If mind's prime directive is to deceive itself, why does it leave means to circumvent this?

[Hedge90]

The problem is that the use of psychedelics is what allowed Bernardo to find out that this world, the “normal world” we experience is an hallucination too, even he said that our brain generates similar substances as psychedelics.

This is a self-defeating epistemology because then the conclusion that the prime-directive of MaL is to deceive, is not true and then the prime directive is to disclose truth. But wait, that is again another deluded conclusion, then it is true that the prime-directive is to deceive. You see, it is a vicious loop with no exit possible.

But Bernardo writes philosophical books, in the end I think that we can’t take very seriously what he says on this topic of the “self-deceiving prime directive”. You’re right, it would be better to say that MaL is always imagining, searching for new insights. In fact it is what we do, thinking, imagining, intuiting.

I agree. Something that I've been thinking of lately is that while the consciousness states one can experience while on psychedelics can be felt "more real than waking life", to which I can attest, there is simply no way to know whether this is because they are actually more real, or because (regardless of whether we use a materialistic or idealistic framework) the processes of the brain regulating the "sense of realness" (built-in critical faculties?) are switched off.
Basically the only way one could be certain of the degree of realness of anything is if he was (or realised he is) God, and then created his own world and entered it, without forgetting his godhood. Though even then the memories could be delusional.

So maybe psychedelics is a trick from MAL making you think you're experiencing the Real stuff, but actually throwing you off the scent...

Don't you think this requires a bit more complex planning than what MAL should be capable of? After all it's not supposed to have metacognition.

[TriloByte]

Whatever we experience is real, but we have to set up certain degrees of "how real". We can, I assume, agree that while a dream is a real experience, from the waking state you can realise that while the experience was real, the actual events that took place in the dream are at a lesser level of reality than the one you currently reside in, if for none other, then the fact that what happens in the world outside the dream can affect the dream (i.e. a phone ringing can materialise within the dream as an alarm, for example), which is not true vice versa.
We can also say that for a mentally healthy person, the "feeling of clarity" is higher in the waking state then in the dream. When you dream you are unable to realise that you are now operating at a lower degree of consciousness, but when you are awake, you can easily make a comparison with the dream state, and realise that it's a way more "dim" experience (in the sense of cognitive clarity) than the waking one.
The reason why the psychedelic state is so curious, however, is that while it has the characteristics of the dream in that the phenomena of the external world can have an effect on what you will experience, it is also accompanied by a feeling of increased clarity that compares to normal waking life the same way as normal waking life compares to the dream.

Interesting Hedge.

I don’t have experience with psychedelics. But as I said before, we need to interpret our experiences. I don’t say that philosophy is before than experience, both are in a dialectical relation and support each other. Experiences enrich philosophy. To establish what must be considered a state of mind “more real” than others, we would need to set a criteria that allows us to make comparisons.

While under the effect of psychedelics could you write philosophy? Think about a scientific experiment?

I am not saying that another mental function doesn’t have any value aside from reason, but thinking with clarity is valuable for human beings. Without reason we cannot even make comparisons. And science and philosophy are great achievments.

Sometimes I think that Bernardo is overvaluating the info he gets from psychedelics. That and his jungian-schopenhawarian background is carrying him to a very grim place. There must be psiconauts that arrive to a very diffrent conclusions about reality. People that experiment OBEs have a different kind of them. That without taking into account the experiences of disciplined spiritual practicioners.

But, yes, sounds interesting that increased clearity you mention.

[Hedge90]

Whatever we experience is real, but we have to set up certain degrees of "how real". We can, I assume, agree that while a dream is a real experience, from the waking state you can realise that while the experience was real, the actual events that took place in the dream are at a lesser level of reality than the one you currently reside in, if for none other, then the fact that what happens in the world outside the dream can affect the dream (i.e. a phone ringing can materialise within the dream as an alarm, for example), which is not true vice versa.
We can also say that for a mentally healthy person, the "feeling of clarity" is higher in the waking state then in the dream. When you dream you are unable to realise that you are now operating at a lower degree of consciousness, but when you are awake, you can easily make a comparison with the dream state, and realise that it's a way more "dim" experience (in the sense of cognitive clarity) than the waking one.
The reason why the psychedelic state is so curious, however, is that while it has the characteristics of the dream in that the phenomena of the external world can have an effect on what you will experience, it is also accompanied by a feeling of increased clarity that compares to normal waking life the same way as normal waking life compares to the dream.

Interesting Hedge.

I don’t have experience with psychedelics. But as I said before, we need to interpret our experiences. I don’t say that philosophy is before than experience, both are in a dialectical relation and support each other. Experiences enrich philosophy. To establish what must be considered a state of mind “more real” than others, we would need to set a criteria that allows us to make comparisons.

While under the effect of psychedelics could you write philosophy? Think about a scientific experiment?

I am not saying that another mental function doesn’t have any value aside from reason, but thinking with clarity is valuable for human beings. Without reason we cannot even make comparisons. And science and philosophy are great achievments.

