Can a Salvia Tripping Solipsist Rearrange Reality?

This is the place to discuss Salvia divinorum, splendins, and the other psychoactive salvias.
Post Reply
User avatar
burningmouth
Posts: 1634
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:45 pm
Contact:

Can a Salvia Tripping Solipsist Rearrange Reality?

Post by burningmouth » Thu May 10, 2012 3:15 pm

Solipsism ( /ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. As such it is the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate, is both irrefutable and yet indefensible in the same manner.----Wikipedia

###############################################
Image

So I was tripping a little while ago. Music was streaming into my ears -- specifically house music.
Uh, I think I might have changed reality.

A couple of times in the past, while tripping, I had also been listening to music. On both occasions the music seemed to magically get much better during the short peak period of the salvinorin rush. Later on, after coming down, I listened to the music again. The music in question was still Trans-Formed, even though my mind was back to normal. The thought was then planted in my brain that the salvinorin might have somehow caused the music to magically and radically reinvent itself for the better.

Anyway, a little while ago, the same thing happened. I smoked, listened to some music that I previously had not heard before, and the music was seemingly transformed for the better during the minute or two of peak salvinorin performance. Later, I listened to it again, and I could easily tell where the music had been reinvented and rematerialized. This seems to only happen to music that I’m listening to for the first time. Apparently, reality needs fragile avenues in which to rematerialize itself. One such avenue is previously un-listened to music.
Had I been listening to 'Stairway To Heaven', it would have been much more difficult for the song to become rematerialized. The neural pathways in my brain would have prevented re-materialization. But with a previously unheard song, the neural pathways aren't already established, thus re-materialization is a stronger probability.

So here’s what I’m saying:
During the peak salvinorin temporal phase, I was able to recreate the world around me; not in a major way, such as turning my neighborhood into a twisted, post apocalyptic wheel of splintered plywood and deformed fir trees. But in a more gentle way; such as permanently recreating a song.

I’m also saying this:
Not only did I change the song. By changing the song, an entire universe connected to the song was also downloaded (collapsed). The newly collapsed universe contained another WONR3RBOY, another SL24, another 2ofMe. Instead of one more 2ofMe, there are actually 10^500 2ofMe in the quantum universe. There are 10^500 SL24s, etc. My mind simply downloaded a newly collapsed version of reality from the 10^500 uncollapsed versions of reality out there.

So you guys reading this are not the same people who were reading this forum yesterday. You are a different collapsed version of who you were yesterday. You belong to the same reality as the rematerialized song I was listening to. The version of you who was reading this forum yesterday is still out there in the quantum universe (along with the original song), but YOU ARE NOT HIM.

Can you prove me wrong? Is there a simple thought experiment that can prove to me that I am not alone in my universe, that your existence is as real as mine?

Can someone under the influence of psychedelics rearrange reality? If I were to find the person who produced the music I was listening to, he would invariably say that there was no re-materialization of the music. He would tell me the music was just as he had performed it. Of course he would say that -- because HE is the newest collapsed version of himself. His newly collapsed existence is connected in a quantum way to the newly collapsed re-materialization of the song. If he were to agree with my hypothesis, he would be refuting his own existence.

As you can see -- I have a lot of free time on my hands.

...Oh, by the way. I also magically created the above image of the angels. I needed a cool image to go with this post, and of course, it magically appeared on a graphics site that I sometimes frequent.
Yeah, you might reply that you've seen that same image before.......sure you did.......(wink -- wink).
Last edited by burningmouth on Thu May 10, 2012 6:22 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
AkashicRecord
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:52 am
Location: Second Senior of Air (Jupiter)
Contact:

Re: Can a Salvia Tripping Solipsist Be Proved Wrong?

Post by AkashicRecord » Thu May 10, 2012 3:39 pm

This is good stuff.

It parallels some "messages" I received in a psychedelic state a while back. I ended up leaving "notes" for myself somehow, and a vague recollection of a part of those notes were:

Voice: "It all happens when you are asleep..."

Me: Why?

Voice: "Because you wanted it this way..."
Voice: "Numbers are everything..."

There was a little bit more, but I'd have to find those notes again. Not entirely sure what that all meant, but I'm putting it out there just in case.

Maybe mathematics truly IS the language of nature?
My brain is my computer, and DMT is my Internet.

"I am the Lord of the Double Wand of Power; the wand of the Force of Coph Nia—but my left hand is empty, for I have crushed an Universe; & nought remains."


User avatar
burningmouth
Posts: 1634
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Can a Salvia Tripping Solipsist Rearrange Reality?

Post by burningmouth » Fri May 11, 2012 6:40 am

Nice link, FM. I listened to part one, but I couldn’t find part two. That’s OK, because I’m going to record the interview with Art Bell and listen to it on my mp3 player.

