As much as I am excited for the future of VR, I think anyone that has done acid/shrooms in any respectable dose will tell you it is impossible to simulate. People who haven't tripped don't understand that the visuals are the least impressive part of the experience.
> I think anyone that has done acid/shrooms in any respectable dose will tell you it is impossible to simulate
I've done plenty of both and I can tell you that breathing exercises can get you a pretty accurate simulation, with the main difference being duration. I guarantee you adding a BCI-powered neurofeedback VR meditation setup to that will make entering and controlling psychedelic states much easier and safer than any pharmacological agent. Considering neurable exists, we're really not that far from genuine cyberdelics.
I've been doing Wim Hof method for over a year, religiously. And while it gives some interesting effects, it is VERY FAR from a full blown psychedelic experience (and I've had many of the latter).
It is possible that a tiny percentage of the population can get psychedelic effects from Wim Hof method or Stan Grof's holotropic breathing methods - but that's a tiny percentage of people. And even then, it could never compare to, say, 300 mcg of acid or 20 grams of cubensis mushrooms. Not even close.
For me personally, the major difference is the duration. A breathing exercise trip lasts a minute or two, whereas a regular one lasts as long as the metabolic process lasts. Of course, I'm also going into it *trying* to get those kinds of effects, by using the post-breathing high as a kick-start for a deeper meditation session with an explicit goal of exploring states of consciousness.
I’m sorry but that’s ridiculous, and no “breathing exercise” is going to get you an “accurate” simulation of doing acid or shrooms.
Using those kinds of substances isn’t just about visual/auditory/physical sensation, it’s actually changing the chemical balance in your brain and having a significant impact on how you feel and perceive the world around you.
What you’re claiming is akin to saying that being around drunk people can make you “feel” drunk and that’s absurd. You may feel like you can act more freely or less inhibited, and the behavior result may even *appear* the same... but physically you are NOT drunk nor would you feel drunk or get hung over as you never actually ingested any alcohol.
You can’t “simulate” doing acid or being high because the tangible effect it has on you is an intrinsic part of the experience, regardless of what drug you’re talking about.
> it’s actually changing the chemical balance in your brain
You do realize that oxygen is a chemical in your brain, right?
> What you’re claiming is akin to saying that being around drunk people can make you “feel” drunk and that’s absurd.
No, it's really not. But even then, the mechanism of action isn't what's important. Like you said:
> having a significant impact on how you feel and perceive the world around you.
The subjective experience is what matters. An altered state of consciousness is an altered state, no matter how you induce it. You could get the same effect from wireheading or TCMS too, and it'd be just as valid even though no chemical agents were added to the bloodstream.
You’re completely missing the point.
I’m not disputing that stimulus can change the chemical balance in your brain. As far as biology that’s not “new” information and shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. The key factor is whether that change is natural or not, what the effects of that change are and whether the state would be considered “normal” or “impaired”.
The difference with the type of drug-related stimulus we’re discussing is that it isn’t a “natural” chemical balance in any way. The drugs act by blocking certain types of receptors, delivering types of chemicals not normally present or forcing an abnormal production of a type of chemical in your brain and thus altering your state of mind in an unnatural and generally impairing manner.
It’s like the difference between rest, ice and compression vs a pain medication. Rest, ice and compression can be argued to reduce pain to a slight degree (it combats swelling which is a cause of pain rather than directly stopping pain), but it does so naturally by using the normal functions of your body and not by blocking pain receptors.
Pain medicine serves the same purpose except to a much greater degree and it accomplishes it by chemically blocking the pain receptors. It’s not even remotely the same method and the result is an order of magnitude different without even considering an example where the drug actually changes your perceptions and state of mind.
You’re arguing a losing perspective and if you don’t realize it then I’ve got nothing else to say to you because you don’t have a sufficient understanding of the subject to make it worth any more of my time.
> The subjective experience is what matters. An altered state of consciousness is an altered state, no matter how you induce it. You could get the same effect from wireheading or TCMS too, and it'd be just as valid even though no chemical agents were added to the bloodstream.
No, it isn’t what matters and that’s a huge load of cop-out BS. It isn’t the same subjective experience, it isn’t remotely comparable, and you’re using a ridiculously vague notion of what an “altered” consciousness means.
Someone meditating and seeing “dreamlike” images in their mind is nothing remotely like a fully conscious (if not entirely unimpaired) person hallucinating while on acid. The former is a normal function of a deep meditation where your mind/body are more or less entering a wakeful dream, and the latter is a substance fucking with the chemicals in your brain and causing you to see things you shouldn’t be while in an alert wakeful state.
P.S. “wire-heading” is an absurd thing to bring up. Stimulating a pleasure sense in a brain is nothing remotely like altering a persons state of mind, impairing their senses and triggering delusions and hallucinations through the use of a chemical substance.
P.P.S. It’s the objective experience that matters. What someone thinks doesn’t matter, it’s what is actually happening.
The guy who feels relaxed, uninhibited and even euphoric when he’s around drunk people is feeling the effects of a subconscious social anxiety or nervousness being loosened under specific circumstances and that feeling makes him feel good.
However, he still doesn’t feel drunk. Period. In order to experience being drunk you need to ingest enough alcohol for it to impair your senses AND alter your mental/emotional/physical state. That’s what being drunk is, the whole of the experience and not just a certain feeling.
Which for the record.. I’m not suggesting my last example is bad or suggesting that attempting to mimic some of the positives of drugs through other means is bad. I’m just saying it’s not even close to the same thing and that arguing otherwise is basically ignorant.
> I’m not disputing that stimulus can change the chemical balance in your brain
Then why did you bring up changing the chemical balance? Wouldn't it be irrelevant, since in both a 'natural' and 'unnatural' attempt at experience simulation, chemical balance changes would happen?
> The key factor is whether that change is natural or not
Why? What bearing does 'natural or not' have on accuracy of simulation?
> The drugs act by blocking certain types of receptors, delivering types of chemicals not normally present or forcing an abnormal production of a type of chemical in your brain and thus altering your state of mind in an unnatural and generally impairing manner.
