[HN Gopher] Messages that can only be understood under the influ...
___________________________________________________________________
Messages that can only be understood under the influence of
psychedelics
Author : robinhouston
Score : 572 points
Date : 2023-06-05 07:27 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (qri.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (qri.org)
| heisenbit wrote:
| Have we all misunderstood the function of drug screening job
| applicants by the NSA?
| goolz wrote:
| This gave me a good chuckle. I remember at school once there
| was a shadowy entity that I came to understand was NSA
| recruiters (think big engineering school, big Military budget,
| not atypical for students to have high clearance). If you
| signed away a couple years they gave you some cash, I remember
| that, but what made me laugh was the thought of those bland
| recruiters surreptitiously whispering, "Now look, the LSD is
| supposed to HELP you see the code, go on try some!".
| thumbuddy wrote:
| Ive heard a lot of folklore surrounding these topics. I'd
| just be weary personally. At one point if you admitted you
| had used psychedelics some number of times you were
| considered insane and there's no way you could pass a
| polygraph.
|
| Obviously no one can vouch for this topic, but consider the
| vulnerability associated with intense psychedelic use. If
| someone wanted to make you die in real life, black mail you,
| etc, this would be very good leverage. I've been told that
| the government likes leverage like this for maintaining
| control/order of the people who work for it. But who really
| knows, could all be conspiratorial mumbo jumbo. What is known
| is that the government invested a lot of time into studying
| psychedelics for purposes of mind control, IE, something that
| is not in the interest of the practitioner whatsoever.
|
| Me personally... If I had to choose between being a
| psychedelic user on my own with my own tribe, or durring a
| government evaluation of my character, I think it's probably
| safer to choose the former not the latter.
| goolz wrote:
| Oh god mate, I would never hahaha. Not to mention I would
| never work for the soul-less NSA.
| tilakraj_0308 wrote:
| [flagged]
| ImAnAmateur wrote:
| Cool stuff but there are some omissions that leave me wondering
| how correct this is.
|
| 1. What's the proper way to experience this?
|
| No information is given on how the judges experienced this
| content. Did they watch it in 1080p or 360p? Did they watch it
| over YouTube or on a local player? Did they watch it on a loop or
| did they have to manually play it every loop? Did they watch it
| in a dark room or with the lights on? Did they watch it on a
| phone or a monitor or a TV?
|
| 2. What is the transmission speed?
|
| How much time did someone tripping take to see the message? These
| methods could be ineffective if it takes someone sober the same
| amount of time to read the message.
|
| 3. What is the transmission method?
|
| I specifically avoided the descriptions before watching the
| videos so I wouldn't bias myself by knowing the answer. I was
| still able to read the messages when I sat myself down in a dark
| room, put the videos on loop, and "spaced out" for a few minutes.
| I suspect these messages rely on the tendancy of someone tripping
| to stare off into space so the afterimage effect can come into
| play. I understand that the authors are coming from a non-
| scientific background and cannot pin down the specific traits of
| tripping on LSD that causes these methods to be effective. I
| strongly suspect these messages work by watching the content in a
| specific manner instead of the result of an altered function or
| altered reception of visual stimuli.
| LoganDark wrote:
| > I suspect these messages rely on the tendancy of someone
| tripping to stare off into space so the afterimage effect can
| come into play.
|
| Not necessarily. I've taken LSD before and it legitimately
| seems to increase persistence of vision (otherwise known as
| tracers). If I wave my paw in a circle on LSD, I can see a
| short trail behind it, and it seems to slightly lag behind its
| actual real-world position (by around a quarter of a second?).
|
| It looks a lot like this: https://youtu.be/ggFKLxAQBbc?t=26
| pmontra wrote:
| Light painting [1] without a camera.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_painting
| codeflo wrote:
| All the people in this thread who decoded it used long exposure
| or faster playback. Using the latter, for me, it starts to become
| readable at 2.5x and is essentially a clear static image at 4x.
| (I had to download the video and play it back using VLC.)
|
| Which for me, makes this claim a bit absurd:
|
| > At a theoretical level, this confirmation is significant
| because it is the first clear demonstration of a real perceptual
| computational advantage of psychedelic states of consciousness.
|
| LSD fans might hate this conclusion, but there's no
| "computational advantage" to having a 2.5x to 4x slower
| processing speed, which his the only thing actually being shown
| here.
