Salvia Divinorum - Extracts from an argument with a psychologist

<body stylesrc="../../technical/backgroundformywords.htm" background="../../technical/leafwords.jpg" bgcolor="#C0C0C0" text="#003300" link="#0000FF" vlink="#000080" alink="#800080"> <table border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td width="25%"> <p align="center"><font size="5" color="#008000">Salvia Divinorum Scotland ~ Science and Religion ~ Follow Up 'Proof'</font></p> </td> </tr> </table> <blockquote> <hr> <p><b> A scientific proof that Salvia reveals higher aspects of reality:</b></p> <p>My thoughts here on the 'science' side of things are about the potential implications of the 'reality' of the psychedelic experience.  And what kind of 'scientific' investigations could be done in this area.</p> <p>A student of para-psychology (doing a PhD) had been in contact with me saying that they were interested in doing some research on Salvia.  His idea was using a Ganzfeld set-up to see if Salvia had any ESP properties.  Unfortunately (surprise-surprise) his tutor was not keen on the idea, so it hasn't yet come to anything.  But in any case, the way that Salvia presents itself to me, my guess is that it would not be particularly suited to 'guessing what's on the back of this card'.  There seemed something about this set up that was too much like getting it to do parlour tricks and I wasn't sure that it would perform.</p> <p>Of course you could argue that saying this neatly gets me off the hook, because I can continue with my evangelical arguments about what Salvia facilitates and I never have to 'prove' any of it.  Well, part of me<i> would</i> be interested in doing the experiment, because Salvia is full of surprises and you never know, but it just seemed to me that it was not really what Salvia is about.</p> <p>Yet I do argue that Salvia does something real so I feel I should reflect on that and try make some supporting case.</p> <p>Your example of the Necker Cube was interesting and it's got me thinking along certain lines.  The point you make about this is that "it's just a 2D drawing".  It's interesting to consider what the mind is attempting when trying to resolve this image.  Of course to argue that it's just lines on a page arranged in a particular way, i.e. having certain lengths, orientations and intersections relative to each other, is quite a valid point of view.  You can even make the argument that the mind is making a perceptual error in visioning a 3-D cube. </p> <p>Optical illusions are very popular in psychology, and are frequently used to infer that we cannot simply trust our senses.  But looking at this example in particular it strikes me that the reason why the mind tends to imagine 3 dimensions when 'in fact' there are only 2 is simply because of our<i> experience</i> in 3 dimensions.  Now, you can either refuse to accept that it's at all possible to satisfactorily represent a three dimensional object in two dimensional space, or you can say, given our experience (and given the inevitable dimensional limitation), that it<i> is</i> possible to somehow suggest three dimensions via a two dimensional image. </p> <p>What it would be much more difficult to do however, is suggest to a being that existed in only two dimensions that a third dimension did actually exist.  Their experience would resolve the image into the appropriate 2-D lines of given length and orientation and intersection and that would be it.  It would be very difficult to convince them of anything else.  And this relates to why it's difficult to communicate aspects of the psychedelic experience.  It takes us beyond our usual frame of reference. - But this does not mean the experience is not<i> real</i>.</p> <p>At this point a familiar argument, very popular with psychologists, is to say that it's not so much the case that any experience is not real (i.e. any one experience compared to any other experience).  - Only that that it's impossible to test for the reality of experienced phenomena in a wider sense.  For example, to prove the real (objective) existence of parallel universes.</p> <p>Thus, in a psychological sense, dreams<i> are</i> taken to be real.  People do really dream, so their dreams are real in some way.  This is a fair enough point, and it<i> is</i> true in<i> some</i> sense.  But it is also true to say that there is also some general differentiation that we can make between the waking state and the dreaming state.</p> <p>Before I get on to that I think it's worth considering the significance of dreams to the study of psychology.  Freud considered them the royal road to the understanding of the unconscious, and hence essential to the understanding of the mind as a whole.  I agree that dreams should be taken seriously, but I think their place in psychology, the understanding of what they are (and what they are not) is<i> so</i> established that it's easy to carry over this distinction to<i> all</i> altered states of mind.</p> <p>The psychedelic experience then, in particular by people who've never actually had one, is frequently categorised in the same way.  Yes, real enough to the experient in some psychological sense, like dreaming, but more than that (about the objective reality) we cannot say.</p> <p>Okay, as the reader's feedback to our argument so far said, "we could just chuck everything into a box labelled 'subjective' & be done". - But, before we throw the baby out with the bath water, I think it is worth seeing if we can establish (and commonly agree) some differences.