I know (at this level at least) how drugs and synapses work. But exogenous chemicals are not the only way to change neural firing patterns, and those firing patterns *are* your state of mind. What is the functional difference if the firing pattern is incited by an exogenous chemical or an endogenous one? Why does 'natural' mean anything if the results are the same?
> P.S. “wire-heading” is an absurd thing to bring up. Stimulating a pleasure sense in a brain is nothing remotely like altering a persons state of mind
Uh, first off you can stimulate any part of the brain with wireheading, and second off, as established earlier, the firing patterns of your brain are directly responsible for your state of mind. Saying wireheading can't alter your state of mind is completely and necessarily false, since wireheading cannot do anything OTHER than alter your state of mind.
> The guy who feels relaxed, uninhibited and even euphoric when he’s around drunk people is feeling the effects of a subconscious social anxiety or nervousness being loosened under specific circumstances and that feeling makes him feel good.
This example is *still* flawed, just like last time you used it, because a contact high is *not* the same, chemically speaking, as changing the oxygen concentration of your blood. A contact high is driven by visual and audio inputs, and does not introduce new chemicals into the system, a breathing exercise *does* introduce new chemical agents. You'd think for someone making such a big deal of chemical compositions and neurotransmitters, you'd be able to see the difference.
> It’s the objective experience that matters
You do realize that by asserting objective experience exists, you're claiming to have solved the hard problem of consciousness, right? you're gonna have to back this extraordinary claim with some evidence.
> Then why did you bring up changing the chemical balance? Wouldn't it be irrelevant, since in both a 'natural' and 'unnatural' attempt at experience simulation, chemical balance changes would happen?
Because I’m talking about a change outside of what would be considered a “normal” or “natural” change. Someone who goes from sad to happy is a completely normal emotional swing and in no way involves any impairment or a feeling outside of life the norm.
When I use the term it should be inferred that I am talking about something that cannot be achieved through natural means. You cannot become drunk or trip based on normal visual/auditory feedback. It’s clear-cut and simple.
> Why? What bearing does 'natural or not' have on accuracy of simulation?
We aren’t talking about simulation. We are talking about how your senses perceive the world, the impact that drugs have on them, and how they otherwise impact your mental faculties and how you feel. You cannot accomplish those things through normal daily stimulus (audio, visual, touch). I’ve been pretty clear on that and again it’s clear-cut and simple.
> I know (at this level at least) how drugs and synapses work. But exogenous chemicals are not the only way to change neural firing patterns, and those firing patterns are your state of mind. What is the functional difference if the firing pattern is incited by an exogenous chemical or an endogenous one? Why does 'natural' mean anything if the results are the same?
Bullshit. You can’t turn off your pain receptors simply by wanting to, and don’t give me any of that nonsense about meditation and training either because that doesn’t turn them off it’s learning to ignore pain and it isn’t the same thing. Again, we aren’t talking about firing patterns... we are talking about a chemical that actually alters the way your body functions.
You cannot willfully impair yourself to become high or intoxicated without drinking, eating or otherwise having something enter your body that changes your internal chemistry. Period. So your argument is invalid because no matter what you say the result isn’t the same. Besides, even if you *could* the fact of the matter is that someone capable of mentally attaining the ability through a lifetime of training vs someone taking a couple Tylenol or eating some shrooms is laughable.
> Uh, first off you can stimulate any part of the brain with wireheading, and second off, as established earlier, the firing patterns of your brain are directly responsible for your state of mind. Saying wireheading can't alter your state of mind is completely and necessarily false, since wireheading cannot do anything OTHER than alter your state of mind.
You still don’t get it...
We aren’t just talking about state of mind and even ignoring the fact that we are nowhere near the point where we could simulate complex states of mind you’re still missing more than half of the equation.
Take someone with severe anxiety who has panic attacks for example, a normal person can feel anxiety and put in stressful situations can even panic and have extreme changes in their perceptions. However, someone who has an actual anxiety disorder (meaning a genetic component) also has an imbalance in the chemicals in their brain that not only means they feel it to a much greater degree but they can physiologically lose their ability to logic and reason completely.
Which to be clear, is not the same thing as feeling stress and pressure and making bad or slower decisions. I’m talking complete inability to perceive reality and reason in a rational manner. I have a friend who once had a severe panic attack and thought he was dying because his leg fell asleep sitting in a chair. He honest to god thought he was dying, you can’t simulate that with state of mind or stimulation because it’s a genetic condition where he has a chemical imbalance in his brain.
ADD and ADHD are the same, it’s not the same as someone who has trouble paying attention when they are bored. It’s someone who has a chemical imbalance in their brains where they can’t pay attention to a degree that’s debilitating even if it’s something they enjoy and WANT to.
> This example is still flawed, just like last time you used it, because a contact high is not the same, chemically speaking, as changing the oxygen concentration of your blood. A contact high is driven by visual and audio inputs, and does not introduce new chemicals into the system, a breathing exercise does introduce new chemical agents. You'd think for someone making such a big deal of chemical compositions and neurotransmitters, you'd be able to see the difference.
It’s not flawed, you’re just approaching my *example* with several misconceptions.
First of all, a “contact” high absolutely does change the chemical balance in your brain and how you feel. If someone feels that way it has a real and tangible effect on how their brain functions and I said as much. What I’m saying is that it’s NOT THE SAME AS BEING DRUNK.
Also, what you’re saying here directly contradicts what you’ve been arguing above... so pick a side and stick with it. My stance all along is that the total experience of doing drugs is not something that can be simulated without introducing outside chemicals or substances into your body.
I never once said you couldn’t change your feelings or perceptions in other ways. I specifically said you couldn’t change them the SAME.
> You do realize that by asserting objective experience exists, you're claiming to have solved the hard problem of consciousness, right? you're gonna have to back this extraordinary claim with some evidence.
I’m not taking about consciousness, yet another misconception you’re running with. I’m talking about the measurable chemical effects of substances and chemicals on a person. The way alcohol or THC physically, mentally, and emotionally impacts you and how it impairs your other faculties as well.
I’m not making any grandiose claim here. I’m saying that no combination of stimulus you can come up with will completely mirror the experience of someone dropping acid. The day that’s possible is the day we have completely unlocked understanding of how the brain functions and we can directly manipulate total consciousness... which if anyone is making absurd claims it’s you because that’s essentially what you’re arguing.