| moomoo11 wrote:
| I feel like time goes by "slower" for me ever since I did a
| heroic dose a few years ago. Used to be stressed the f out all
| the time. Now I feel like I can enjoy every full second. Crazy
| how much time we have in life when we just stop paying
| attention to the negative energies like stress and instead
| channel them into storage for something positive later.
|
| I've always been efficient and quick at learning new things and
| doing work. So it's like being given a superpower to "slow"
| time.
|
| (Obviously time hasn't slowed down only for me. It's just how I
| personally perceive it now.)
| bostonsre wrote:
| Hrm.. does time going slower mean you overclocked your cpu?
| Are you able to accomplish more in a given amount of time?
| Say typing faster? Or is it just the perception of time
| passing that changed and maybe your ticks are further apart
| so that it seems like time has slowed but has actually
| remained constant?
| LastTrain wrote:
| The problem is, of course, you have no idea if that dose is
| what caused the change. That change in personal outlook may
| have been coming your direction anyway, or you may have
| experienced it sooner if you hadn't been doing LSD at all.
| [deleted]
| LoganDark wrote:
| > The problem is, of course, you have no idea if that dose
| is what caused the change.
|
| No, there's no problem. It doesn't change the fact that the
| dose is when it happened.
| moomoo11 wrote:
| [flagged]
| kodah wrote:
| I think this is an overly cynical take. I've had pretty
| deep rooted anxiety most of my life and it got worse after
| military service, to the point that I was probably a part
| time agoraphobe. My mushroom and LSD use coalesces with
| when that stopped.
|
| It's okay to recognize that people consistently claim an
| effect, and to affirm that it is indeed a possible effect
| without knowing why.
| AnthonBerg wrote:
| It is little-known but clearly established knowledge that
| psychedelics are very potent at curbing inflammation,
| including inflammation in the central nervous system.
| Inflammation in the CNS and feeling bad are _highly_
| correlated.
|
| For more information, see this paper for instance -
| _Psychedelics and Immunomodulation_ by Dr. Attila Szabo of
| the University of Norway, published in 2015:
| https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffimmu.2015.00358
| tekno45 wrote:
| "You don't know if you were gonna have a life changing
| epiphany next week or not!!!"
|
| The radical changes in mentality from psychedelics is well
| documented. Not understood but documented.
| LastTrain wrote:
| People have life changing epiphanies without psychedelics
| all the time though, and people (me) take psychedelics
| without having them. So yeah, GP could have been due for
| one.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| > all the time
|
| Humans do all the time. A person does very seldomly.
| LastTrain wrote:
| yes, but mostly without psychedelics.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| I mean, if one of ten happened while on psychedelics, and
| the person spent 0.0001% of their life under the
| influence of psychedelics, that's a pretty significant
| contribution.
| di456 wrote:
| > The problem is, of course, you have no idea if that dose
| is what caused the change
|
| What problem exactly? This seems like a dismissive take on
| someone's positive experience.
|
| Are your referring to the scientific problem of studying
| cause & effect of the psychedelic experience? Science is
| figuring that out.
| LastTrain wrote:
| No I'm talking about this one's person's experience. They
| are putting out their notion of cause and effect on a
| public forum and I am questioning it. That is OK, right?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Maybe it isn't. What I mean is, it doesn't seem to be a
| problem for them. A peer reviewed study of their own life
| experience isn't necessary for them to be a lot happier
| post-trip than pre-trip. Correlated with many other
| peoples' experiences, there is at least strong
| correlation evidence between certain drug use and
| epiphanies.
|
| Sure, "person ready to take drugs to have epiphany" might
| mean they were on the cusp of one anyway, but it doesn't
| really matter.
| LastTrain wrote:
| Well I guess I was not very clear with my words then. I
| didn't say it was a problem for them, and they seem to be
| perfectly happy at the idea of their big epiphany coming
| from LSD. But I wasn't taking issue with that, I believe
| they believe that. I simply meant the "problem" with
| ascribing the epiphany to LSD is there is no way to know
| in an individual case if LSD had anything to do at all
| with it, because we know very little on that subject at
| the current time.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| We know very little about a lot. Including things society
| believes we know a lot or all about. Scientific evidence
| isn't infallible or the be all end all.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "That is OK, right?"
|
| The way you are doing it, could maybe be improved.
|
| "The problem is, of course, you have no idea if that dose
| is what caused the change"
|
| You clearly judged here based on little information. How
| do you know, that he cannot know?
