Are psychoactive drugs basically the proof of material origin of consciousness?

Are psychoactive drugs basically the proof of material origin of consciousness?

Why do you brainless always fail to add your reasoning in these things? With evidence and a well thought out explanation.

Smart but lazy ;) right user?

On an extremely high, but sub anaesthetic dose of ketamine. All that remained of me was consciousness. All knowledge of who I was or what I was or world, or even the knowledge that I had lost knowledge, was gone. I was a single point of perception in a void.

Most interesting experience of my life. But it seemed whatever that point f perception was, it was the one thing unaffected by that powerful drug.

No.

One alternate theory of consciousness is that the brain is a receiver or conduit for consciousness. The functioning of the brain does not itself produce consciousness, it merely allows consciousness to manifest. In that view, altering the function of the brain changes the ability of the antenna to function, possibly impairing it.

Personally I think the "brain as antenna" view of consciousness is silly and bunk but we don't really have way to experimentally rule it out.

Donald Hoffman?

So this is the state of Veeky Forums now that it has been overrun by reddit?

>didn't read entire post

because drug experiences obviously interfere with the biochemistry of our brains in such severe ways that explaining it even to oneself is beyond the the concept of language

you obviously have no experience so shush, adults are talking here

well most if not all drugs distort, alter, inhibit or amplify sensory inputs. our senses are the antenna, our brain tries to make sense of them and thats consciousness imho

inb4 some1 accusing me of being a junkie, somehow drug threads only attract kids

everyone person of any intellectual curiosity should k-hole at least once in their lives

So no because you also know of that alternate theory and because you know of it and it says that brain is a receiver it must be that altering consciousness state to drugs cannot be evidence for material emanation of it.

That's like saying a computer does not do computation and logic gates aren't a thing, it's just an antenna to channel bits from the logic dimension.

Unless any evidence for the existence of these different realms can be provided, the material origin of consciousness is the only contender.

What's the evidence that we live in the material realm?

No.

If they provide any evidence it is in support of the opposite conclusion.

too bad the brain isn't actually a computer

Exactly, and humans are not apes either.

False equivalence

See Mary's Room and qualia

Doesn't the fact that we can physically utter the words "consciousness" and the physical brain literally recognizes what consciousness is show that it's pretty much just a physical phenomenon? I used to think along more panpsychist lines that it's just the computation happening that gives rise to some esoteric consciousness, but that doesn't explain the feedback into the physical world.

>define a parent set using one of its subsets exclusively

a-PVP is the cure

Daily reminder cathinones suck ass

MACHINESCAPE AESTHETICS

You drug-pushing faggots are some of the worst cancer on the internet. As low as reddit fags.

>You drug-averse faggots are some of the worst cancer on the internet. As low as reddit fags.

I never said I was drug averse. I just dont go around to every website I use saying "hur dur do drugs or ur a kiddo hur"

Not really.... basically the only two valid concepts are the material concept and the emergent concept. Both would be affected by physical affects on the brain.

How bout I buy you a box of whippets? That way you won't have to inhale so much dick.

ketamine is a horrid drug. an entire group of people from the 70s would disagree with you here. there are better drug than this shit.

yes.

Ill stick to inhaling air, champ.

People who demonize drugs are the shitty ones, since they usually know nothing about drugs and haven't even researched them. Plenty of highly intelligent individuals and scientists happen to be drug users and don't buy into government scare shit.

if anyone would want to experience a change in consciousness, wouldn't anything with DMT do the trick? rather than katemine. which i hear is horse tranquilize

>an entire group of people from the 70s would disagree with you here
Every substance affects every person differently.
Psychedelics and dissociatives are pretty different paradigms. You can very roughly think of them as "getting more" and "getting less," respectively. One cuts from the superego down and the other from the id up. Generally, but not always, the more a person likes one the less he likes the other.
Characterizing and effectively explaining these types of drug preferences stands to improve our understanding of brain function

And ego death, the hole, unspeakable horrors, etc. are a lot like music, art or pure math. They don't provide advantages or personal growth in an objective, context-independent sense, but can be drawn upon and appreciated by those so inclined, prepared, and intelligent. Also like music, you can analogize stimfiends with rap fans, molly-and-weed types with pop and externally-determined, superficial senses of taste, and generally order the complacent according to their kinds. Drug use in itself does not make you a better person, it's merely an avenue for the exercise of better personhood (or worse.)

>B-but e-juice contains antifreeze!
Different compounds modify consciousness in different ways.This is based on their mechanisms of action and ADME concerns. Have you ever had alcohol?

Surely this theory doesn't have to suggest that consciousness is immaterial though? If all matter had the potential to be conscious but it was only the brain that manifested it, wouldn't that still be a material origin of consciousness?

I've had alcohol. surely you are not comparing the change of consciousness to that of DTM experiences? have you ever had alcohol?

>tfw a compsci teacher actually thinks that only humans can computate, machines just handle symbols
>he's old and retired and everyone treats him with reverence
>thinks people shouldn't watch tv and use computers before 18
>kids shouldn't learn how to read before 7

>You can very roughly think of them as "getting more" and "getting less," respectively. One cuts from the superego down and the other from the id up.

I don't agree with this, since psychedelics can also put you into states of "getting less".

Yeah, psychedelics (even non-dmt ones, though DMT is most notorious for it) can let you ''breakthrough'' just as k can. Of course, the breakthrough is rather different between psychedelics and dissociatives, but still very much the same. Two sides of the same void, egoless coin really.

>surely you are not comparing the change of consciousness to that of DTM experiences?
Refer to >Different compounds modify consciousness in different ways.This is based on their mechanisms of action and ADME concerns.
Let me spell it out for you. Serotonin 2A agonists and NMDA antagonists have pretty different qualitative effects.You don't "just" "substitute" one for the other. The point is not altered-from-baseline consciousness per se, but achieving, exploring and appreciating a specific type. The same way alcohol does not substitute for DMT because they do different things, you fucking retard.

Very roughly.
It depends on what you mean by "more" and "less" and isn't that great a heuristic. The character of ego death does depend, though, on the id/superego balance and can lean towards sense- or concept-driven.

>Generally, but not always, the more a person likes one the less he likes the other.
Only if they've never combined them. /Psychedelics combined with dissociatives is an otherwordly feeling that's impossible to dislike if you already like or the other. Though of course, your dosages might skew to one side or the other depending on preferences

no ho around saying "hur dur stop talking about what I know shit of"

>material origin of consciousness?
Were you hoping for an IMMATERIAL origin of consciousness?
If so, maybe drugs have a divine component.
Why don't you just go ahead and start a 5th "free will " thread?
Or maybe go back to /b/ and download more pictures of underage boys in drag?

>underage boys in drag
Not OP but I like

>Personally I think the "brain as antenna" view of consciousness is silly and bunk but we don't really have way to experimentally rule it out.

You don't need to rule it out because it's a non-statement based on a conflation of objects with abstract shortcuts of language. "Consciousness" isn't an object. "Consciousness" is a label of convenience used to speak in terms of a magical, non-physical catchall explanation for human behavior as an alternative to talking about the actual nervous system impulses making people utter sounds like "I'm angry" or "that hurts." The difference between it and the material reality of behaviorism is similar to the difference between the abstraction of "money" and the material reality of people interacting with pieces of paper and exchanged commodities or labor. You can build models with this abstraction (i.e. psychology) and make useful predictions with them, but this abstraction isn't an actual object with a location. Wondering whether "consciousness" is produced by the brain or channeled by the brain is exactly like wondering whether money lives inside paper or is merely channeled by paper, which is to say neither "answer" is right and the question itself is premised on a misunderstanding.