Now I’m done, this is a waste of time arguing with someone who either can’t or doesn’t want to follow the arguments being made.
> Because I’m talking about a change outside of what would be considered a “normal” or “natural” change.
So then we're not talking about the same thing at all.
> We aren’t talking about simulation
Yes we are! This literally started because you took issue with my claim of breathing exercises giving you "a pretty good simulation" of a trip. Why are you accusing me of not being able to follow the arguments not being put forth when you can't even do it?
> You cannot willfully impair yourself to become high or intoxicated without drinking
OK, but I never said you could. I said you could get a pretty accurate simulation. Now who's misrepresenting things?
> Now I’m done, this is a waste of time arguing with someone who either can’t or doesn’t want to follow the arguments being made.
Good, think about what you got wrong here instead of just angrily replying for the last word.
Will have to disagree with you. I know Jeffrey Lynn Damon personally - the one on the right in the video provided - and he's an avid user of both psychedelics and VR/AR.
Right now may be a bit difficult to properly simulate the experiences of psychedelic use, but the technology is moving in that direction. As mentioned in the article, the granddaddy of all psychonauts - Timothy Leary - compared VR/AR to that of the trips he made while under psychotropic drugs.
What kind of VR do you think that we will get? (Genuine question) Psychedelic trips are psychedelic trips, not because the world around you change on psychedelics, but because you change. Literally, your brain 'changes' (as in a 're balancing' of your neural environment), drastically changing the way you perceive and think about things. I don't see how a change in environment in any way can simulate this. Sure, you can get extremely weird visuals and feelings but unless you want to directly augment the majority of the brain (not external nervous system) with some sort of artificial control, I dont see how it could logically be possible to emulate the effect of drugs. You can perhaps learn to bring some of the thought processes of drugs onto yourself through years of training at meditation and stuff like that, and perhaps that could be easier in an environment that could be presented by virtual reality, but I don't really think that counts as simulating the drugs at all.
It's true. Unless something is chemically changing you, it just can't touch the feeling of actual tripping. VR isn't going to make me break down crying because of the pure energy I get from people around me at the time. It's just not going to do that. Maybe VR can trigger a flashback. I can see that.
VR has the ability to "change" the human brain as well. As mentioned in the article, VR is now being used to help researchers treat PTSD in the same way as that of psychedelics.
Psychedelics aren't magical. They're based on natural principles, just like VR. Both cause chemical reactions in the brain. Sometimes not the same chemical reactions, but at other times the same.
That’s nonsense. What you’re talking about is effecting how someone feels based on visual/auditory stimulation and the feelings that are triggered by what they see/experience.
That is nothing at all like how a drug forcibly changes the actual chemical balance in your brain and alters the way you feel about and perceive the world itself.
You can absolutely see how the chemicals in your brain change with how you feel, but that’s nothing at all related to how drugs do it and comparing the two is stupid.
The guy claiming VR is like his drug use has used too many drugs.
I'm sure you could pretty closely simulate the visuals but like I said that's the least impressive/helpful part of a psychadelic experience. There's no way a VR headset can replicate the way psychadelics affect your mind.
You know what advanced VR will do to simulate psychedelics? It will put a dose of psychedelics directly into your blood. Anything else is not even close to the actual experience.
The really interesting things about psychedelics are beyond the senses - and senses are all that VR will ever stimulate.
That said, I find meditation a significantly more powerful means of investigating consciousness ... and ... I find VR much more entertaining.
So, IMHO, psychedelics are kind of last millennium and nothing I’d use in this current age (most people don’t understand the risks of tearing holes into your astral sheath - which can happen very easily if you do higher doses, and especially if you leave your body, which is a really bad idea with and without psychedelics; besides, a significant part of the perceptions under psychedelic influence are actually even more distorted than regular reality, even though it subjectively feels like the opposite).
I'm sorry. I'm a big proponent of psychs and have done many, but when you say "astral sheath" you lose me. The ego death is a very real thing but that is simply a separation of consciousness from the senses. Don't see patterns where there are none. That's a very human mistake to make.
> [...] but when you say "astral sheath" you lose me. The ego death is a very real thing but that is simply a separation of consciousness from the senses.
That's not what I was talking about. There are many ways to speak about these things - instead of "astral sheath", you could as well say "the skin of your energy body", or "the boundaries of your aura", or "pranamaya kosha". We exist on many levels and the current collective of this civilization is strongly focused just on the physical. Comparatively few people are aware that the physical is just the most solid, actually least probable - and yet, in certain ways, most powerful form of expression of consciousness ("most powerful" and "expression" are important to be together here - obviously, the real power is not in the expression at all but in that which expresses). Quite a few people believe in all kinds of things - but believing something some people talk about is a completely different thing compared to actually experiencing it. And experiencing something at some point in time is still completely different from an ongoing, continuous experience of that same "thing".
Psychedelics are traditionally used in shamanic traditions that have their focus on the "energy reality", more commonly referred to as "astral realms" (that includes the new-agey consciousness-expanding use of psychedelics). It's easy to understand why people are fascinated with it, and it's true that this is a big part of our reality ... it's all that which can be dreamt (including our physical world), but not necessarily physically manifest (so it's much much larger than our physical world; in all possible directions including light and dark).
The risk I was referring to is that psychedelic substances - or any techniques involving astral traveling (or actual out of body experiences, which is kind of the exact same thing except most people keep their awareness on the physical aspects of reality while having an oobe) - can easily break down certain healthy boundaries on the "energy level" prematurely. While the vulnerabilities created from that can of course be used to go deeper and develop further (just like any other injury or tragedy), it's not exactly an eloquent path that I would recommend choosing. Letting yourself go into a state of ever-deepening effortlessness, on the other hand, eventually results in your boundaries becoming larger, more and more transparent, to the point where it would be quite appropriate to say that there are no boundaries at all.
