ceiling, numerous times.
> Furthermore, they cannot be demonstrated with current tools.
I don't know what you mean by they? It is you who fails to objectively demonstrate the phenomena and claims knowledge. This is called mysticism, plain and simple.
> The Randi challenge is a great point and I have already thought of reaching out to Robert Bruce on his forum to ask him why he himself does not submit a proposal to the institution, seeing as how he is an advanced projector.
I can answer this for you: because there is no such thing as an advanced projector.
I agree with you, but I don't think the so-called 'mystic' interpretation of the experience is that different from the materialistic one.
Consider Ptolemaic astronomy versus Copernican and later. Copernican astronomy is more accurate sure, and simpler in its construction, and just a better theory. However Ptolemaic astronomy was around for over a thousand years before it and worked quite well, despite being 'wrong' in just about every sense, far moreso than the model of Copernicus. Likewise while I consider 'mystic' interpretations of an experience on mushrooms to be rubbish, I have to admit that most of what they would take from it is not too dissimilar from myself.
If functioning GPS or transistors that worked depended on how most people modeled their experience on mushrooms, I'd probably be more inclined to persuade people toward a more sensible approach, but since for the time being it remains a deeply personal thing, and since it is a rather poor predictor of how they approach the rest of their life, I don't think it really matters.
And to be honest, I initially approached the experience from a mystic or even religious angle (despite being an atheist) but eventually discarded it as unworkable.
Well stated. It always turns me off when people use mysticism as a comforting hand-wave for things which can readily be be stated more plainly, as if shedding some rationality on a subject makes it any less awesome.
Goethe was the king of that sort of irrationality.
You might find the essays in Richard Dawkins's book, Unweaving the Rainbow interesting since the thread drawing them together is that understanding something scientifically does not make it less fascinating, if anything it makes everything even more interesting.
It is actually a trichotomy: close-minded, open-minded, and so-open-minded-that-all-your-critical-thinking-ability-has-run-out-your-ears. At least a third of HN commenters fall into the third group.
