Study : Psychedelics can alter your beliefs about the nature of reality, away from physicalism to dualism/panpsychism

[James_B]

What do you guys think about this ?

Abstract

"Are psychedelics able to induce lasting changes in metaphysical beliefs? While it is popularly believed that they can, this has never been systematically tested. Here we exploited a large sample derived from prospective online surveying to determine whether and how beliefs concerning the nature of reality, consciousness, and free-will, change after psychedelic use. Results revealed significant shifts away from ‘physicalist’ or ‘materialist’ views, and towards panpsychism and fatalism, post use. These changes remained detectable at 6 months, and were associated with the extent of past use and improved mental-health outcomes. Path modelling suggested that the belief-shifts were moderated by impressionability at baseline and mediated by perceived emotional synchrony with others during the psychedelic experience. The observed belief-shifts post psychedelic use were confirmed by data from an independent controlled clinical trial. Together, these findings imply that psychedelic use has a causal influence on metaphysical beliefs – shifting them away from ‘hard materialism’."

https://psyarxiv.com/f6sjk

Online survey? Nope. Self-selection bias is high. Useless results.

To demonstrate this, you need a randomly selected group of people that would ideally have measurable variation in metaphysical beliefs. You then remeasure after the experience. Ideally the experience would take place in some sort of neutral setting - one with no connotations of religion or spirituality. Possibly something like an ordinary home.

With all of variations in set and setting, plus the self-selection bias of an online survey, this research contributes little or nothing.

I can't speak on this study in the OP, but I personally don't believe psychedelics are enough to convince someone that physicalism wrong. Look at Hamilton Morris from the Vice show Hamilton's Pharmacopeia. He's ingested all of the known (to my knowledge) psychedelics around & he's still a die-hard physicalist.

This isn't just with psychedelics either. Prominent 20th century philosopher AJ Ayer had a Near-Death Experience later in his life & he said that it made him doubt that his consciousness would be extinguished upon death but that "he continued to hope that it would."

As much as I wish psychedelics & other altered states were enough to convince people that physicalism is BS, they don't seem to be adequate enough for some people.

[Jim Cross]

What do you guys think about this ?

Abstract

"Are psychedelics able to induce lasting changes in metaphysical beliefs? While it is popularly believed that they can, this has never been systematically tested. Here we exploited a large sample derived from prospective online surveying to determine whether and how beliefs concerning the nature of reality, consciousness, and free-will, change after psychedelic use. Results revealed significant shifts away from ‘physicalist’ or ‘materialist’ views, and towards panpsychism and fatalism, post use. These changes remained detectable at 6 months, and were associated with the extent of past use and improved mental-health outcomes. Path modelling suggested that the belief-shifts were moderated by impressionability at baseline and mediated by perceived emotional synchrony with others during the psychedelic experience. The observed belief-shifts post psychedelic use were confirmed by data from an independent controlled clinical trial. Together, these findings imply that psychedelic use has a causal influence on metaphysical beliefs – shifting them away from ‘hard materialism’."

https://psyarxiv.com/f6sjk

Online survey? Nope. Self-selection bias is high. Useless results.

To demonstrate this, you need a randomly selected group of people that would ideally have measurable variation in metaphysical beliefs. You then remeasure after the experience. Ideally the experience would take place in some sort of neutral setting - one with no connotations of religion or spirituality. Possibly something like an ordinary home.

With all of variations in set and setting, plus the self-selection bias of an online survey, this research contributes little or nothing.

I can't speak on this study in the OP, but I personally don't believe psychedelics are enough to convince someone that physicalism wrong. Look at Hamilton Morris from the Vice show Hamilton's Pharmacopeia. He's ingested all of the known (to my knowledge) psychedelics around & he's still a die-hard physicalist.

This isn't just with psychedelics either. Prominent 20th century philosopher AJ Ayer had a Near-Death Experience later in his life & he said that it made him doubt that his consciousness would be extinguished upon death but that "he continued to hope that it would."

As much as I wish psychedelics & other altered states were enough to convince people that physicalism is BS, they don't seem to be adequate enough for some people.

I agree. I think an idealist or someone tending that way would likely have the tendency reinforced and stronger after the experience. A physicalist would more likely realize the effects came from a drug and that would reinforce their view.

In any case, this is empirical question, not a philosophical one, and can't be answered without studies with good designs.

As much as I wish psychedelics & other altered states were enough to convince people

I find this view perplexing. Why would you care? What difference does it make to you or anything else?

A believer in physicalism can be as moral as any idealist and idealists are not necessarily ethical or moral. Certainly occultism has been associated with some of the more evil movements in history.

[James_B]

Online survey? Nope. Self-selection bias is high. Useless results.

To demonstrate this, you need a randomly selected group of people that would ideally have measurable variation in metaphysical beliefs. You then remeasure after the experience. Ideally the experience would take place in some sort of neutral setting - one with no connotations of religion or spirituality. Possibly something like an ordinary home.