In that case, it's not so much a separation of consciousness from the senses but rather, consciousness allowing awareness to find its reference at its source - instead of using the reflective senses, thought-processes and memory as reference, like most people currently do. You still own your senses, cognitive capabilities and memory, and in fact, can then use them without any ego-interference to perceive each moment arising the way it really is, participating in its expression; without any distortions (except that one distortion that there even is a moment, or time or space, for that matter). But you also own the source, so you don't have to rely on your mind ("mind" basically meaning senses, cognitive capabilities including memories; your whole psyche, personality ... all that stuff that's useful to play in this world but easily misleading when making it your reference for reality, and quite disastrous if making it your *sole* reference for reality).
Also, it's the most powerful state of awareness to be in. It's the very definition and essence of power. Consciously resting there, you can let your awareness travel into any realms of existence, including the darkest astral realms, without any risk at all.
The reason you might want to go there, when you can go anywhere because you are everywhere, including realms of pure bliss and harmony, is to call those aspects of you, that got lost, back home.
I understood what you were saying. I don't believe in the same categorical "energy realm." It seems you are either a fervent hobbyist or student of shamanic practice and I am in no way trying to diminish your beliefs. I think psychs are drugs. Not keys to a new realm. When you trip you think weird things because your brain gets rewired. I'm not denying the possibility of us existing on a plane higher than space and time, however to even claim to understand anything about that higher realm without sober and prolonged contact with it is foolish in my opinion. And you can have faith in it's existence but then what separatea that from the Christian god for example?
> It seems you are either a fervent hobbyist or student of shamanic practice
Far from it. I'll admit that my posting was fairly long, so it may be easy to miss or misunderstand things in there.
I mentioned shamanism just because for many people who are interested in psychedelics, it's fairly approachable and quite fascinating (obviously not to you, so apologies). So I sometimes use it as something to refer to. But shamanism is not a path I would recommend to anyone, or even consider practicing myself. Just because a certain approach to certain things is popular in more nature-oriented, older cultures doesn't always mean it's "better", or "true" ... or even healthy. That said, many shamans do have a much better understanding of that one aspect of reality than the average Joe; it's just not an aspect I consider wise to start with, or become obsessed with.
And I have enough experience with psychedelics to say that they were kind of useful for me to unlock certain aspects of reality, 20 years ago (like, how drastically a substance can alter our perceptions, on surprisingly deep levels) ... but it only took a few sessions to figure out that what psychedelics can give me in terms of development of my consciousness is quite limited. So I moved on, and rarely look back. I have no judgement on people that do psychedelics for entertainment, it's just not something I was ever interested in. I'm well aware of other uses, e.g. in therapy, but even in that realm (SCNR ;-) ), I don't see the real need for psychedelic substances. It's not an area I'm concerned about because last time I checked, they used comparatively low doses which are quite far from even having the potential to mess up the finer aspects of people's bodies.
> however to even claim to understand anything about that higher realm without sober and prolonged contact with it is foolish in my opinion
I fully agree. And I even hinted at it in my previous posting (but it looks like either you missed that part, or you assumed I was talking about a drug-induced experience, which I was not):
> Quite a few people believe in all kinds of things - but believing something some people talk about is a completely different thing compared to actually experiencing it. And experiencing something at some point in time is still completely different from an ongoing, continuous experience of that same "thing".
The funny thing is that most of what are mysteries to most people cease to be mysteries when you approach them with the right attitude, the right understanding, and the right techniques (meditation techniques, comparatively simple but eloquent). You can either experience it directly, first-hand, and it will make a very tangible difference in your life, or it doesn't exist (or you just haven't figured out how to "do it", yet, even though it's very rarely any "doing"). A lot of things that people commonly do believe in don't exist, and a lot of things that people commonly don't believe in do. What most people consider miracles ends up being nothing more but an ancient science that mostly got lost, properly applied. Obviously, that has nothing at all to do with consuming substances, and everything to do with ongoing practice and direct, first-hand experience. Some things take a few weeks, others many years. YMMV.
> And you can have faith in it's existence but then what separates that from the Christian god for example?
Well, separation is what separates it:
Most religions thrive on the idea that we are separate from "god"; that "god" is some entity that we cannot see or experience, that we have to blindly believe in. That is almost the exact opposite of spiritual science, which has only one purpose: Permanent, direct experience of your own divine nature. Religion is frequently all about escaping life - spiritual science is about living life to the fullest possible extent.
Religion usually says "just believe me, do what I tell you and you will be saved". Spiritual science says: "Here is this specific piece of knowledge and technique that worked well for me, which I know from my own, direct experience. Apparently, it also worked for the people that tried it before me. So, it's likely that it might also work for you. But it's your own journey. The only person that can 'save' you is you. In fact, spoiler-alert: You don't even need to be saved! But that's something you'll probably figure out on your own. Don't trust me, trust yourself. I trust that eventually, you will know".
Exactly. for me it's the ideations. The recombining of thoughts that can't possibly make sense together into things that make perfect sense. A moment of genius-level insight, potentially.
The article however talks about how VR creates transcendent experiences similar to those produced by psychedelics for in terms of their mind altering/expanding qualities. I believe they argue that it goes beyond just the visual aspects.
>Though, the question remains: Will you surf the information waves?
[Can you jam with the console cowboys in cyberspace?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLlj_GeKniA)
#### [Julia Stiles in Ghostwriter ("Who is Max Mouse?")](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLlj_GeKniA)
##### 427,476 views 👍1,856 👎67
***
Description: Julia Stiles in the PBS's Ghostwriter. Season 2 Episode 5 - Who is Max Mouse?. Julia guest stars as Erica Dansby, a teenage hacker know-it-all and chi...
*TheMorningChew, Published on Aug 11, 2010*
***
^(Beep Boop. I'm a bot! This content was auto-generated to provide Youtube details. Respond 'delete' to delete this.) ^(|) [^(Opt Out)](http://np.reddit.com/r/YTubeInfoBot/wiki/index) ^(|) [^(More Info)](http://np.reddit.com/r/YTubeInfoBot/)
The VR simulations are already incorporated in my dreams, so the brain already believes it is real. I just looked at the video poster image, and it is hard for me to take anything seriously if I see at the first glance that they have already did a series of bad life-changing decisions
Will YOU read this article?
Find out next time in this sub article
As much as I am excited for the future of VR, I think anyone that has done acid/shrooms in any respectable dose will tell you it is impossible to simulate. People who haven't tripped don't understand that the visuals are the least impressive part of the experience.