|
| (Unless you argue about philosophical limits of
| "knowing")
|
| When till time X there was behavior Y and at time X there
| was a strong trip - and afterwards differences,then it
| seems pretty linked to me.
| LastTrain wrote:
| Hey thanks, I'll work on that. You try and work on
| staying on topic and not making meta comments.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Sorry, but that is quite similar. You asked a question
| and I decided to answer it. No meta comments initiated
| from my side, as far as I am aware.
|
| (I did not take part in the conversation before).
|
| So you are not really in a position to tell me, what to
| do, yet you did. And I am not in a position to tell you,
| what to do. I merly answered your open question on what I
| think you could improve.
|
| But if you would like a meta comment from me: I think you
| might benefit from not considering every online
| discussion as something you have to win.
|
| (I have been there as well)
| parentheses wrote:
| I think the more scary issue - what else changed in their
| brain. Maybe they've changed in such a way that they
| perceive something as a power when it is a drain.
| rvcdbn wrote:
| What you seem to be after is scientific evidence. The
| problem is that these substances by nature cannot be
| double-blind trialed because blinding is impossible. So as
| individuals we all need to make a decision whether we would
| like to try them or not for ourselves and the best evidence
| we can ever hope to get is subjective and anecdotal. If you
| want to deny yourself the potential of these life changing
| experiences without scientific evidence then that's your
| choice. In my opinion it's your great loss too.
| MayeulC wrote:
| > these substances by nature cannot be double-blind
| trialed because blinding is impossible
|
| That's a bold claim. You can try multiple different
| substances, the test subjects know they ingest a
| psychedelic, but don't know which, which allows you to
| have a control group.
|
| Clinical trials would face other issues, but not this
| one.
| rvcdbn wrote:
| i think it would be super interesting to do a study where
| we compared the effects of moderate/high-dose
| psychedelics to some other substance that had comparable
| subjective effects. but (a) i don't think such a control
| substance actually exists and (b) i strongly suspect that
| you'd see the same benefits to both groups - and then
| what conclusion do you draw from that?
| p_j_w wrote:
| You run into another problem here: those other
| psychedelics may also cause the same changes.
| kadoban wrote:
| It still might be worth trying though, if it can be done
| ethically. It's not a perfect test, but it's halfway
| decent?
| elif wrote:
| Being able to see that which our perception actively suppresses
| because it is hyper-focused on a certain cadence is indeed a
| gift.
|
| If you believe that our perceptive filters, evolved over
| millennia of survival requirements, is the only or even best
| way to perceive our reality, I would invite you to consider
| that hummingbirds will never enjoy Mozart, and you will never
| be as relaxed as a sloth.
| jabbany wrote:
| Isn't the parent's point that, you don't necessarily need to
| use psychedelics but can use other technology to simulate the
| perception of different cadence or scale...? (E.g. A similar
| experiment https://xkcd.com/941/)
|
| > and you will never be as relaxed as a sloth.
|
| Also FWIW, does the sloth also consider itself to be relaxed
| or rather just "normal" ;-)
|
| Isn't the perception of being relaxed itself exactly
| reflective of how artificial* the experience actually is.
|
| *: With the context that I have no intention of prescribing
| whether it is positive or enjoyable.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| I'd note that the technological filter only works on
| captured stuff. Filtering reality like this isn't
| technically feasible with external devices alone. Whether
| that's useful or not seems fairly subjective, though.
| People find utility in all sorts of things I don't.
| jabbany wrote:
| Of course.
|
| I'm assuming this discussion is all within the context of
| the original article "Messages that can only be
| understood under the influence of psychedelics" --- in
| which case understanding these specific messages actually
| don't require psychedelics.
|
| Not implying psychedelics have no utility, just that
| whatever utility they have probably doesn't lie in
| interpreting these "slowed down scan" animations.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Sure - unless the fnords can only be seen in slowed down
| scan time.
| pera wrote:
| What do you mean by "processing speed"? I think you are
| interpreting this experiment as if our brains worked like
| digital computers doing signal processing in some buffer in the
| visual cortex :p
| thumbuddy wrote:
| You know, according to people who have done buckets of
| psychedelics, there's an awful lot more to the psychedelic
| experience than 2.5-4x slower processing speed. I recall
| reading of numerous people who found they could collectively
| slow down a wall clock to the point were it didn't move any
| longer, and people who have experienced what they refer to as
| "eternity", "multiple life times", "thousands of years", etc.
