Is there a physical basis for psychedelic experiences?

[callmelucky]

Hello everybody,

I came across an interesting article from “Biological Psychiatry” promoting a physical explanation for psychedelic states of the brain.

The study is called “Psilocybin Induces Time-Dependent Changes in Global Functional Connectivity” and can be accessed via:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 1cVY_3zjrE

Here, the authors state: “These results suggest that the integration of functional connectivity in sensory regions and the disintegration in associative regions may underlie the psychedelic state and pinpoint the critical role of the serotonin 2A and 1A receptor systems. Furthermore, baseline connectivity may represent a predictive marker of the magnitude of changes induced by psilocybin and may therefore contribute to a personalized medicine approach within the potential framework of psychedelic treatment.”

What is your opinion on that study? Does it suggest that the basis for psychedelic experiences is rather a physical/materialistic one opposed to what idealism posits?

Kind regards!

[DandelionSoul]

Idealism doesn't actually predict anything different than materialism in terms of what we'd expect to see going on in the brain. Rather, it explains the connection between the observed brain activity and the internal experience in a different way. For an idealist, and particularly one of Kastrup's flavor, it would be very surprising if we didn't see neurological reflections of the internal experiences of psychedelic states.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Yes, as DS points out, the study demonstrates that there is a correlation between certain psychedelic states and certain brain states. Insofar as it in any way mitigates materialism's 'hard problem', how are they in any way further ahead?

[Jim Cross]

Yes, as DS points out, the study demonstrates that there is a correlation between certain psychedelic states and certain brain states. Insofar as it in any way mitigates materialism's 'hard problem', how are they in any way further ahead?

The people doing the study weren't trying to solve the hard problem. Science moves ahead when it can make better predictions. The goal of the study was to enhance the possibility of individual psychedelic treatment.

Furthermore, baseline connectivity may represent a predictive marker of the magnitude of changes induced by psilocybin and may therefore contribute to a personalized medicine approach within the potential framework of psychedelic treatment.

Better predictions can result in benefit. They can be useful as opposed to metaphysics which produces no useful predictions or benefit.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Yes, as DS points out, the study demonstrates that there is a correlation between certain psychedelic states and certain brain states. Insofar as it in any way mitigates materialism's 'hard problem', how are they in any way further ahead?

The people doing the study weren't trying to solve the hard problem. Science moves ahead when it can make better predictions. The goal of the study was to enhance the possibility of individual psychedelic treatment.

Furthermore, baseline connectivity may represent a predictive marker of the magnitude of changes induced by psilocybin and may therefore contribute to a personalized medicine approach within the potential framework of psychedelic treatment.

Better predictions can result in benefit. They can be useful as opposed to metaphysics which produces no useful predictions or benefit.

I was addressing the question that the OP posed ... Does it suggest that the basis for psychedelic experiences is rather a physical/materialistic one opposed to what idealism posits?

If the basis for any consciousness whatsoever is a physical/materialistic one, then that entails addressing the hard problem.

[Jim Cross]

If the basis for any consciousness whatsoever is a physical/materialistic one, then that entails addressing the hard problem.

On what basis? We can make useful predictions on a physical basis and ignore the so-called "hard" problem. The physical basis is only one that provides any utility. Nothing requires addressing the "hard" problem to study, understand, or make predictions. Idealism in contrast makes no predictions.

For that matter, as I have tried to explain, the "hard" problem is a bogus problem anyway. It is a variation on the "why is there something rather than nothing" problem that perplexes children and is unanswerable by adults. Idealism ducks out of the problem with a similar answer to the ones adults usually give: "It just is." Idealism can't explain how or why the mind at large would manifest itself in apparently physical processes (why does the brain correlate with consciousness?). Or why physical processes would behave in certain orderly ways.

[Soul_of_Shu]

If the basis for any consciousness whatsoever is a physical/materialistic one, then that entails addressing the hard problem.

On what basis? We can make useful predictions on a physical basis and ignore the so-called "hard" problem. The physical basis is only one that provides any utility. Nothing requires addressing the "hard" problem to study, understand, or make predictions. Idealism in contrast makes no predictions.

For that matter, as I have tried to explain, the "hard" problem is a bogus problem anyway. It is a variation on the "why is there something rather than nothing" problem that perplexes children and is unanswerable by adults. Idealism ducks out of the problem with a similar answer to the ones adults usually give: "It just is." Idealism can't explain how or why the mind at large would manifest itself in apparently physical processes (why does the brain correlate with consciousness?). Or why physical processes would behave in certain orderly ways.

We've been through this so many times now, I can only respond with surprise that you still think that by going through it again we'll come to any different conclusions.

[Jim Cross]

We've been through this so many times now, I can only respond with surprise that you still think that by going through it again we'll come to any different conclusions.

There are always new people posting here asking the same questions. They should be exposed to alterative answers.

As I've stated before, I don't think the ultimate nature of reality is knowable and maybe the question may be meaningless.

But I can't see that idealism provides any advantage as far as making predictions so, from a practical or operational standpoint, physicalism makes more sense.

For example, if we assume the body and its nerves are physical, we can predict that severing the spinal cord will result in a person unable to walk (at least until science finds a way to regrow the spinal cord).

If we assume the body and its nerves is the extrinsic manifestation of mind or consciousness, we could predict that that severing the spinal cord should have no more than a temporary lapse in the person's ability to walk because consciousness should be able re-manifest the severed connection. Unfortunately that prediction hasn't been demonstrated yet.

[callmelucky]

Thank you everybody for your swift replies and (if I understand DandelionSoul correctly) we can´t come to a conclusion whether idealism or materialism is valid based on the results of the study.

However, there is another question that I would like to ask: If I understand Dr. Kastrup correctly, he says that brain activity under the influence of psychedelic drugs should be reduced. But this is only partialy the case here. The authors of the study state: "Psilocybin reduced associative, but concurrently increased sensory, brain-wide connectivity.". So in other words, there is also a increased brain activity occuring here. How does this result fit into the prediction that Dr. Kastrup makes regarding the use of psyedelics on the brain? Or am I getting something wrong here?

[Jim Cross]

Thank you everybody for your swift replies and (if I understand DandelionSoul correctly) we can´t come to a conclusion whether idealism or materialism is valid based on the results of the study.

However, there is another question that I would like to ask: If I understand Dr. Kastrup correctly, he says that brain activity under the influence of psychedelic drugs should be reduced. But this is only partialy the case here. The authors of the study state: "Psilocybin reduced associative, but concurrently increased sensory, brain-wide connectivity.". So in other words, there is also a increased brain activity occuring here. How does this result fit into the prediction that Dr. Kastrup makes regarding the use of psyedelics on the brain? Or am I getting something wrong here?

You're getting it right. It's a failed prediction.