[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.