|
| Also what is being done here isn't simply slower processing
| speed. It's more like the information from old states persists
| into new ones. My understanding is that this would be
| considered low dose territory.
|
| There's more to the story here, and I don't think this test, is
| even scratching the surface. It is neat though.
| batushka3 wrote:
| What about people who did psychedelics and got severe
| anxiety, depresion, panic attacks? Why the dark side of using
| drugs is always forgoten. It feels like cartels invested in
| PR - upside only.
| solarman5000 wrote:
| What about the poor people who jumped out of windows or in
| front of traffic while on psychedelics? Oh yeah, that
| doesn't happen, because the govt has had a decades long
| monopoly on fear mongering BS when it comes to
| psychedelics.
| dcow wrote:
| One of my friends literally jumped off a balcony on
| psychedelics and is no longer here. Be careful...
| goobertime wrote:
| As someone who now occasionally suffers panic attacks due
| to psychedelic use, I agree: people downplay the risks
| because it suits their personal narrative and experience.
| Perhaps as a pushback against years of over-exaggeration
| re: risks, per another poster, but nevertheless a definite
| _under_ emphasis on the dangers these drugs pose.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| My panic attacks went away because of psychedelics. Sorry
| yours was the opposite.
| goobertime wrote:
| Yeah, a reasonable discussion includes both benefits
| (your experience) and risks (mine). The former has
| recently been getting all the air time.
|
| This isn't a "both sides" argument wherein some highly
| unlikely hypothetical is trotted out to debate the
| consensus. Plenty of people have had bad experiences with
| long term ill effects.
| sayanwita wrote:
| Psychedelics are not for everyone. Specially people, who
| thinks too much, must avoid it.
| Loughla wrote:
| That's the problem; in general, in popular culture,
| psychedelics are marketed as the end of your anxiety and
| the reset button for your brain and that type of thing.
|
| For some people that may be true; but for many of us,
| these drugs only make our brain reel faster and faster
| until it just goes full blown into fight or flight mode.
|
| I'm with the other posters. I believe people should be
| able to put whatever they want into their bodies (as long
| as they fully understand what they're doing), but also
| should absolutely know that panic attacks, and ongoing
| anxiety disorders could be a side effect.
|
| Source: My anxiety disorder that exists now after
| recreational hallucinogen use for about a decade.
| causi wrote:
| _people who have experienced what they refer to as
| "eternity", "multiple life times", "thousands of years",
| etc._
|
| They didn't "experience an eternity". They experienced an
| emotional feeling they likened to an eternity. This is the
| difference between your computer running a program for a
| thousand years and you changing the date settings. These
| people did not go through an eternity of perception,
| processing, and thought; they had the label on their memories
| altered.
| LoganDark wrote:
| > These people did not go through an eternity of
| perception, processing, and thought; they had the label on
| their memories altered.
|
| No, psychedelics really can speed up thought. It's not
| uncommon to experience a lot more in a much shorter amount
| of time than normal. For example, I've experienced this
| first-hand where I could not even finish a single sentence
| before I was so far ahead in thought that I completely
| forgot what I was originally trying to say.
|
| I used to call it "an entire universe happening between
| each instant" which, while inaccurate, is an apt enough
| description of how it feels, but also _how it actually is_
| , because the volume of thought is still much higher than
| normal.
| mahathu wrote:
| Sounds like your short term memory was impacted by the
| drug.
| LoganDark wrote:
| Almost definitely. Though in all cases where I _noticed_
| that I forgot something, it was because I had some other
| train of thought that happened so quickly that it created
| a bunch of distance from the thing I forgot, even if very
| little real-time passed.
|
| Sometimes I could recall the thing after spending a lot
| of time backtracking, but sometimes not.
| jabbany wrote:
| The experience you described is no indicator of whether
| "volume of thought is still much higher than normal"
| though? You'd have the exact same experience if the
| actual mechanism is that "had the label on [your]
| memories altered".
|
| To scientifically test this, you'd need some normalized
| "benchmark task" of thought, and then compare the
| difference in progress on such a thought task between the
| control and psychedelic cases given the same amount of
| "real time".