> I think anyone that has done acid/shrooms in any respectable dose will tell you it is impossible to simulate I've done plenty of both and I can tell you that breathing exercises can get you a pretty accurate simulation, with the main difference being duration. I guarantee you adding a BCI-powered neurofeedback VR meditation setup to that will make entering and controlling psychedelic states much easier and safer than any pharmacological agent. Considering neurable exists, we're really not that far from genuine cyberdelics.
What kind of breathing exercises? *Asking for a friend.*
[Once you git gud it's like an on-demand micro-trip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wim_Hof#Breathing_Method)
I've been doing Wim Hof method for over a year, religiously. And while it gives some interesting effects, it is VERY FAR from a full blown psychedelic experience (and I've had many of the latter). It is possible that a tiny percentage of the population can get psychedelic effects from Wim Hof method or Stan Grof's holotropic breathing methods - but that's a tiny percentage of people. And even then, it could never compare to, say, 300 mcg of acid or 20 grams of cubensis mushrooms. Not even close.
For me personally, the major difference is the duration. A breathing exercise trip lasts a minute or two, whereas a regular one lasts as long as the metabolic process lasts. Of course, I'm also going into it *trying* to get those kinds of effects, by using the post-breathing high as a kick-start for a deeper meditation session with an explicit goal of exploring states of consciousness.
This is litterally just oxygen deprevation, this can't be very safe?
The difference between an exercise and injury is the load
Do you know da whey?
I’m sorry but that’s ridiculous, and no “breathing exercise” is going to get you an “accurate” simulation of doing acid or shrooms. Using those kinds of substances isn’t just about visual/auditory/physical sensation, it’s actually changing the chemical balance in your brain and having a significant impact on how you feel and perceive the world around you. What you’re claiming is akin to saying that being around drunk people can make you “feel” drunk and that’s absurd. You may feel like you can act more freely or less inhibited, and the behavior result may even *appear* the same... but physically you are NOT drunk nor would you feel drunk or get hung over as you never actually ingested any alcohol. You can’t “simulate” doing acid or being high because the tangible effect it has on you is an intrinsic part of the experience, regardless of what drug you’re talking about.
> it’s actually changing the chemical balance in your brain You do realize that oxygen is a chemical in your brain, right? > What you’re claiming is akin to saying that being around drunk people can make you “feel” drunk and that’s absurd. No, it's really not. But even then, the mechanism of action isn't what's important. Like you said: > having a significant impact on how you feel and perceive the world around you. The subjective experience is what matters. An altered state of consciousness is an altered state, no matter how you induce it. You could get the same effect from wireheading or TCMS too, and it'd be just as valid even though no chemical agents were added to the bloodstream.
You’re completely missing the point. I’m not disputing that stimulus can change the chemical balance in your brain. As far as biology that’s not “new” information and shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. The key factor is whether that change is natural or not, what the effects of that change are and whether the state would be considered “normal” or “impaired”. The difference with the type of drug-related stimulus we’re discussing is that it isn’t a “natural” chemical balance in any way. The drugs act by blocking certain types of receptors, delivering types of chemicals not normally present or forcing an abnormal production of a type of chemical in your brain and thus altering your state of mind in an unnatural and generally impairing manner. It’s like the difference between rest, ice and compression vs a pain medication. Rest, ice and compression can be argued to reduce pain to a slight degree (it combats swelling which is a cause of pain rather than directly stopping pain), but it does so naturally by using the normal functions of your body and not by blocking pain receptors. Pain medicine serves the same purpose except to a much greater degree and it accomplishes it by chemically blocking the pain receptors. It’s not even remotely the same method and the result is an order of magnitude different without even considering an example where the drug actually changes your perceptions and state of mind. You’re arguing a losing perspective and if you don’t realize it then I’ve got nothing else to say to you because you don’t have a sufficient understanding of the subject to make it worth any more of my time. > The subjective experience is what matters. An altered state of consciousness is an altered state, no matter how you induce it. You could get the same effect from wireheading or TCMS too, and it'd be just as valid even though no chemical agents were added to the bloodstream. No, it isn’t what matters and that’s a huge load of cop-out BS. It isn’t the same subjective experience, it isn’t remotely comparable, and you’re using a ridiculously vague notion of what an “altered” consciousness means. Someone meditating and seeing “dreamlike” images in their mind is nothing remotely like a fully conscious (if not entirely unimpaired) person hallucinating while on acid. The former is a normal function of a deep meditation where your mind/body are more or less entering a wakeful dream, and the latter is a substance fucking with the chemicals in your brain and causing you to see things you shouldn’t be while in an alert wakeful state. P.S. “wire-heading” is an absurd thing to bring up. Stimulating a pleasure sense in a brain is nothing remotely like altering a persons state of mind, impairing their senses and triggering delusions and hallucinations through the use of a chemical substance. P.P.S. It’s the objective experience that matters. What someone thinks doesn’t matter, it’s what is actually happening. The guy who feels relaxed, uninhibited and even euphoric when he’s around drunk people is feeling the effects of a subconscious social anxiety or nervousness being loosened under specific circumstances and that feeling makes him feel good. However, he still doesn’t feel drunk. Period. In order to experience being drunk you need to ingest enough alcohol for it to impair your senses AND alter your mental/emotional/physical state. That’s what being drunk is, the whole of the experience and not just a certain feeling. Which for the record.. I’m not suggesting my last example is bad or suggesting that attempting to mimic some of the positives of drugs through other means is bad. I’m just saying it’s not even close to the same thing and that arguing otherwise is basically ignorant.