It’s weird that he brings up the fine tuning of the universe. I was trying to explain fine tuning to my next door neighbor a few days ago. I recorded the audio of a debate between Hitchens and D’Souza about the existence of God and they touched on fine tuning.

I would like to find out more about the Theory of Biocentrism and fine tuning. Does consciousness create the universe? Does consciousness fine tune the universe because a fine tuned universe is the most efficient universe?

Robert Lanza also mentions the human brain. I just had this radical idea. What if the human brain is a prop? What if all the neurons are just pixilations with no inherent value? What if the brain only begins to have biological meaning when we actually start to probe into its mystery? In other words, the brain might be a series of waves and only becomes a system of particles once we focus on it.

I once read something from a Russian physicist who claimed that humans create space/time. We created our past. We created the dinosaurs. That claim seems a bit wild, but who knows?


AkashicRecord wrote:This is good stuff.

It parallels some "messages" I received in a psychedelic state a while back. I ended up leaving "notes" for myself somehow, and a vague recollection of a part of those notes were:

Voice: "It all happens when you are asleep.
Speaking of sleep: I just had a dream where I did something stupid. I've noticed something about sleeping. The person I identify as myself in my dreams has a lower IQ than the awake me. He is always making dumb decisions. I think I know why. If I wasn't so dumbed down in my dreams, I would easily figure out that I'm existing in a 'made up' dream world. Therefore, the mastermind behind the dreaming phenomenon is forced to dumb me down so I can have goofy dreams and think nothing of it.
"Oh, look. There's another pink elephant speaking Spanish. What else is new?"
If I'm being dumbed down in my sleep, am I also being dumbed down in my waking state so that I don't figure out the limitations of the waking Matrix?

#####################################

I've already seen a few holes in my OP. For one thing, a hard core believer in multiple universes would say that a new universe is created every nanosecond. For every decision someone makes, he creates a new universe and possibly trillions of new universes. The whole thing gets too weird even for me to buy into.

Also, as far as solipsism goes. If any of you had written the OP, I would have quickly deduced that you aren't the only existing person in the universe. I mean, I have a personal history located on my brain's hard drive. When I wake up every day, it's basically the same me that wakes up as the me that fell asleep eight hours ago. Therefore, I'm as real as the guy who thinks he's a solipsist. But I can't prove to him that I'm as real as he is. At least I don't think I can prove it.

As for as re-materializing reality goes -- yeah, I still think it's possible. But if I rematerialize a small portion of reality, then maybe that means I would have to create a whole new universe to go along with that rematerialized portion of reality. There would have to be at least two universes: the original un-rematerialized song/universe, and the new universe with a rematerialized song. Shit. I'm giving myself a headache. I need to smoke something.

Instead of this topic, I should have created a thread about the Regular Lighter vs Torch Lighter debate. Easier and safer topic. (in other words, don't piss off the operators who created the Matrix/simulation) :)

User avatar
i-jinx
Posts: 801
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Can a Salvia Tripping Solipsist Rearrange Reality?

Post by i-jinx » Fri May 11, 2012 10:16 am

burningmouth wrote:I'm as real as the guy who thinks he's a solipsist. But I can't prove to him that I'm as real as he is. At least I don't think I can prove it.
No you cannot. David Hume devoted a lot of ink to demonstrating: If you rely on logical deduction, you will never find good reason to believe other minds exist. (Who did he expect to read his argument?)

However, you will also never find sufficient justification for the existence of your own mind, you have to conclude that you are a "supernatural phenomenon". Occam's razor is a double edged sword.

I would like to know what salvialover24 thinks of biocentrism. To me it looks like digital mechanism, just with different terminology.

Biology --> Computation? Computation --> Biology? Tomayto --> Tomahto?

On OP... I think it makes sense to assume that every mind inhabits a unique universe. I've waffled at length on this before so won't go through it again. But, if we assume it to be true, it does lead to the very intriguing question: How much independent control do I have over my universe? I cannot have 100% control. If I did, I would be an omnipotent, but rather lonely god. I must have more than 0% control, because I have my own mind (really, I do!)

Somewhere between 100% and 0% then. Enough to improve a piece of music without disrupting the resonance principle? Maybe. I reckon a lot must depend, not on what you do, but on the way you do it.

I sometimes wonder if certain types of schizophrenia are actually protective mechanisms. When I see a schizophrenic, I might actually be observing a buffer, which quarantines my universe from disruption by another universe that has "gone rogue", wandered off at an incompatible tangent. From my shielded perspective, the quarantined universe looks like "a nutcase".

Torch lighter FTW!

Jupe
Posts: 1766
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 10:41 am
Location: Santa Barbara

Re: Can a Salvia Tripping Solipsist Rearrange Reality?