|
| IIRC earlier papers (that I am too lazy to find) shared
| on HN that have done this seem to show the opposite, that
| there is no measurable difference on the task yet the
| participants reported a difference in their label of the
| experience. (I think the paper then was related to some
| form of creativity and showed that there was no post-hoc
| measured difference despite a significant reported
| experiential difference).
| swayvil wrote:
| >To scientifically test this...
|
| I swear, you people turn science into a religious ritual.
|
| First-hand observation (which we have here) is the _gold
| standard_ for knowledge-derivation. Science is just a
| method for ensuring that our models hew close to that.
|
| What you assert here is mere convention.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Actually no. The plural of anecdote is not data. This is
| a single anecdote, not a set of data from a properly
| blinded or designed study.
|
| Humans are TERRIBLE at knowing reality. That's like the
| whole point of the scientific process. People's self
| reports are literally the worst evidence ever used in
| science, and you have to actively work against your
| subjects and their brains to tease any actual signal out
| of that noise.
|
| Consider for example, many airplane accidents have people
| reporting the plane was hit by a missile, even though we
| can have independent evidence that they weren't even
| looking in the direction until after the event.
|
| We KNOW the brain lies to you as a matter of course, and
| makes up pretty much everything it can for the purpose of
| being lazy. Your entire consciousness is a fiction,
| vulnerable to all the normal human biases. We KNOW it is
| incredibly easy to mangle, twist, modify, and combine
| memories, and that pretty much everyone has memories that
| don't match reality.
| lostmsu wrote:
| > First-hand observation
|
| Well no, it is not. If you spot an UFO, chances are your
| "first-hand observation" is lying to you.
| jabbany wrote:
| No...? Science is just a tool to resolve disagreements in
| conclusions about observations. It is a pretty effective
| tool if your personal philosophy believes reality is
| objective (externally defined) and shared.
|
| It's not the only tool available though. You could also
| use other tools like coercion, intimidation, violence,
| negotiation, etc. to also arrive at a single conclusion.
| -\\\\_(tsu)_/-
| LoganDark wrote:
| To be fair, I understand why they're skeptical. A brain's
| perception of itself is imperfect, and sometimes
| completely made-up. (Actually, one could make the
| argument that all perception is completely made-up, but I
| digress.)
|
| Since we're talking about things that happened inside my
| own head, how can I know whether I actually experienced a
| certain period of time, or only created a memory of
| having experienced that time? My own recollection of it
| may be flawed, so it logically follows that in order to
| know for sure, I have to find some way to objectively
| quantify it. I don't know how I'd objectively quantify
| the number of thoughts I'm having, though, lol.
| LoganDark wrote:
| > The experience you described is no indicator of whether
| "volume of thought is still much higher than normal"
| though? You'd have the exact same experience if the
| actual mechanism is that "had the label on [your]
| memories altered".
|
| It's not the only evidence I have, but one of the main
| problems with trying to describe psychedelics is that the
| experience is... well, indescribable. As in, when I'm not
| on LSD, I can't even properly decode most of the memories
| I made with it.
|
| > To scientifically test this, you'd need some normalized
| "benchmark task" of thought, and then compare the
| difference in progress on such a thought task between the
| control and psychedelic cases given the same amount of
| "real time".
|
| LSD probably doesn't make it _faster for me to process
| things_. It just makes me jump between things more
| quickly so I have _more distinct experiences_ at any
| given time. I know that while in voice chat with people,
| I would have moments where I would have a bunch of
| thoughts, completely forget what just happened, and only
| a couple seconds of real-world time had passed. In that
| scenario the other person is my time reference but I 've
| also checked actual clocks and observed that effect.
|
| I don't think LSD makes me better at computation at all
| (in fact, it probably makes me a bit worse at
| computation).
| jabbany wrote:
| > more distinct experiences
|
| If well formulated I suppose this could be scientifically
| tested too. Given the right kind of task and measurement.
| My earlier point is only to tie to the parent about
| differentiating actually having "more distinct
| experiences" with just _feeling like_ you had them. This
| is something that, as the subject and knowing the
| intervention, you cannot determine by yourself. You'd
| need an experimenter doing a double-blind experiment to
| really test this out.
|
| As an anecdote there's nothing wrong --- subjective
| experiences aren't any less "real" to the experiencer ---
| just that claims about the mechanism and effect are
| probably not generalizable.
|
| > As in, when I'm not on LSD, I can't even properly
| decode most of the memories I made with it.
