[noodle_face_]

I've tried explaining this to people who've never tried psychedelics. It is unlike any other substance I've ever tried (a lot of them, FWIW) in that it leaves you with lasting impressions. Some things I gleaned tripping have stuck with me to this day. It has changed me for the better.

[peterwwillis]

> It has changed me for the better.

Is that the old you saying that, or the new you?

[andrew_]

That's very meta. And an excellent philosophical question!

[mettamage]

Assuming you can remember the old you, I think in most cases it's fair to say that it's the new you that has enough knowledge of the old you.

It's just like normal learning really, if you learn something, you become a new you that has knowledge of the old you and the new you might then say "what I learned right now was better."

I know, I'm not the best at philosophy.

[peterwwillis]

If a drug significantly alters your brain to the point that you no longer think the way you did before, how do you know you changed for the better? Maybe the old you, the you that existed before you took the drug, would say this is not better. Maybe the new you only thinks you are now changed for the better. Maybe you didn't change at all! After all, do you even have a way to measure what has changed, and how much better or not-better you've gotten? Do you just feel better? Much like an old dinged-up ball bearing with new grease, it may squeak less, but is the ball actually any different than it was before? And in the context of how we feel about ourselves, which really matters? Is our perception of ourselves more important than reality? If so, the statement "It has changed me for the better" is really just saying "I feel better than before".

Another way to look at the question "how do you know if the change made you 'better'": Say you took a drug, and suddenly you changed from being a liberal, to being a Nazi. (This happens a lot, not with drugs, but with events; an event happens, and suddenly someone turns from very liberal, to very far-right conservative) How do you know if the change has made you better? The new you is perfectly fine with Nazi-hood, and thinks you are better. But the old you would be pretty sure that the new you is the exact opposite of better. How can one tell if a change has made them better? Which version should we listen to? How do we define better, and how do we measure it?

[cf141q5325]

>If so, the statement "It has changed me for the better" is really just saying "I feel better than before".

The point is what changed is the perception of your emotions. Instead of feeling stuck following your every negative thought you suddenly realize that you can influence how you feel. You dont just feel better then before, you arent still high, you found a way to influence how you feel. You are no longer stuck to the road, but realized that you can leave the road, turn the autopilot off. The way you deal with emotions has changed fundamentally by leaving the observer role. And who are we if not our actions. I would also say, anything that makes me decide to be a more aware and happier person is a fundamentally positive development as it gives me the opportunity for more meaningful decisions. And with me being happy, these decisions will likely be positive.

At the core of this question is your view on humankind. I dont think happier more self reflective people are a bad development. I think the best way to make the world a better place is by making more people happy. I think you have a higher capacity for doing good things for others if you arent miserable yourself, if you arent just coping with day to day life. And you have better chances to reduce bad unintended consequences if you work on being more self reflective.

I think the examples you bring are more caused by reevaluating ones moral compass then by changing how you function.

[blaze33]

I won't disagree with you but you have to consider the context of the original comment: use of psychedelics. Their effects, though I'm happy to see more and more research being done, are already widely discussed so when he said "it changed me for the better" we can quite surely rely on the numerous reports of how psychedelics changed peoples lives. Not so sure about new far-right extremists feeling better in their echo bubble... I more often hear about people being more at peace with their lives, overcoming stress or anxiety issues, learning to go with flow after years of fighting it, etc.

[braindead_in]

A bigger question is what was that 'you'. Was it the ego? Was it my sense of self? We keep changing throughout our lives. But psychedelics are more than just a life changing experience. AFAIK, it's the only way to experience ego death. The dissolution of self can remind you of the transient nature of things and lead you towards spirituality. The good or bad aspect should be judged from that perspective rather than your perspective. The ego is temporary, but the spirit is not.

[jacobush]

I have never come close, but the practice of meditation seems to be bring people there, or close.

[braindead_in]

Meditation and psychedelics affect different areas of the brain, neurologically speaking. I think they are complimentary.

[LinuxBender]

Is it true that multiple people tripping on it at the same time, in different rooms, see the same things, events and even people in their trip? I've never tried any psychedelics, but if there were any truth to what I have heard, it would be a fascinating topic to study while monitoring brainwave activity.

[pfundstein]

If you're asking whether DMT facilitates some kind of metaphysical communication, the answer is no.

However, it's possible that a common environment or shared experience before or during the trip could seed similar or related experiences.

[LinuxBender]

The reason I ask is that Graham Hancock in an interview on Joe Rogan was saying that specifically Ayahuasca would allow people to see the same thing, exact same events, whereas DMT would not. Perhaps I misunderstood what he meant. He seemed to imply there was something intrinsically different about the way that was prepared and used traditionally and how it affected people. He seemed to imply it connected people.

[gfody]

Ayahuasca is typically consumed as part of a larger ritual ceremony that steers the participants towards a particular experience (depending on the Shaman you may be told to expect to encounter a certain entity named "Mescalito" for example.)

[dwaltrip]

There is no known mechanism by which DMT can connect people any differently than any other powerful experience that people have similarly had at some point.

[teh_infallible]

Yes. This absolutely happens. What was strange for me was looking at clouds while tripping and pointing out all the things I saw in the clouds. My companion saw all the same things. There’s no way a sober person would have seen any of it.

[dwaltrip]

But of course this by no means that some sort of unknown communication between your brains was occuring. Having your perception altered in a similar way could simply cause people to see similar patterns.

[moretai]

Couldn't they just be following the leader, aka your thought?

[hcarvalhoalves]

It could be suggestion / false memory. Once one participant tries to explain their experience in more concrete terms, the others start to fit the description into their own experience, and since we have similar prior experiences, they "see" the same things.

Try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5sk504Yc94

[mike_hock]

Poor presentation.

I didn't have "sleep." So now what?

"So we're gonna do a little experiment, memorize these words, then write them down, now I'm gonna read ... oh will you look at the time, it's been almost 2 minutes, that is we're almost at the end of your attention span, so here's the conclusion, bye."

He could have at least read the (supposed) entire list, then tell us which ones weren't actually on the original list, or ask us which ones weren't. Or something.