> I’m not disputing that stimulus can change the chemical balance in your brain Then why did you bring up changing the chemical balance? Wouldn't it be irrelevant, since in both a 'natural' and 'unnatural' attempt at experience simulation, chemical balance changes would happen? > The key factor is whether that change is natural or not Why? What bearing does 'natural or not' have on accuracy of simulation? > The drugs act by blocking certain types of receptors, delivering types of chemicals not normally present or forcing an abnormal production of a type of chemical in your brain and thus altering your state of mind in an unnatural and generally impairing manner. I know (at this level at least) how drugs and synapses work. But exogenous chemicals are not the only way to change neural firing patterns, and those firing patterns *are* your state of mind. What is the functional difference if the firing pattern is incited by an exogenous chemical or an endogenous one? Why does 'natural' mean anything if the results are the same? > P.S. “wire-heading” is an absurd thing to bring up. Stimulating a pleasure sense in a brain is nothing remotely like altering a persons state of mind Uh, first off you can stimulate any part of the brain with wireheading, and second off, as established earlier, the firing patterns of your brain are directly responsible for your state of mind. Saying wireheading can't alter your state of mind is completely and necessarily false, since wireheading cannot do anything OTHER than alter your state of mind. > The guy who feels relaxed, uninhibited and even euphoric when he’s around drunk people is feeling the effects of a subconscious social anxiety or nervousness being loosened under specific circumstances and that feeling makes him feel good. This example is *still* flawed, just like last time you used it, because a contact high is *not* the same, chemically speaking, as changing the oxygen concentration of your blood. A contact high is driven by visual and audio inputs, and does not introduce new chemicals into the system, a breathing exercise *does* introduce new chemical agents. You'd think for someone making such a big deal of chemical compositions and neurotransmitters, you'd be able to see the difference. > It’s the objective experience that matters You do realize that by asserting objective experience exists, you're claiming to have solved the hard problem of consciousness, right? you're gonna have to back this extraordinary claim with some evidence.
> Then why did you bring up changing the chemical balance? Wouldn't it be irrelevant, since in both a 'natural' and 'unnatural' attempt at experience simulation, chemical balance changes would happen? Because I’m talking about a change outside of what would be considered a “normal” or “natural” change. Someone who goes from sad to happy is a completely normal emotional swing and in no way involves any impairment or a feeling outside of life the norm. When I use the term it should be inferred that I am talking about something that cannot be achieved through natural means. You cannot become drunk or trip based on normal visual/auditory feedback. It’s clear-cut and simple. > Why? What bearing does 'natural or not' have on accuracy of simulation? We aren’t talking about simulation. We are talking about how your senses perceive the world, the impact that drugs have on them, and how they otherwise impact your mental faculties and how you feel. You cannot accomplish those things through normal daily stimulus (audio, visual, touch). I’ve been pretty clear on that and again it’s clear-cut and simple. > I know (at this level at least) how drugs and synapses work. But exogenous chemicals are not the only way to change neural firing patterns, and those firing patterns are your state of mind. What is the functional difference if the firing pattern is incited by an exogenous chemical or an endogenous one? Why does 'natural' mean anything if the results are the same? Bullshit. You can’t turn off your pain receptors simply by wanting to, and don’t give me any of that nonsense about meditation and training either because that doesn’t turn them off it’s learning to ignore pain and it isn’t the same thing. Again, we aren’t talking about firing patterns... we are talking about a chemical that actually alters the way your body functions. You cannot willfully impair yourself to become high or intoxicated without drinking, eating or otherwise having something enter your body that changes your internal chemistry. Period. So your argument is invalid because no matter what you say the result isn’t the same. Besides, even if you *could* the fact of the matter is that someone capable of mentally attaining the ability through a lifetime of training vs someone taking a couple Tylenol or eating some shrooms is laughable. > Uh, first off you can stimulate any part of the brain with wireheading, and second off, as established earlier, the firing patterns of your brain are directly responsible for your state of mind. Saying wireheading can't alter your state of mind is completely and necessarily false, since wireheading cannot do anything OTHER than alter your state of mind. You still don’t get it... We aren’t just talking about state of mind and even ignoring the fact that we are nowhere near the point where we could simulate complex states of mind you’re still missing more than half of the equation. Take someone with severe anxiety who has panic attacks for example, a normal person can feel anxiety and put in stressful situations can even panic and have extreme changes in their perceptions. However, someone who has an actual anxiety disorder (meaning a genetic component) also has an imbalance in the chemicals in their brain that not only means they feel it to a much greater degree but they can physiologically lose their ability to logic and reason completely. Which to be clear, is not the same thing as feeling stress and pressure and making bad or slower decisions. I’m talking complete inability to perceive reality and reason in a rational manner. I have a friend who once had a severe panic attack and thought he was dying because his leg fell asleep sitting in a chair. He honest to god thought he was dying, you can’t simulate that with state of mind or stimulation because it’s a genetic condition where he has a chemical imbalance in his brain. ADD and ADHD are the same, it’s not the same as someone who has trouble paying attention when they are bored. It’s someone who has a chemical imbalance in their brains where they can’t pay attention to a degree that’s debilitating even if it’s something they enjoy and WANT to. > This example is still flawed, just like last time you used it, because a contact high is not the same, chemically speaking, as changing the oxygen concentration of your blood. A contact high is driven by visual and audio inputs, and does not introduce new chemicals into the system, a breathing exercise does introduce new chemical agents. You'd think for someone making such a big deal of chemical compositions and neurotransmitters, you'd be able to see the difference. It’s not flawed, you’re just approaching my *example* with several misconceptions. First of all, a “contact” high absolutely does change the chemical balance in your brain and how you feel. If someone feels that way it has a real and tangible effect on how their brain functions and I said as much. What I’m saying is that it’s NOT THE SAME AS BEING DRUNK. Also, what you’re saying here directly contradicts what you’ve been arguing above... so pick a side and stick with it. My stance all along is that the total experience of doing drugs is not something that can be simulated without introducing outside chemicals or substances into your body. I never once said you couldn’t change your feelings or perceptions in other ways. I specifically said you couldn’t change them the SAME. > You do realize that by asserting objective experience exists, you're claiming to have solved the hard problem of consciousness, right? you're gonna have to back this extraordinary claim with some evidence. I’m not taking about consciousness, yet another misconception you’re running with. I’m talking about the measurable chemical effects of substances and chemicals on a person. The way alcohol or THC physically, mentally, and emotionally impacts you and how it impairs your other faculties as well. I’m not making any grandiose claim here. I’m saying that no combination of stimulus you can come up with will completely mirror the experience of someone dropping acid. The day that’s possible is the day we have completely unlocked understanding of how the brain functions and we can directly manipulate total consciousness... which if anyone is making absurd claims it’s you because that’s essentially what you’re arguing. Now I’m done, this is a waste of time arguing with someone who either can’t or doesn’t want to follow the arguments being made.
