Graham Hancock questions Richard Dawkins on psychedelics and challenging his world view

[drokhole]

I thought this was interesting, and that Graham did an excellent job at posing the question:

Notice that Graham emphasizes the scientific approach to the matter - that is, first-hand/direct experience:

"As a scientist," Hancock asked, "have you ever seriously engaged such techniques to have first-hand experience of what they're talking about, and perhaps even to challenge your own concept of what is real?"

I think Dawkins is somewhat dismissive in referring to them as "drugs" (which has a negative connotation - whereas indigenous/shamanic cultures revere these plants/substances as medicines and sacraments) and that he deflected a bit by focusing on his experience with the "God helmet" (since I don't think the experiences are remotely similar), but he was a bit more open to the possibility than I imagined he would be. I was also encouraged to hear that he was familiar with Huxley's opus on the subject matter, going so far as to cite its most famous quote (via Blake). As Huxley also wrote in that book, which directly applies to Dawkins:

"This is an experience of inestimable value to everyone, and especially to the intellectual."

I'd love if top scientists/astronomers/physicians (including the most skeptical among them) were invited to an ayahuasca ritual in the Amazonian jungle, and allowed/encouraged to try this experience firsthand (that is, ayahuasca taken under the guidance of a shaman), and to then hear their reactions afterwards (in both personal interviews and group discussions). Along with Dawkins, I was thinking along the lines of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Lawrence M Krauss, Michio Kaku, Brian Greene, David Eagleman, Brian Cox (the physicist), and others across a spectrum of fields (possibly including other thinkers, philosophers, and maybe even religious/spiritual leaders).

What's more, people have reported amazing clarity and insights gained from these experiences - so these experiences may very well induce insights that help further science/our understanding of nature itself. Even with their substantial knowledge/education, these scientists have the potential of walking away with "a far greater understanding of what it means to be a human being living as one with the earth and the cosmos" (talk about Most Astounding Fact!).

There should also be an emphasis on proper preparation for each scientist - meaning, they should be well guided beforehand and be prepared to possibly have their worldview challenged. I had another OP very recently - Brilliant article on Psychedelics covers creative-breakthroughs, transcendent experiences, and more - that went further in-depth about the importance of safe, secure, and informed/skillful/respectful use, with an emphasis on proper preparation and guidance. It also details psychedelics sessions (in this case, LSD) with professionals (including scientists) who had reactions beyond creative/problem-solving breakthroughs (which were a bit more "spiritually" inclined). From two different participants (these quotes are pulled from the book that the article is based on):

"I saw (or was) the cosmos and it came together into a pinpoint of all the light and energy there is and burst and flooded the universe with twinkling stars again.
...
I withdrew for a moment and thought about this rare phenomenon. Again laughter tumbled from the depths of my being. I was trying to do the impossible, to stand back and intellectualize about the most integral thought I had ever experienced...Being transcending the sum of its parts...."

"I encountered an amazing presence, and felt a complete sense of the perfection in everything."

To highlight the importance of direct experience, another said:

"I would not have believed what transpired had it not really occurred to me."

What's great about the ayahuasca ceremonies is that they are done in group settings, so the scientists (in a cross-disciplinary way) would be able to discuss/compare their experience afterwards. Accounts from "everyday" people are fascinating as is (and can be found online and in a number of books), I'd be especially interested to hear what these folks had to say.

"Ancient technologies to alter consciousness and the knowledge learned from such inner explorations pose a challenge to modern science and culture.
...
Modern man and woman have often discounted and trivialized the knowledge of native people, such hubris is shattered upon encountering the legendary vision plants of the rain forest." - Don José Campos

[trotsky]

1. Question about the Campos quote:

"Ancient technologies to alter consciousness and the knowledge learned from such inner explorations pose a challenge to modern science and culture."

Are there documented incidents that describe exactly what "knowledge" has been obtained by ingesting psychoactive drugs?

Additionally, vast leaps in thinking and technology occurred in Europe, the Middle East, and the Far East without using these rainforest plants. How was that possible?

[drokhole]

2. I don't think he meant it as an "either/or" dichotomy...

In his book, Campos references plenty of beneficial aspects of Western thought and sciences. I believe he is referring to more of an ecological awareness and this type of knowledge...

"What we ordinarily call 'reality' is merely that slice of total fact which our biological equipment, our linguistic heritage and our social conventions of thought and feeling make it possible for use to apprehend...LSD permits us to cut another slice." - Aldous Huxley

"No account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves those other forms of consciousness quite disregarded." - William James

William James, who experimented with various substances and admits to gaining valuable insight from them, is said to be the "father of modern psychology." The knowledge he speaks of comes from a "direct apprehension" of that "non-ordinary" consciousness - non-filtered and intuitive. Something they say these substances grant.

Psychedelics and consciousness-altering substances have been found and used by cultures across the globe throughout history (particularly hallucinogenic mushrooms, since they grow so readily). Hashish, for one, was believed to have originated in the Middle East. The use of opiates in China and the Far East is well documented. This dates back thousands of years. It is only recently that we've come to dismiss, discredit, revile and suppress them. So I'd say it's hard to tell just how much these substances influenced progress and understanding.

If you look back into our recent history, you'll find several instances of discovery through "psychoactive drug" use. Francis Crick deduced the double-helix structure of DNA under the influence of LSD. Kary Mullis has emphasized over and over how LSD led him to the development of Polymerease Chain Reactions, and how he wouldn't have been able to do so without it. The book What the Doormouse Said spells out how these substances (and the way they helped to break open thought patterns) played an influential role in shaping the personal computer.

"Progress" and "knowledge" can also depend on one's definition of the word. Native American cultures, who often utilized consciousness-altering sacraments (such as peyote), knew how to live according to the land and gave back to it more than they took (something we are now re-learning how to do through lightly-guided, permaculture methods). Our technical "progress" has left the planet on the brink of environmental destruction. If ingesting these plants (and/or LSD) led to an undeniable, fundamentally felt "knowledge" of our deep interconnection with our environment - leading to a reconfiguration of how we interact with it - they would be worth their weight in gold. In the words of Richard Doyle:

"It's persuasiveness seems to hinge on an experience of this interconnection as well as an understanding of it."

One of the things these plants do, if nothing else, is jar people out of the ruts of their thought-patterns and preconceptions - which could then lead to new ideas and understanding. It's not as if you ingest ayahuasca (or any of the indole alkaloids) and some spirit shows up and says, "Behold, the iPhone 6. Here are the blueprints. Knowledge!"

[trotsky]

7. How are true hallucinations distinguished from other "slices" of the real universe? n/t

[Silent3]

3. "first-hand/direct experience" is not the key to the scientific approach.

Repeated observations by multiple observers done in a controlled fashion such as to diminish the effects random error and subjective bias are what's important in science. While there might be personal value and interesting insights gained from all sorts of direct experiences, chemically induced or not, there's nothing particularly scientific about "trying it yourself".

[cbayer]

4. Agree, it's not.

What I took away from this is that one's observations can be altered and that certainly can be a factor in the scientific approach.

If you are measuring something that individuals may measure differently, you may get markedly different results from the same method.

While good science will control for this as much as possible, investigator bias may sometimes be difficult to control.

[rug]

5. And the, there's always the spore in the petri dish.

[Silent3]

6. Personal observations, often by chance, certainly get discoveries started...

...but isn't science until experimental verification and peer review establish what one thinks one has observed.

Dreams about snakes swallowing their tails occasionally help too, but that doesn't make such dreams scientific discoveries or processes in and of themselves.