</p> <p>It is true to say the dream state can seem as convincing as the waking state, -<i> while you are dreaming</i>, but it strikes me there is something different, in particular in the<i> transition</i> between the two states.</p> <p>We talk in terms of<i> falling</i> asleep, and we talk in terms of waking<i> up</i>.  This implies a distinction between<i> levels</i> of consciousness.  Now this (as it stands) may be a bit of an assumption, but so is the fact of the Necker cube being 'just' a 2-D object, so, is it a<i> reasonable</i> one? </p> <p>I think it's reasonable to think in terms of levels of consciousness.  My feeling when I wake up is that I have<i> emerged</i> from some state (the dream-state).  Now, I fall into the 'mistake' of taking my dreams seriously (as if they were<i> really</i> happening) as often as the next person, but though I might not feel as if I have<i> fallen</i> asleep when dreaming I don't feel I have<i> emerged from</i> the waking state either.  I maintain that this is an important differentiation.</p> <p>And, in fact, it's also something that can be<i> applied</i>.  Occasionally in the dream-state I remember to ask myself the question, "am I dreaming?" - Sometimes I don't ask the question, I just realise that I'm dreaming.  Anyway, this has the effect of somehow enabling a<i> transcendence</i> of the dream. </p> <p>Two things can happen.  I can either wake up (fully), or I can go into 'lucid dreaming'.  Lucid dreaming is a merged dreaming/waking state, where one is dreaming but<i> aware</i> that one is dreaming. - A fascinating phenomenon, which, one could argue, transcends<i> both</i> states, - but it's not (quite) the argument that I'm setting out here.</p> <p>The point is about agreeing some differentiation and making some distinction between levels of consciousness, rather than chucking it all into a subjective pot.</p> <br> <p>Another argument, or parallel, that it's worth looking at before considering the implications of the psychedelic experience, is the distinction that can be made between a two dimensional object and a three dimensional object. </p> <p>Again, we can say that a two-dimensional shape, say a square, is<i> as real</i> as a three-dimensional shape, say a cube, or a pyramid.  But while it may be true that both the 2-D and the 3-D objects really exist, there is a sense in which one<i> transcends</i> the other. </p> <p>If we take a two-dimensional section of, say, a pyramid (having a base with four corners), then we can obtain a square, or a triangle, or some other shape, depending on the intersection.  The higher dimensional object can contain lower dimensional objects within it. </p> <p>Generically speaking, certain objects can be seen as projections of a higher dimensional object into a lower dimensional space.</p> <p>Note that this does not work the other way round.  You cannot reliably project the lower dimensional object into higher dimensional space.  You can't reliably infer that an instance of square is a projection of a cube (though it might be), because it could as easily be a pyramid. </p> <p>Interestingly, apparently different shapes (say, a square and a triangle) can be seen as being<i> reconciled</i> in higher dimensions, both existing as projections of the<i> same</i> object (say, a pyramid).</p> <p>I think we are now at a stage where we can venture some implications from the psychedelic experience.  I make the case that the experience is real.  I further make the case that the experience is of a<i> higher</i> level of consciousness. </p> <p>You've said, "Science relies on hypotheses that are falsifiable".  Fair enough, but here is the crux of my case for plant psychedelics, this is why I'm<i> staggered</i> as to why there isn't more interest from the 'scientific' community.  It's one thing to complain that otherwise reported experiences of 'higher dimensions' or levels of consciousness or 'higher realities' are<i> unreliable</i> in terms of being testable.  It's quite another to have the means to the experience immediately at hand, and then<i> refuse</i> it.</p> <p>I say that my hypothesis<i> is</i> testable. The Salvia experience reveals not just a<i> different</i> aspect of reality but a<i> higher</i> aspect of reality.</p> <p>Anyone who is serious about falsifying what I'm saying about the nature of the experience can take the Salvia test. </p> <p>Anyone who is concerned that other people's reports are objectively unreliable, because they are tainted by their fantasies, wishes, beliefs, unconscious desires and such like.  Anyone who argues that the experience (is real but) is no more real than dreaming<i> has</i> to come up with a good reason for not doing it themselves. </p> <p>I will accept concerns such as fear.  I will accept anyone who says, "I would just rather not know". </p> <p>But<i> anyone</i> who argues that the experience is no more real than dreaming without going there themselves, - well, that's not a point of view that stands up to my analysis.</p> <p><a href="psychologyprooffeed01.htm">Reader Feedback</a></p> <p><a href="psychologyproofswoosh.htm">My Further Response</a> <a name="end"></a></p> </blockquote> <hr>   <table border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td width="20%"> <p align="left"><a href="./"><Back</a></td> <td width="20%"> <p align="center"><a href="../">S&R Menu</a></td> <td width="20%"> <p align="center"><a href="../../menu2.htm">Menu 2</a></td> <td width="20%"> <p align="center"><a href="../../home.htm">Main Menu</a></td> <td width="20%"> <p align="right"><a href="../../contact/">Contact</a></td> </tr> </table> <p></p> </body>