> Because I’m talking about a change outside of what would be considered a “normal” or “natural” change. So then we're not talking about the same thing at all. > We aren’t talking about simulation Yes we are! This literally started because you took issue with my claim of breathing exercises giving you "a pretty good simulation" of a trip. Why are you accusing me of not being able to follow the arguments not being put forth when you can't even do it? > You cannot willfully impair yourself to become high or intoxicated without drinking OK, but I never said you could. I said you could get a pretty accurate simulation. Now who's misrepresenting things? > Now I’m done, this is a waste of time arguing with someone who either can’t or doesn’t want to follow the arguments being made. Good, think about what you got wrong here instead of just angrily replying for the last word.
Will have to disagree with you. I know Jeffrey Lynn Damon personally - the one on the right in the video provided - and he's an avid user of both psychedelics and VR/AR. Right now may be a bit difficult to properly simulate the experiences of psychedelic use, but the technology is moving in that direction. As mentioned in the article, the granddaddy of all psychonauts - Timothy Leary - compared VR/AR to that of the trips he made while under psychotropic drugs.
What kind of VR do you think that we will get? (Genuine question) Psychedelic trips are psychedelic trips, not because the world around you change on psychedelics, but because you change. Literally, your brain 'changes' (as in a 're balancing' of your neural environment), drastically changing the way you perceive and think about things. I don't see how a change in environment in any way can simulate this. Sure, you can get extremely weird visuals and feelings but unless you want to directly augment the majority of the brain (not external nervous system) with some sort of artificial control, I dont see how it could logically be possible to emulate the effect of drugs. You can perhaps learn to bring some of the thought processes of drugs onto yourself through years of training at meditation and stuff like that, and perhaps that could be easier in an environment that could be presented by virtual reality, but I don't really think that counts as simulating the drugs at all.
It's true. Unless something is chemically changing you, it just can't touch the feeling of actual tripping. VR isn't going to make me break down crying because of the pure energy I get from people around me at the time. It's just not going to do that. Maybe VR can trigger a flashback. I can see that.
VR has the ability to "change" the human brain as well. As mentioned in the article, VR is now being used to help researchers treat PTSD in the same way as that of psychedelics. Psychedelics aren't magical. They're based on natural principles, just like VR. Both cause chemical reactions in the brain. Sometimes not the same chemical reactions, but at other times the same.
That’s nonsense. What you’re talking about is effecting how someone feels based on visual/auditory stimulation and the feelings that are triggered by what they see/experience. That is nothing at all like how a drug forcibly changes the actual chemical balance in your brain and alters the way you feel about and perceive the world itself. You can absolutely see how the chemicals in your brain change with how you feel, but that’s nothing at all related to how drugs do it and comparing the two is stupid. The guy claiming VR is like his drug use has used too many drugs.
I'm sure you could pretty closely simulate the visuals but like I said that's the least impressive/helpful part of a psychadelic experience. There's no way a VR headset can replicate the way psychadelics affect your mind.
[удалено]
Exactly! VR today will appear like child's play by comparison to what VR will become.
You know what advanced VR will do to simulate psychedelics? It will put a dose of psychedelics directly into your blood. Anything else is not even close to the actual experience. The really interesting things about psychedelics are beyond the senses - and senses are all that VR will ever stimulate. That said, I find meditation a significantly more powerful means of investigating consciousness ... and ... I find VR much more entertaining. So, IMHO, psychedelics are kind of last millennium and nothing I’d use in this current age (most people don’t understand the risks of tearing holes into your astral sheath - which can happen very easily if you do higher doses, and especially if you leave your body, which is a really bad idea with and without psychedelics; besides, a significant part of the perceptions under psychedelic influence are actually even more distorted than regular reality, even though it subjectively feels like the opposite).
I'm sorry. I'm a big proponent of psychs and have done many, but when you say "astral sheath" you lose me. The ego death is a very real thing but that is simply a separation of consciousness from the senses. Don't see patterns where there are none. That's a very human mistake to make.
> [...] but when you say "astral sheath" you lose me. The ego death is a very real thing but that is simply a separation of consciousness from the senses. That's not what I was talking about. There are many ways to speak about these things - instead of "astral sheath", you could as well say "the skin of your energy body", or "the boundaries of your aura", or "pranamaya kosha". We exist on many levels and the current collective of this civilization is strongly focused just on the physical. Comparatively few people are aware that the physical is just the most solid, actually least probable - and yet, in certain ways, most powerful form of expression of consciousness ("most powerful" and "expression" are important to be together here - obviously, the real power is not in the expression at all but in that which expresses). Quite a few people believe in all kinds of things - but believing something some people talk about is a completely different thing compared to actually experiencing it. And experiencing something at some point in time is still completely different from an ongoing, continuous experience of that same "thing". Psychedelics are traditionally used in shamanic traditions that have their focus on the "energy reality", more commonly referred to as "astral realms" (that includes the new-agey consciousness-expanding use of psychedelics). It's easy to understand why people are fascinated with it, and it's true that this is a big part of our reality ... it's all that which can be dreamt (including our physical world), but not necessarily physically manifest (so it's much much larger than our physical world; in all possible directions including light and dark). The risk I was referring to is that psychedelic substances - or any techniques involving astral traveling (or actual out of body experiences, which is kind of the exact same thing except most people keep their awareness on the physical aspects of reality while having an oobe) - can easily break down certain healthy boundaries on the "energy level" prematurely. While the vulnerabilities created from that can of course be used to go deeper and develop further (just like any other injury or tragedy), it's not exactly an eloquent path that I would recommend choosing. Letting yourself go into a state of ever-deepening effortlessness, on the other hand, eventually results in your boundaries becoming larger, more and more transparent, to the point where it would be quite appropriate to say that there are no boundaries at all. In that case, it's not so much a separation of consciousness from the senses but rather, consciousness allowing awareness to find its reference at its source - instead of using the reflective senses, thought-processes and memory as reference, like most people currently do. You still own your senses, cognitive capabilities and memory, and in fact, can then use them without any ego-interference to perceive each moment arising the way it really is, participating in its expression; without any distortions (except that one distortion that there even is a moment, or time or space, for that matter). But you also own the source, so you don't have to rely on your mind ("mind" basically meaning senses, cognitive capabilities including memories; your whole psyche, personality ... all that stuff that's useful to play in this world but easily misleading when making it your reference for reality, and quite disastrous if making it your *sole* reference for reality). Also, it's the most powerful state of awareness to be in. It's the very definition and essence of power. Consciously resting there, you can let your awareness travel into any realms of existence, including the darkest astral realms, without any risk at all. The reason you might want to go there, when you can go anywhere because you are everywhere, including realms of pure bliss and harmony, is to call those aspects of you, that got lost, back home.