With all of variations in set and setting, plus the self-selection bias of an online survey, this research contributes little or nothing.

I can't speak on this study in the OP, but I personally don't believe psychedelics are enough to convince someone that physicalism wrong. Look at Hamilton Morris from the Vice show Hamilton's Pharmacopeia. He's ingested all of the known (to my knowledge) psychedelics around & he's still a die-hard physicalist.

This isn't just with psychedelics either. Prominent 20th century philosopher AJ Ayer had a Near-Death Experience later in his life & he said that it made him doubt that his consciousness would be extinguished upon death but that "he continued to hope that it would."

As much as I wish psychedelics & other altered states were enough to convince people that physicalism is BS, they don't seem to be adequate enough for some people.

I agree. I think an idealist or someone tending that way would likely have the tendency reinforced and stronger after the experience. A physicalist would more likely realize the effects came from a drug and that would reinforce their view.

In any case, this is empirical question, not a philosophical one, and can't be answered without studies with good designs.

As much as I wish psychedelics & other altered states were enough to convince people

I find this view perplexing. Why would you care? What difference does it make to you or anything else?

A believer in physicalism can be as moral as any idealist and idealists are not necessarily ethical or moral. Certainly occultism has been associated with some of the more evil movements in history.

I agree with you regarding the morality of physicalists & idealists (my bad, not sure how to quote specific passages in posts yet).

Now I said that last part you quoted because I'm honestly not a fan of when physicalists discuss practices that induce altered states (be it mediation, yoga, hypnosis, psychedelics, etc.) because they tend to appropriate these practices & devalue/dilute these practices (since they were created & practiced by non-physicalists). Alan Wallace has discussed this with Buddhist meditation in his book "Meditations of a Buddhist Skeptic" which was a reaction to people like Stephen Batchelor (spelling?) who has said in the past that Buddhism is atheistic/physicalistic & promotes Secular Buddhism (which Wallace thoroughly debunked in that same book & in various articles addressing Batchelor & Secular Buddhists). He's critiqued Susan Blackmore on this too apparently because she's said similar things to what Batchelor said regarding Buddhism/Buddhist practices.

Like you said, any philosophical ideology can be moral or immoral & used for evil purposes. I take Wallace's approach regarding non-physicalist practices being utilized & promoted by physicalists. Wallace does talk about morality & how Buddhist practices (which of course like any other philosophical ideology/movement, has been used for evil) do in fact educate the practitioner on morality (paraphrasing here but that's the gist of what he says in his Meditations of a Buddhist Skeptic book). Anyway that's my perspective on it, but what are your thoughts on it & Wallace approach to this?

[SanteriSatama]

I'm honestly not a fan of when physicalists discuss practices that induce altered states (be it mediation, yoga, hypnosis, psychedelics, etc.) because they tend to appropriate these practices & devalue/dilute these practices (since they were created & practiced by non-physicalists).

I'm a fan, if and when physicalists can engage in p2p dialogue with genuine scientists, who come from tradtions of meditations science, tradition of shamanhood etc., instead of presupposing superiority of their quantitative measuring as a scientific methodology from the get go. Sadly, such p2p dialogue is not as common as I would wish, rather the norm seems to still be the hubris of ignorant exclusion by physicalists.

And I say 'genuine scientists', because ideological amputation of introspection from scientific methodology is counter-empirical, antiscientific and antiethical. With great knowledge comes great power, and with great power comes great responsibility, and genuine science can't exclude ethics. Physicalism methodologically amputates ethical growth and ethical responsibility from methodology and education.

[Jim Cross]

Like you said, any philosophical ideology can be moral or immoral & used for evil purposes. I take Wallace's approach regarding non-physicalist practices being utilized & promoted by physicalists. Wallace does talk about morality & how Buddhist practices (which of course like any other philosophical ideology/movement, has been used for evil) do in fact educate the practitioner on morality (paraphrasing here but that's the gist of what he says in his Meditations of a Buddhist Skeptic book). Anyway that's my perspective on it, but what are your thoughts on it & Wallace approach to this?

Although I might generally agree, the whole thing I think is a lot more complicated.

In one sense, just about everybody in the West are to some degree appropriating Eastern traditions. But that is even true for Eastern teachers who come to the West and frequently adapt the practices for a Western audience.

In another sense, there are so many different Eastern schools and traditions with so many variations on practice that nobody can say there is just one right way to do everything.

Now add to that the a number of teachers from the East have extremely interested in engaging with Western science. The Dali Lama for one. Or take a look at the Kundalini Research Institute.

https://kundaliniresearchinstitute.org/ ... h-science/

Or read Gopi Krishna who certainly writes as if kundalini is a physical, evolutionary energy that can harnessed for spiritual purposes.

Then you also have tantra yoga traditions.

