It's a bit like trying to explain what being in love is like or what you feel when your child is born and he grabs your finger for the first time. You could just as easily dismiss those two, despite the fact that they are some of the most beautiful life experiences for any human.
It doesn't really matter if one writes a sentence or a novel about a psychedelic experience, you won't be that much closer to understanding it either way.
I suggest you either try some mushrooms to understand for yourself, or chill out.
Why not? If nobody here, who had "enlightening" drug experiences, actually can mention something enlightening which they learned during a trip, it would reassure others, that there's no enlightening.
> I don't know why that's such a big deal?
Because we are talking about addictive and potentially dangerous chemicals, which people continue to suggest for some reason.
First of all, the archetypal psychedelic (e.g. mushrooms, LSD) are some of the safest substances one can consume from a physical health standpoint. The dangers come only psychologically and, to be fair, you cannot know beforehand what your reaction will be. However, these risks can be mitigated by doing research beforehand, taking an appropriate dose, testing your substance. As for addiction, psychedelics in particular are on the lower end of the scale. Caffeine and sugar are more addictive by orders of magnitude (though this is personal anecdote).
> actually can mention something enlightening which they learned during a trip
Now, it seems like, for you to be content, you want some pearl of wisdom or utterance that would sound unlike anything that's ever been said before. That will not happen and it is an unfair yardstick. Enlightening is the state you experience during and after the experience; you simply would not believe that your brain is capable of taking you to that place.
That's how understanding works. In science this process is called peer review.
> Now, it seems like, for you to be content, you want some pearl of wisdom or utterance that would sound unlike anything that's ever been said before.
Nah, anything, that person did not know/think before would be good.
> That will not happen and it is an unfair yardstick. Enlightening is the state you experience during and after the experience; you simply would not believe that your brain is capable of taking you to that place.
That's about as enlightening, as having your brain before bungee jump to believe you actually gonna do it.
Who are you trying to fool here, really? Your comments have been tendentious and definitely not on the neutral or inquisitive side. Your agenda is quite clear, despite the perfunctory attempts of proving the opposite.
> Nah, anything, that person did not know/think before would be good.
Fine. Quoting from a friend below, of course...
What effects you get deeply depends on what substance you ingest, and your mileage may vary, but generally speaking, your thoughts get a whole new dimension to them, a dimension that you never knew existed. You are not necessarily smarter, but you can quite literally _see_ avenues of reasoning stemming from your biases, opinions, thoughts. While sober thoughts are somewhat garbled up, without a clear beginning or end, on psychedelics they become like flipping through stack of books - visual, clear, compartmentalized, distinct. You can take an idea and dissect it by means that are just not available while sober.
There are many nuances to this and a text will never capture them all.
On mushrooms, as an example, I become objective to a fault. I know the notion of good and bad, but nothing is intrinsically so because my biases and preconceived ideas have gone out the window. I can think of a topic as if I became aware of it for the first time. I also get this state of constant awe at the beauty and the complexity of everyday life - be it a ladybug, a plane, a tree, a painting. This is not a state I want permanently, it doesn't necessarily _feel good_ by definition and it can be overwhelming.
Now, as for examples of what I "did not know/think before", there are plenty. Some of them too personal to post here, but I guess I can give one example.
My childhood was a happy one, but I never realized how much school has shaped me and affected me in negative ways. Since I was not brought up in a Western country, the school system was absurd in many ways, most obviously in terms of the authority issues I got from it. I always saw my school years as a given, an immutable part of my existence, and never once pondered the question of "how much different would I have been as a person in different circumstances?".
Think of this what you will, I have tried my best to convey a very complex experience that I myself have forgotten a lot about. The realness of the experience tends to fade away with abstinence.
Are you seriously claiming that thought never crossed your mind before?
Have you never thought of the possibility of your parents passing away? Of course you did, but you don't internalize that until it happens.
Also, I am not actively seeking joy, that is induced by a drug.
And if you've read this thread and come to the conclusion that "seeking joy" is all that's going on here, it suggests yet another benefit you might realize from some small experimentation: a substantial improvement in your epistemological abilities.
> This is far from sufficient to support the statement "some unscientific bullshit, that probably has no real effect, except the bragging rights."
Your question was formulated "why not just try". Why are you referring to the other part. If I have two choices, which you provided, and I kick one out with this answer, the other one is the only one left.
> a substantial improvement in your epistemological abilities
Are you claiming my "epistemological abilities" are somehow lacking, because I claim there's nothing enlightening but "wow, I can feel it on drugs" in drug-related experience, because multiple opponents on this thread fail to provide any concrete examples?
How about you guys are just delusional, or unable to adhere to Occam razor? The later states, that the explanation of drug experiences via a failure of participants to recognize bullshit in their dreams due to their brains being partially off, is superior to the explanation, that throwing a random chemical into a complex system designed to live a normal life can somehow produce a very deep though via a mechanism unknown?
My theory also have a very good easily falsifiable prediction, that the opposite does not: that none claiming to have an "enlightening" would be able to produce anything enlightening in this thread. And it holds so far.
There is a very large difference between objective reality, and reality as we perceive it. If you'd like to see that difference, there is a way. If you'd like to remain ignorant (in the technical sense of that word, not the pejorative sense), and in your case overconfident in your beliefs, that is your choice.
> How about you guys are just delusional, or unable to adhere to Occam razor? The later states, that the explanation of drug experiences via a failure of participants to recognize bullshit in their dreams due to their brains being partially off, is superior to the explanation, that throwing a random chemical into a complex system designed to live a normal life can somehow produce a very deep though via a mechanism unknown?
Maybe, maybe not. But it's rather foolhardy to speak down to people who you know have more knowledge and experience than you, is it not?
Occam's razor is a popular rule of thumb, a heuristic, for cases where you lack information. In this case, more information is available to you.
Experience maybe, but knowledge?
Either way, these alone mean nothing, if proper disciplines are not followed during accumulation process. You don't think all older people somehow understand life better, than you do, just because they have more experience, and, often, knowledge.
Yes.
> You don't think all older people somehow understand life better, than you do, just because they have more experience, and, often, knowledge.
It depends on the topic.
On this topic, you have precisely zero first hand knowledge, yet extremely high confidence in your speculative opinion. And seemingly not the slightest curiosity in obtaining facts. It's kind of interesting if you think about it that way don't you think?
1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
Speaking of knowledge, you seem to be strangely unable to recognize the limitations of yours, even when a thread is full of people discussing things of which you are utterly ignorant. And I choose the word ignorant deliberately - you don't just lack knowledge, you choose to ignore that which is inconsistent with your existing knowledge, at least on this topic.
Of course, there is a very simple solution to this, but for reasons I doubt you are interested in, you will likely choose to remain in your current state, which is well within your rights.