|
| There's also lots of metaphysical questions about whether
| indescribable experiences are "real" or not that are
| probably too long to get into on HN :)
| LoganDark wrote:
| > My earlier point is only to tie to the parent about
| differentiating actually having "more distinct
| experiences" with just _feeling like_ you had them. This
| is something that, as the subject and knowing the
| intervention, you cannot determine by yourself. You'd
| need an experimenter doing a double-blind experiment to
| really test this out.
|
| This can honestly be applied to basically anything about
| thought. I sort of get it though, because claiming a
| difference implies "citation needed". I would just feel
| weird if I wasn't really having all the thoughts that I
| thought I had.
|
| It's not exactly possible to communicate exactly what
| validation I've done over those memories, especially
| since my brain could have fixed stuff after the fact (as
| brains do). I just can't find anything that would suggest
| it was modified after the fact, since even my behavior at
| the time would support the theory.
|
| Worth noting that I have a lot of experience with things
| that my brain simply makes me think are happening,
| because I have Dissociative Identity Disorder and that
| happens with all sorts of things all the time. (That's
| not to say I can completely rule it out, rather that I
| know it happens and roughly how un-rule-out-able it can
| be.)
|
| My brain will simulate something happening and then also
| create the memory of it happening, which becomes almost
| indistinguishable from it actually having happened. I
| would say I can usually tell those memories apart if I
| really study them, but whether I am correct or not, it is
| objectively impossible to know or say for sure, because
| if I missed something it would simply be missing from my
| knowledge (to the point where I wouldn't know something
| was missed).
| causi wrote:
| _I know that while in voice chat with people, I would
| have moments where I would have a bunch of thoughts,
| completely forget what just happened, and only a couple
| seconds of real-world time had passed._
|
| Sounds identical to me on a bad ADHD day.
| LoganDark wrote:
| My thoughts would expand like a fractal and it would take
| active effort to make it all the way back out. I probably
| can't really communicate it to someone who hasn't
| experienced psychedelics before, but it makes me feel
| like I am conscious of every bit of mental effort I am
| spending. Pulling myself out of deep thought feels like a
| long, manual process, even if it's actually instant. An
| analogy I liked to use is having to arrange all the
| neurons manually or something.
|
| After every instance of that, it felt like I had spent so
| much time in that fractal that it was difficult to recall
| what had happened previously. It's not like ADHD where I
| get distracted and lose something from my short-term
| memory--it's that I had so many other thoughts that it
| was difficult to backtrack past them all.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| This happened to uh a friend the first time they got
| really high on weed.
|
| It's just a trick your brain is playing on you man. I was
| playing Rainbow Six Siege with friends, and during the 30
| second setup phase I played for what was surely several
| minutes doing all the things you do with the drone and
| looking everywhere and planning all sorts of things, and
| then I looked at the timer and only 5 seconds had passed.
|
| Your brain's interpretation of time passing is a
| completely made up fiction for it's own benefit. Police
| officers report seeing shootings going down in slow
| motion, watching individual shell casings drop to the
| floor and reading the numbers stamped on the bottom.
|
| When this kind of time dilation was scientifically
| investigated, we found that what actually changed was
| your MEMORY of that time, not your cognition during the
| dilation itself. You aren't actually experiencing things
| quicker, your brain is just timestamping stuff poorly.
| Your brain's time tracking system just gets out of whack,
| and that screws with your consciousness because it relies
| heavily on timestamping of things.
| darkerside wrote:
| Do you have a basis for your speculation, or are you just
| sharing from personal experience?
| swayvil wrote:
| Yes, it clearly needs more science. Can we get some test-
| tubes and white lab-coats in here?
|
| Because first-hand observation just isn't good enough.
| thumbuddy wrote:
| I think you should dip your toes and see for yourself just
| how much can happen in 10 wall time minutes and just how
| weak the analogy between computers and the human mind is.
| Only do so if you have a clean bill of health, your mind is
| in the right place, no family history of severe mental
| illness, and have a trusted sober friend to look after you.
| The rise of LLMs and certain people's views of them makes
| it even more obvious to spot people who have never "been
| there".
|
| There's a lot of things that are invisible to people who
| haven't. These "messages" are a puddle to the ocean of what
| is out there
| mahathu wrote:
| > if you have a clean bill of health, your mind is in the
| right place, no family history of severe mental illness,
| and have a trusted sober friend
|
| And if you have all that you don't need to be doing mind
| altering drugs anymore.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I sense judgement from you towards anyone who has found
| utility or enlightenment through mind-altering drugs.
