←back to thread

637 points robinhouston | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.514s | source
Show context
codeflo ◴[] No.36210706[source]
All the people in this thread who decoded it used long exposure or faster playback. Using the latter, for me, it starts to become readable at 2.5x and is essentially a clear static image at 4x. (I had to download the video and play it back using VLC.)

Which for me, makes this claim a bit absurd:

> At a theoretical level, this confirmation is significant because it is the first clear demonstration of a real perceptual computational advantage of psychedelic states of consciousness.

LSD fans might hate this conclusion, but there's no "computational advantage" to having a 2.5x to 4x slower processing speed, which his the only thing actually being shown here.

replies(19): >>36210873 #>>36210971 #>>36210993 #>>36210999 #>>36211120 #>>36211178 #>>36211258 #>>36211287 #>>36212135 #>>36212182 #>>36212720 #>>36212742 #>>36212981 #>>36213222 #>>36213716 #>>36214681 #>>36215612 #>>36216288 #>>36216510 #
thumbuddy ◴[] No.36210999[source]
You know, according to people who have done buckets of psychedelics, there's an awful lot more to the psychedelic experience than 2.5-4x slower processing speed. I recall reading of numerous people who found they could collectively slow down a wall clock to the point were it didn't move any longer, and people who have experienced what they refer to as "eternity", "multiple life times", "thousands of years", etc.

Also what is being done here isn't simply slower processing speed. It's more like the information from old states persists into new ones. My understanding is that this would be considered low dose territory.

There's more to the story here, and I don't think this test, is even scratching the surface. It is neat though.

replies(4): >>36211075 #>>36211315 #>>36212155 #>>36212436 #
causi ◴[] No.36211075[source]
people who have experienced what they refer to as "eternity", "multiple life times", "thousands of years", etc.

They didn't "experience an eternity". They experienced an emotional feeling they likened to an eternity. This is the difference between your computer running a program for a thousand years and you changing the date settings. These people did not go through an eternity of perception, processing, and thought; they had the label on their memories altered.

replies(5): >>36211174 #>>36211209 #>>36211236 #>>36212458 #>>36214227 #
sneak ◴[] No.36211174[source]
That's a subjective interpretation, and I say that even as someone who believes in objective reality.

There's no telling what time perception is "correct" or "real". It is actually within the realm of possibility that they did experience an eternity-scale (but sub-infinite, natch) amount of experiences.

replies(2): >>36211237 #>>36211364 #
tuyiown ◴[] No.36211364[source]
> There's no telling what time perception is "correct" or "real".

Perception is always, always false, the same way that our internal reality is imperfect. The only way to trust perception is to go through repeatable experiment and see that results conforms to prediction, eg. science.

Science is the only and sole way to determine our shared reality, anything else is literally lucky heuristics, including the behavior of scientists. The worst deceit from those heuristics being our conviction that there is any kind of truth in what we think, preventing the whole thing to fall appart.

replies(3): >>36212272 #>>36213988 #>>36216426 #
1. 2358452 ◴[] No.36216426[source]
How would you design an experiment to tell whether a perception of love is to be trusted or not?
replies(1): >>36219417 #
2. tuyiown ◴[] No.36219417[source]
I would advise others methods to convince the loved one the reality of your love. As for yourself, well, this is some aspect where the brain decides on your behalf, consciousness can be damned.