Blog

Abstract: The use of psychedelics in therapy may benefit both the client and the facilitator, and there is a debate about whether facilitators should have personal experience with the substance. While some traditions expect the facilitator to partake in the same dose as the participants, modern medicine expects the facilitator to remain sober. Facilitator sobriety is important to attend to the risks associated with psychedelic use, while communal use of the substance may increase empathy and compassion. Further research is needed to determine the circumstances in which facilitator sobriety or communal use is appropriate.

At the end of 2022, a new psychedelic became available. Psilomethoxin (Pm) offers a subjective experience similar to MDMA, but without MDMA’s stimulant-like effects.

<—>

In 1965, Marc Julia’s group at the Pasteur Institute synthesized psilomethoxin (Pm) from ortho-vanillin extracted from the Mexican vanilla orchid. The molecule was never bioassayed nor preserved as a reference sample, and that is how things stood for decades. The synthesis of Pm is an intricate and time-consuming process, with some chemists claiming that it would take a month. In approximately 2005, Alexander Shulgin published an article on his website Cognitive Liberty wherein he theorized that Pm might be produced by feeding 5-MeO-DMT to Psilocybe mushroom substrates. In late 2021, Ian Benouis discovered the Shulgin article, tried it, and found that it worked. Pm is chemically similar to 5-MeO-DMT, with the mere addition of a 4-hydroxyl group. The psychedelic 5-MeO-DMT is not orally active and is typically vaporized for inhalation. When inhaled, the experience lasts for 10-20 minutes. Pm is thought to be an orally active version of 5-MeO-DMT.¹

In nutrition science, the word fiber refers to the type of carbohydrate that the body can’t digest. This definition of fiber is so different from the kind of fiber found in many plants that they might as well be completely different words.

<—>

Coconut coir fibers are obtained from the outermost layer of the husk. They are typically light brown in color, durable, and resistant to water.

The most ordinary and obvious of experiences, the first person perspective, has puzzled scientists and philosophers for centuries.

<—>

In recent decades, the scientific study of consciousness has significantly increased our understanding of this elusive phenomenon. Yet, despite critical development in our understanding of the functional side of consciousness, we still lack a fundamental theory regarding its phenomenal aspect. There is an “explanatory gap” between our scientific knowledge of functional consciousness and its “subjective,” phenomenal aspects, referred to as the “hard problem” of consciousness. The phenomenal aspect of consciousness is the first-person answer to “what it’s like” question, and it has thus far proved recalcitrant to direct scientific investigation. Naturalistic dualists argue that it is composed of a primitive, private, non-reductive element of reality that is independent from the functional and physical aspects of consciousness. Illusionists, on the other hand, argue that it is merely a cognitive illusion, and that all that exists are ultimately physical, non-phenomenal properties. We contend that both the dualist and illusionist positions are flawed because they tacitly assume consciousness to be an absolute property that doesn’t depend on the observer. We develop a conceptual and a mathematical argument for a relativistic theory of consciousness in which a system either has or doesn’t have phenomenal consciousness with respect to some observer. Phenomenal consciousness is neither private nor delusional, just relativistic. In the frame of reference of the cognitive system, it will be observable (first-person perspective) and in other frame of reference it will not (third-person perspective). These two cognitive frames of reference are both correct, just as in the case of an observer that claims to be at rest while another will claim that the observer has constant velocity. Given that consciousness is a relativistic phenomenon, neither observer position can be privileged, as they both describe the same underlying reality. Based on relativistic phenomena in physics we developed a mathematical formalization for consciousness which bridges the explanatory gap and dissolves the hard problem. Given that the first-person cognitive frame of reference also offers legitimate observations on consciousness, we conclude by arguing that philosophers can usefully contribute to the science of consciousness by collaborating with neuroscientists to explore the neural basis of phenomenal structures.

Just when you thought that science and spirituality were hopelessly irreconcilable, cogntive psychologist Donald Hoffman proposes a very interesting perspective.

<—>

Hoffman, D. (2019). The case against reality: Why evolution hid the truth from our eyes. WW Norton & Company.

Tim Ferriss interview Apr 13, 2022

Lex Fridman interview Jun 12, 2022

The Convergence of Science and Spirituality | Donald Hoffman & Rupert Spira Mar 26, 2023

Hoffman, D., Prakash, C., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2023). Conscious Agents and the Subatomic World

Many assume that the invention of a phonetic alphabet only brought benefits. In a somewhat speculative reassessment of history, Shlain makes the case that the phonetic alphabet advanced lawyer-style thinking that greatly facilitated the justification of violence. The book is unlikely to be 100% true, but also unlikely to be 100% false.

<—>

Shlain, L. (1999). The alphabet versus the goddess: The conflict between word and image. Penguin.