Post by Jupe » Fri May 11, 2012 11:02 am

I've been following this and the secret discussion, no time to post...the 3-d world is too busy....I've been reading a bit on mind and consciousness and ermergent properties, and quantum theory....which dovetails into these discussion.....I got nothing going yet though, just confusion....haha......although I wonder if language and the software required to use it may be the root of the problem. Quite a few advanced animals dont seem to have our troules witht he planet....ie dominance and screwing things up.....

Keep up the Good Thinking guys!!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Jupe

User avatar
burningmouth
Posts: 1634
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Can a Salvia Tripping Solipsist Rearrange Reality?

Post by burningmouth » Fri May 11, 2012 6:07 pm

Robert Lanza's theory of biocentrism has seven principles
What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An "external" reality, if it existed, would by definition have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal mind.
Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.
The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects, is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.
Without consciousness, "matter" dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.
The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The "universe" is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.
Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.
Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.

Lanza on solipsism
One of the main reasons most people reject the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory is that it leads to the dreaded doctrine of solipsism. The late Heinz Pagels once commented: “If you deny the objectivity of the world unless you observe it and are conscious of it, then you end up with solipsism—the belief that your consciousness is the only one.” Indeed, I once had one of my articles challenged by a reader who took this exact position. “I would like to ask Robert Lanza,” he wrote, “whether he feels the world will continue to exist after the death of his consciousness. If not, it’ll be hard luck for all of us should we outlive him” (New Scientist, 1991).

What I would question, with respect to solipsism, is the assumption that our individual separateness is an absolute reality. Bell’s experiment implies the existence of linkages that transcend our ordinary way of thinking. An old Hindu poem says, “Know in thyself and all one self-same soul; banish the dream that sunders part from whole.” If time is only a stubbornly persistent illusion, as we have seen, then the same can be said about space. The distinction between here and there is also not an absolute reality. Without consciousness, we can take any person as our new frame of reference. It is not my consciousness or yours alone, but ours. That’s the new solipsism the experiments mandate. The theorist Bernard d’Espagnat, a collaborator of Niels Bohr and Enrico Fermi, has said that “non-separability is now one of the most certain general concepts in physics.” This is not to say that our minds, like the particles in Bell’s experiment, are linked in any way that can violate the laws of causality. In this same sense, there is a part of us connected to the glowworm by the pond near my house. It is the part that experiences consciousness, not in our external embodiments but in our inner being. We can only imagine and recollect things while in the body; this is for sure, because sensations and memories are molded into thought and knowledge in the brain. And although we identify ourselves with our thoughts and affections, it is an essential feature of reality that we experience the world piece by piece. ----Wikipedia

Lanza on probability waves
As we have seen, the world appears to be designed for life not just at the microscopic scale of the atom, but at the level of the universe itself. In cosmology, scientists have discovered that the universe has a long list of traits that make it appear as if everything it contains—from atoms to stars—was tailor-made for us. Many are calling this revelation the Goldilocks principle, because the cosmos is not too this or too that, but just right for life. Others are calling it the anthropic principle, because the universe appears to be human centered. And still others are calling it intelligent design, because they believe it’s no accident that the heavens are so ideally suited for us. By any name, the discovery is causing a huge commotion within the astrophysics community and beyond.

At the moment, the only attempt at an explanation holds that God made the universe. But there is another explanation based on science. To understand the mystery, we need to reexamine the everyday world we live in. As unimaginable as it may seem to us, the logic of quantum physics is inescapable. Every morning we open our front door to bring in the paper or to go to work. We open the door to rain, snow, or trees swaying in the breeze. We think the world churns along whether we happen to open the door or not. Quantum mechanics tells us it doesn’t.

The trees and snow evaporate when we’re sleeping. The kitchen disappears when we’re in the bathroom. When you turn from one room to the next, when your animal senses no longer perceive the sounds of the dishwasher, the ticking clock, the smell of a chicken roasting—the kitchen and all its seemingly discrete bits dissolve into nothingness—or into waves of probability. The universe bursts into existence from life, not the other way around as we have been taught. For each life there is a universe, its own universe. We generate spheres of reality, individual bubbles of existence. Our planet is comprised of billions of spheres of reality, generated by each individual human and perhaps even by each animal.
################################################

burningmouth has a question:

If my laptop disappears when my back is to it, and then reappears when I face it; then how do the wave probabilities know how to transform into extremely detailed and ordered particles? And if a shell of plastic separates my eyes from the microprocessors, then how is the computer able to function? How come the components of the computer still aren't waves?
################################################

Lanza says something interesting about time
Think for a minute about time flowing forward into the future and how extraordinary it is that we are here, alive on the edge of all time. Imagine all the days and hours that have passed since the beginning of time. Now stack them like chairs on top of each other, and seat yourself on the very top. Science has no real explanation for why we’re here, for why we exist now. According to the current physiocentric worldview, it’s just an accident, a one-in-a-gazillion chance that I am here and that you are there. The statistical probability of being on top of time or infinity is so small as to be meaningless. Yet this is generally how the human mind conceives time.
http://theamericanscholar.org/a-new-the ... -universe/

User avatar
burningmouth
Posts: 1634
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Can a Salvia Tripping Solipsist Rearrange Reality?