Sometimes I think that Bernardo is overvaluating the info he gets from psychedelics. That and his jungian-schopenhawarian background is carrying him to a very grim place. There must be psiconauts that arrive to a very diffrent conclusions about reality. People that experiment OBEs have a different kind of them. That without taking into account the experiences of disciplined spiritual practicioners.

But, yes, sounds interesting that increased clearity you mention.

To put value in a scientific experiment over, let's say, intuition, you have to value the cognitive condition you can perform it in as epistemologically superior than, let's say, the psychedelic state. That's reasonable to do, as you say, in our shared culture. But that's an arbitrary point of reference doesn't say anything about the absolute truth value of that state.
Note that I'm not arguing for that supremacy of the psychedelic (or any other) state over the waking state, I'm just saying that there's simply no absolute point of reference from which you can establish the measure of truth. I wouldn't have put much thought into this either before I actually had a psychedelic experience, but after that I had to reevaluate just how certain I am about what "reality" is.

[Eugene I.]

Note that I'm not arguing for that supremacy of the psychedelic (or any other) state over the waking state, I'm just saying that there's simply no absolute point of reference from which you can establish the measure of truth. I wouldn't have put much thought into this either before I actually had a psychedelic experience, but after that I had to reevaluate just how certain I am about what "reality" is.

Well, there is still one: "that" which creates and experiences all these states, call it "consciousness" or "thinking" or "awareness". That "thing/no-thing" always exists, is always aware and is always real no matter what state it is experiencing. It can hallucinate, imagine or think anything possible and deceive itself in all possible ways. It can even make itself imagine and think that it does not exist, or it is going to die, or that it is a tailless monkey made of dead matter, but no matter what it imagines or dreams, that can never ever change or affect what it actually is, and can not make it to not exist or not be aware. And so, if there is anything at all that could be called "truth" or "reality", then this must be it.

But this simple truth-reality does not hold consciousness from its dreaming activity. It imagines, thinks and dreams in all possible ways just because is can, why not? It explores the world of all possible mental states, imaginations and ideas in all possible dimensions and ways. It evolves, it creates and experiences its own imaginative creations. It invents rules and "truths" constraining itself to certain limits, forms or particular goals, it experiences these various ways and forms of limited existence, and then it breaks free from these limits and continues along its journey. And there is no end to this.

[Hedge90]

Note that I'm not arguing for that supremacy of the psychedelic (or any other) state over the waking state, I'm just saying that there's simply no absolute point of reference from which you can establish the measure of truth. I wouldn't have put much thought into this either before I actually had a psychedelic experience, but after that I had to reevaluate just how certain I am about what "reality" is.

Well, there is still one: "that" which creates and experiences all these states, call it "consciousness" or "thinking" or "awareness". That "thing/no-thing" always exists, is always aware and is always real no matter what state it is experiencing. It can hallucinate, imagine or think anything possible and deceive itself in all possible ways. It can even make itself imagine and think that it does not exist, or it is going to die, or that it is a tailless monkey made of dead matter, but no matter what it imagines or dreams, that can never ever change or affect what it actually is, and can not make it to not exist or not be aware. And so, if there is anything at all that could be called "truth" or "reality", then this must be it.

But this simple truth-reality does not hold consciousness from its dreaming activity. It imagines, thinks and dreams in all possible ways just because is can, why not? It explores the world of all possible mental states, imaginations and ideas in all possible dimensions and ways. It evolves, it creates and experiences its own imaginative creations. It invents rules and "truths" constraining itself to certain limits, forms or particular goals, it experiences these various ways and forms of limited existence, and then it breaks free from these limits and continues along its journey. And there is no end to this.

Isn't this somewhat at odds with your signature?

[Eugene I.]

Isn't this somewhat at odds with your signature?

No, because "consciousness" is not an entity, it's not a "thing", it has no "I". The "I" is just another mind-fabricated abstraction.

[Hedge90]

Isn't this somewhat at odds with your signature?

No, because "consciousness" is not an entity, it's not a "thing", it has no "I". The "I" is just another mind-fabricated abstraction.

How can the "I" be a mind-fabricated abstraction? I mean, of course, the CONCEPT of "I" is abstract, but the concept of "I" is merely a symbol for "first person subjectivity". Even for the Vedantin who the Buddha progressed over (according to Buddhism), the concept of the Absolute Subject, Atman/Brahma was, when unconditioned, awareness without experience.

[Eugene I.]

How can the "I" be a mind-fabricated abstraction? I mean, of course, the CONCEPT of "I" is abstract, but the concept of "I" is merely a symbol for "first person subjectivity". Even for the Vedantin who the Buddha progressed over (according to Buddhism), the concept of the Absolute Subject, Atman/Brahma was, when unconditioned, awareness without experience.

Awareness is not a subject nor it is an object. It's just what it is - just "being aware". There is nobody "who" is aware, that "one who is aware" is an abstraction based on the idea that there must be a "subject" that "has" experiences or awareness. There is just unconditioned awareness - this is what the direct experience tells us, but the "one who has the awareness" is nowhere to be found (other than as an abstract idea about it).