There are alot of new studies regarding psychedelic done by groups like MAPS. I read almost all of them. Judging by this research and the benefits it is borderline criminal to have this substances as schedule 1.

To date, the most lucid writing i’m aware of on psychedelics is Huxley’s 1954 essay The Doors of Perception.

>Sacred Knowledge: Psychedelics and Religious Experiences

Read that.

as someone with a degree in math, this is the funniest thing I read in a while.

Please don't post dissy dismissals to HN. Even if you're right that something is bad, that's a poor excuse for making this community worse.

Being supercilious isn't needed either. Lots of people on HN have degrees in math and I know for sure that some are fine with metaphor.

if you can explain this, go ahead: "The concrete hypothesis is that the network of subjective measurements of distances we experience on DMT (coming from the relationships between the phenomenal objects one experiences in that state) has an overall geometry that can accurately be described as hyperbolic (or hyperbolic-like). In other words, our inner 3D1T world grows larger than is possible to fit in an experiential field with 3D Euclidean phenomenal space (i.e. an experience of dimension R2.5 representing an R3 scene). This results in phenomenal spaces, surfaces, and objects acquiring a mean negative curvature. Of note is that even though DMT produces this effect in the most consistent and intense way, the effect is also present in states of consciousness induced by tryptamines and to a lesser extent in those induced by all other psychedelics."

Yeah this is pretty much standard ‘psychonaut’ theorizing about ‘what it all means, man’. We need less of this and more actual research. What dmt and lsd and similar drugs do to the mind is near miraculous, and if we want to understand consciousness, understanding how these drugs act to warp it so thoroughly seems like an important step.

But what this guy is doing is not it.

So who's going to do that real research? I appreciate this psychonaut because he's at least trying, and seems fairly serious about his interest.

If you'd turn the perspective around, and instead of letting "actual researchers" perform the research, how'd you approach training interested psychonauts to perform useful research? Even if it's in a more informal manner?

The problem with research into this sort of thing is that "increases in overal entropy of neural firing patterns and correlation between visuospatial and prefrontal firing." reduces the experience to the point of banality.

What we really need is more philosophers who are well versed in science to have these experiences, and to try and reinterpret the world from this alternate perspective.

You are very clearly not aware of the current research.

I'm aware of whatever gets popular press or a write up in nautilus/aeon, and I browse /r/science daily. Please provide links to these interesting, under-shared studies.

To start: Google Johns Hopkins, Psilocybin

I volunteer.

What's so funny about it?

DMT is a psychedelic drug. The essay doesn't explain DMT, perhaps because it's an illegal drug and they didn't want to be accused of promoting it, who knows. It's funny because they try to explain the psychedelic experience with mathematical constructs.