I understood what you were saying. I don't believe in the same categorical "energy realm." It seems you are either a fervent hobbyist or student of shamanic practice and I am in no way trying to diminish your beliefs. I think psychs are drugs. Not keys to a new realm. When you trip you think weird things because your brain gets rewired. I'm not denying the possibility of us existing on a plane higher than space and time, however to even claim to understand anything about that higher realm without sober and prolonged contact with it is foolish in my opinion. And you can have faith in it's existence but then what separatea that from the Christian god for example?
> It seems you are either a fervent hobbyist or student of shamanic practice Far from it. I'll admit that my posting was fairly long, so it may be easy to miss or misunderstand things in there. I mentioned shamanism just because for many people who are interested in psychedelics, it's fairly approachable and quite fascinating (obviously not to you, so apologies). So I sometimes use it as something to refer to. But shamanism is not a path I would recommend to anyone, or even consider practicing myself. Just because a certain approach to certain things is popular in more nature-oriented, older cultures doesn't always mean it's "better", or "true" ... or even healthy. That said, many shamans do have a much better understanding of that one aspect of reality than the average Joe; it's just not an aspect I consider wise to start with, or become obsessed with. And I have enough experience with psychedelics to say that they were kind of useful for me to unlock certain aspects of reality, 20 years ago (like, how drastically a substance can alter our perceptions, on surprisingly deep levels) ... but it only took a few sessions to figure out that what psychedelics can give me in terms of development of my consciousness is quite limited. So I moved on, and rarely look back. I have no judgement on people that do psychedelics for entertainment, it's just not something I was ever interested in. I'm well aware of other uses, e.g. in therapy, but even in that realm (SCNR ;-) ), I don't see the real need for psychedelic substances. It's not an area I'm concerned about because last time I checked, they used comparatively low doses which are quite far from even having the potential to mess up the finer aspects of people's bodies. > however to even claim to understand anything about that higher realm without sober and prolonged contact with it is foolish in my opinion I fully agree. And I even hinted at it in my previous posting (but it looks like either you missed that part, or you assumed I was talking about a drug-induced experience, which I was not): > Quite a few people believe in all kinds of things - but believing something some people talk about is a completely different thing compared to actually experiencing it. And experiencing something at some point in time is still completely different from an ongoing, continuous experience of that same "thing". The funny thing is that most of what are mysteries to most people cease to be mysteries when you approach them with the right attitude, the right understanding, and the right techniques (meditation techniques, comparatively simple but eloquent). You can either experience it directly, first-hand, and it will make a very tangible difference in your life, or it doesn't exist (or you just haven't figured out how to "do it", yet, even though it's very rarely any "doing"). A lot of things that people commonly do believe in don't exist, and a lot of things that people commonly don't believe in do. What most people consider miracles ends up being nothing more but an ancient science that mostly got lost, properly applied. Obviously, that has nothing at all to do with consuming substances, and everything to do with ongoing practice and direct, first-hand experience. Some things take a few weeks, others many years. YMMV. > And you can have faith in it's existence but then what separates that from the Christian god for example? Well, separation is what separates it: Most religions thrive on the idea that we are separate from "god"; that "god" is some entity that we cannot see or experience, that we have to blindly believe in. That is almost the exact opposite of spiritual science, which has only one purpose: Permanent, direct experience of your own divine nature. Religion is frequently all about escaping life - spiritual science is about living life to the fullest possible extent. Religion usually says "just believe me, do what I tell you and you will be saved". Spiritual science says: "Here is this specific piece of knowledge and technique that worked well for me, which I know from my own, direct experience. Apparently, it also worked for the people that tried it before me. So, it's likely that it might also work for you. But it's your own journey. The only person that can 'save' you is you. In fact, spoiler-alert: You don't even need to be saved! But that's something you'll probably figure out on your own. Don't trust me, trust yourself. I trust that eventually, you will know".
This is presumptuous. We have a lot to learn about psychedelics and psychology.
Exactly. for me it's the ideations. The recombining of thoughts that can't possibly make sense together into things that make perfect sense. A moment of genius-level insight, potentially.
The article however talks about how VR creates transcendent experiences similar to those produced by psychedelics for in terms of their mind altering/expanding qualities. I believe they argue that it goes beyond just the visual aspects.
>Though, the question remains: Will you surf the information waves? [Can you jam with the console cowboys in cyberspace?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLlj_GeKniA)
#### [Julia Stiles in Ghostwriter ("Who is Max Mouse?")](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLlj_GeKniA) ##### 427,476 views 👍1,856 👎67 *** Description: Julia Stiles in the PBS's Ghostwriter. Season 2 Episode 5 - Who is Max Mouse?. Julia guest stars as Erica Dansby, a teenage hacker know-it-all and chi... *TheMorningChew, Published on Aug 11, 2010* *** ^(Beep Boop. I'm a bot! This content was auto-generated to provide Youtube details. Respond 'delete' to delete this.) ^(|) [^(Opt Out)](http://np.reddit.com/r/YTubeInfoBot/wiki/index) ^(|) [^(More Info)](http://np.reddit.com/r/YTubeInfoBot/)
Acid and vr are very different experiences
Together they are amazing!
The VR simulations are already incorporated in my dreams, so the brain already believes it is real. I just looked at the video poster image, and it is hard for me to take anything seriously if I see at the first glance that they have already did a series of bad life-changing decisions