[aftoprokrustes]

I think I see what you mean, in the sense that without the substance the trip does not exist. The distinction I was trying to make was between the subjective experience compared to potential brain changes induced by chemical reactions.

The "chemistry" side of the debate would be that the trip is a side effect of the substance modifying neurological pathways (or similar), but what is actually important are those physical modifications to the brain, not the experience.

The "trip" side of the debate would be that the only important thing is the experience, and that whether it is induced by drugs, fasting, meditation, prayer, video games, etc. does not matter that much.

Obviously, there is also the possibility that both sides are valid: the fact that the experience can be transformative in itself does not prevent the physical effect of the molecule on the brain to be beneficial as well. There is even the possibility that one of the two has a positive effect, while the other is rather negative.