Post by burningmouth » Fri May 11, 2012 6:30 pm

i-jinx wrote:I sometimes wonder if certain types of schizophrenia are actually protective mechanisms. When I see a schizophrenic, I might actually be observing a buffer, which quarantines my universe from disruption by another universe that has "gone rogue", wandered off at an incompatible tangent. From my shielded perspective, the quarantined universe looks like "a nutcase".
That's a cool idea. Picture a cartoon showing a couple of hospital employees with nets chasing a patient across the hospital grounds. The caption reads: "We need to catch this guy. His universe has gone rogue!" :)

If biocentrism is real, then I wonder if the phenomenon of schizophrenia can somehow prove that we create our reality. Hmmm. How come what 'normal' people see is 'real', yet what schizophrenics see is unreal? Schizophrenics see shadow people that aren't made of particles. They're just phantoms. Or are the shadow people actually made of particles within the schizophrenic's own personal universe? Oh, I'm getting another headache.

User avatar
salvialover24
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am
Location: Europa
Contact:

Re: Can a Salvia Tripping Solipsist Rearrange Reality?

Post by salvialover24 » Sat May 12, 2012 7:57 am

Wikipedia wrote:Solipsism ( /ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. ----Wikipedia
This is deeply inaccurate (as often with wikipedia). The idea that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure, is not solipsism, but sanity.
Solipism is the doctrine that only my own's mind is real (like if my little ego was the only dreamer). Salvia can trick you sometimes in believing something like that. Obviously, we can hope for it to be wrong, as I do when I send a post, 'course.
What follows, in that quote, is a bit more accurate.

User avatar
salvialover24
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am
Location: Europa
Contact:

Re: Can a Salvia Tripping Solipsist Rearrange Reality?

Post by salvialover24 » Sat May 12, 2012 8:11 am

i-jinx wrote:
burningmouth wrote:I'm as real as the guy who thinks he's a solipsist. But I can't prove to him that I'm as real as he is. At least I don't think I can prove it.
No you cannot. David Hume devoted a lot of ink to demonstrating: If you rely on logical deduction, you will never find good reason to believe other minds exist. (Who did he expect to read his argument?)

However, you will also never find sufficient justification for the existence of your own mind, you have to conclude that you are a "supernatural phenomenon". Occam's razor is a double edged sword.

I would like to know what salvialover24 thinks of biocentrism. To me it looks like digital mechanism, just with different terminology.

Biology --> Computation? Computation --> Biology? Tomayto --> Tomahto?

On OP... I think it makes sense to assume that every mind inhabits a unique universe. I've waffled at length on this before so won't go through it again. But, if we assume it to be true, it does lead to the very intriguing question: How much independent control do I have over my universe? I cannot have 100% control. If I did, I would be an omnipotent, but rather lonely god. I must have more than 0% control, because I have my own mind (really, I do!)

Somewhere between 100% and 0% then. Enough to improve a piece of music without disrupting the resonance principle? Maybe. I reckon a lot must depend, not on what you do, but on the way you do it.

I sometimes wonder if certain types of schizophrenia are actually protective mechanisms. When I see a schizophrenic, I might actually be observing a buffer, which quarantines my universe from disruption by another universe that has "gone rogue", wandered off at an incompatible tangent. From my shielded perspective, the quarantined universe looks like "a nutcase".

Torch lighter FTW!
Biocentrism might be less wrong than physico-centrism. But you can't compare it with digital mechanism, which is implicitly or explicitly assumed by all physico-centrists or physicalists, and yet mechanism contradict it (physicalism). Digital mechanism is a very weak hypothesis. People sum it often by "no magic". I don't like that because it has its own special magic, but it is not the substantial kind of magic favored by fake mystics.

Digital mechanism is a very old theory which appears recurrently since the Chinese and Indians researches. My (UDA) point is technical: you cannot have both materialism (even weak) and digital mechanism.

Note that to negate mechanism, you have to speculate about things which have never been observed, and usually those thinks does not add anything in the mind-body problem. Non-mechanism is a bit closer to the idea that american indians have no souls, or that those a bit different from you are lesser humans. It is a form of prejudice, I think. But then the price of mechanism is that we have to come back to Plato, and accept the idea that the physical reality is not the "real" reality, just a feature of the numbers and their relations. More on this when I have more time, I have to go. Interesting thread.

Post Reply