Materialism is considered to be an anathema to Indian philosophy. Despite this, Indian tradition boasts of a strong materialist trend predating the Vedas. This paper traces the proto-materialist ideas as found in the ancient Tantra and pre-classical or original Sāṃkhya. Representing the naturalistic trend in Indian philosophy, ancient Tantra identified the brain as the seat of human consciousness. The pre-classical Sāṃkhya considered matter as the primal non-intelligent or non-sentient first cause from which the universe was to evolve. It considers the material cause to be self-sufficient for the purpose of producing the world; the principle of consciousness is potentially contained in the primeval matter. T

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... 013.777582

So you see how it isn't black and white.

[James_B]

I'm honestly not a fan of when physicalists discuss practices that induce altered states (be it mediation, yoga, hypnosis, psychedelics, etc.) because they tend to appropriate these practices & devalue/dilute these practices (since they were created & practiced by non-physicalists).

I'm a fan, if and when physicalists can engage in p2p dialogue with genuine scientists, who come from tradtions of meditations science, tradition of shamanhood etc., instead of presupposing superiority of their quantitative measuring as a scientific methodology from the get go. Sadly, such p2p dialogue is not as common as I would wish, rather the norm seems to still be the hubris of ignorant exclusion by physicalists.

And I say 'genuine scientists', because ideological amputation of introspection from scientific methodology is counter-empirical, antiscientific and antiethical. With great knowledge comes great power, and with great power comes great responsibility, and genuine science can't exclude ethics. Physicalism methodologically amputates ethical growth and ethical responsibility from methodology and education.

Yeah that's the thing, everytime these physicalists are presented with non-physicalist ideas or have any sort of dialogue with non-physicalists, they scoff at these ideas & insult non-physicalists & tell them how they're irrational & stupid. Rupert Spira (in his interview with Sam Harris) mentioned how (paraphrasing here) he has more respect for dogmatic religious people than dogmatic physicalists because at least the dogmatic religious followers are honest & mention how their metaphysical position is a belief; whereas physicalism is a belief too but physicalists won't admit it.

Also, William James & Wilhem Wundt (spelling?) the founders of psychology did (or at least attempted before their deaths) use introspection as their primary methodology for studying consciousness. Too bad the introspection methodology was abandoned for behaviorism. You should watch/listen to New Thinking Allowed if you haven't already. I'm not too keen on parapsychology but I really like Jeffrey Mishlove & he's mentioned how William James is a huge influence on him & his work.

[James_B]

Like you said, any philosophical ideology can be moral or immoral & used for evil purposes. I take Wallace's approach regarding non-physicalist practices being utilized & promoted by physicalists. Wallace does talk about morality & how Buddhist practices (which of course like any other philosophical ideology/movement, has been used for evil) do in fact educate the practitioner on morality (paraphrasing here but that's the gist of what he says in his Meditations of a Buddhist Skeptic book). Anyway that's my perspective on it, but what are your thoughts on it & Wallace approach to this?

Although I might generally agree, the whole thing I think is a lot more complicated.

In one sense, just about everybody in the West are to some degree appropriating Eastern traditions. But that is even true for Eastern teachers who come to the West and frequently adapt the practices for a Western audience.

In another sense, there are so many different Eastern schools and traditions with so many variations on practice that nobody can say there is just one right way to do everything.

Now add to that the a number of teachers from the East have extremely interested in engaging with Western science. The Dali Lama for one. Or take a look at the Kundalini Research Institute.

https://kundaliniresearchinstitute.org/ ... h-science/

Or read Gopi Krishna who certainly writes as if kundalini is a physical, evolutionary energy that can harnessed for spiritual purposes.

Then you also have tantra yoga traditions.

Materialism is considered to be an anathema to Indian philosophy. Despite this, Indian tradition boasts of a strong materialist trend predating the Vedas. This paper traces the proto-materialist ideas as found in the ancient Tantra and pre-classical or original Sāṃkhya. Representing the naturalistic trend in Indian philosophy, ancient Tantra identified the brain as the seat of human consciousness. The pre-classical Sāṃkhya considered matter as the primal non-intelligent or non-sentient first cause from which the universe was to evolve. It considers the material cause to be self-sufficient for the purpose of producing the world; the principle of consciousness is potentially contained in the primeval matter. T

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... 013.777582

So you see how it isn't black and white.

For sure, I'm aware of some physicalist worldviews existing in Indian philosophy. I dunno, I don't understand idealism enough to fully subscribe to it but physicalism doesn't make much sense to me either. I like Kastrup & Wallace's approaches because they're empiricists & (like William James) use empiricism as their primary epistemological model. I think William James's approach to studying consciousness (via the introspection methodology) was on the right track.

[SanteriSatama]

I'm not too keen on parapsychology but I really like Jeffrey Mishlove & he's mentioned how William James is a huge influence on him & his work.

Thanks for the tip, I've watched some that have been shared on this forum.

[James_B]

I'm not too keen on parapsychology but I really like Jeffrey Mishlove & he's mentioned how William James is a huge influence on him & his work.

Thanks for the tip, I've watched some that have been shared on this forum.

For sure. It's one of the best psychology podcasts around (really underrated IMO). Plus Mishlove is one of the OG psychonauts too