←back to thread

Messages that can only be understood under the influence of psychedelics

(qri.org)
637 points robinhouston | 2 comments | 05 Jun 23 07:27 UTC | HN request time: 0.419s | source
Show context
codeflo ◴[06 Jun 23 10:39 UTC] 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 ◴[06 Jun 23 11:18 UTC] 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 ◴[06 Jun 23 11:28 UTC] 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 #
LoganDark ◴[06 Jun 23 11:44 UTC] No.36211209[source]▶
> These people did not go through an eternity of perception, processing, and thought; they had the label on their memories altered.

No, psychedelics really can speed up thought. It's not uncommon to experience a lot more in a much shorter amount of time than normal. For example, I've experienced this first-hand where I could not even finish a single sentence before I was so far ahead in thought that I completely forgot what I was originally trying to say.

I used to call it "an entire universe happening between each instant" which, while inaccurate, is an apt enough description of how it feels, but also how it actually is, because the volume of thought is still much higher than normal.

replies(2): >>36211375 #>>36215376 #
jabbany ◴[06 Jun 23 12:03 UTC] No.36211375[source]▶
The experience you described is no indicator of whether "volume of thought is still much higher than normal" though? You'd have the exact same experience if the actual mechanism is that "had the label on [your] memories altered".

To scientifically test this, you'd need some normalized "benchmark task" of thought, and then compare the difference in progress on such a thought task between the control and psychedelic cases given the same amount of "real time".

IIRC earlier papers (that I am too lazy to find) shared on HN that have done this seem to show the opposite, that there is no measurable difference on the task yet the participants reported a difference in their label of the experience. (I think the paper then was related to some form of creativity and showed that there was no post-hoc measured difference despite a significant reported experiential difference).

replies(2): >>36211562 #>>36214117 #
swayvil ◴[06 Jun 23 15:15 UTC] No.36214117[source]▶
>To scientifically test this...

I swear, you people turn science into a religious ritual.

First-hand observation (which we have here) is the gold standard for knowledge-derivation. Science is just a method for ensuring that our models hew close to that.

What you assert here is mere convention.

replies(4): >>36214823 #>>36216649 #>>36217617 #>>36217858 #
lostmsu ◴[06 Jun 23 19:08 UTC] No.36217617[source]▶
> First-hand observation

Well no, it is not. If you spot an UFO, chances are your "first-hand observation" is lying to you.

replies(1): >>36221643 #
1. swayvil ◴[07 Jun 23 01:32 UTC] No.36221643[source]▶
Or you might say that your seeing is good but your interpretation is bad. Or vice versa even. It ain't so clearly cut.
replies(1): >>36229356 #
2. lostmsu ◴[07 Jun 23 16:40 UTC] No.36229356[source]▶
The problem with drug users is that they don't seem to be alarmed that others can't confirm the "profoundness" of their experiences from outside. They tend to discard the obvious explanation of their fascination: their own stupidity induced by drugs makes trivial things seem profound. E.g. the fact that the interpretation is broken.