> 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.
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.