|
| Just because I'm smart doesn't mean I stop reading. Just
| because I am fit doesn't mean I stop running. Just
| because I'm happy doesn't mean I can't dabble with new
| mental models.
|
| And finally, to clarify the OP's statement: "Mind in the
| right place" doesn't mean being perfectly happy or
| without stressors/depression. To me it suggests someone
| doesn't have mental illness or suicidal tendencies.
| robrenaud wrote:
| I highly recommend trying mushrooms or acid for someone
| in a good place mentally who wants to improve themselves.
| Obviously one should do their own research for
| responsible consumption, and find a good set and setting.
|
| I went from drinking a consistent 1-2 alcoholic drinks a
| day (very rarely getting drunk tho, just loved
| homebrewing and craft beer), being nearly obese, with
| little cardiovascular/muscular fitness to being in a much
| better place. I now exercise regularly, have a resting
| heart rate of 54 bpm, lost 30 pounds, meditate every day,
| eat much more healthfully, rarely consume alcohol, and I
| am more patient and listen to my partner better.
|
| The increased neuroplasticity caused by physcadelics when
| combined with a desire to improve habits is a very
| powerful combination.
|
| There is also a legal, mushroom based therapy for anxiety
| and depression that has shown great results, available in
| Oregon.
|
| I really do believe society is much too welcoming of
| alcohol consumption, and much too resistant to
| physcadelics. We got this one so wrong.
| pegasus wrote:
| You do if you want to "see for yourself". Which was GPs
| entire point.
| causi wrote:
| I'm not saying psychedelics can't make you perceive
| things an unaltered brain cannot. I'm just saying they
| can't fit tens of thousands of times as much thought into
| the same amount of time, just that they can make you
| believe you did, and that experiencing a sense of deep
| time is not the same thing as experiencing deep time
| itself. I can dream or be drugged or hypnotized or
| otherwise fooled into believing I had sex with a
| supermodel. That doesn't mean I know what it's actually
| like. The experience I've _had_ and the experience I
| _believe_ I 've had are not the same thing.
| sneak wrote:
| That's a subjective interpretation, and I say that even as
| someone who believes in objective reality.
|
| There's no telling what time perception is "correct" or
| "real". It is actually within the realm of possibility that
| they did experience an eternity-scale (but sub-infinite,
| natch) amount of experiences.
| causi wrote:
| _That 's a subjective interpretation, and I say that even
| as someone who believes in objective reality._
|
| Nonsense. Where's the thousand years of creative output?
| If my mind existed for a thousand years I'd be
| immediately filing patents and writing papers based off
| all the things I came up with during my _eternity of
| thought_. Further, if there was a simple chemical way to
| accelerate actual brain processing thousands of times,
| you don 't think evolution would've built it into our
| brains? There is no difference between this and
| hypnotizing someone to believe they've lived an eternity.
| carlmr wrote:
| >Further, if there was a simple chemical way to
| accelerate actual brain processing thousands of times,
| you don't think evolution would've built it into our
| brains?
|
| Not OP, but I'd counter that evolution is doing an
| imperfect multivariate optimization over a pretty big
| state-space. Even if it might be easy to change one
| simple chemical and thus speed up processing, the
| question is whether the speed-up has other costs.
|
| E.g. the brain is already using a lot of energy,
| increasing processing speed which probably increases
| energy usage might not be optimal.
|
| We still don't understand sleep well, it could be that if
| you process faster more consistently you might need more
| sleep to organize your thoughts and memories, which is
| counterproductive if you don't want to be eaten. It's
| hard enough with our sleep requirements to keep up with
| nature.
|
| A third point is that evolution only needs to find _good
| enough_. We 're already the apex predator due to our
| ability to think. Anything above what we currently have
| might just not be necessary so has no evolutionary
| pressure.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think the relevant questions are how are the brain
| measures time and of what the brain is processing.
|
| What if the only thing it's capable of doing is
| perceiving the passage of time? If the biological clock
| is the only measure of perceived time, then it feels like
| more time is elapsing. If the brain measures and feels
| time as sand slowly falling into a bucket, what happens
| when you dump a truckload of sand into the bucket? That
| doesn't mean that you're necessarily capable of doing
| more work in that time, but maybe you still _feel_ the
| additional passage of time.
| tuyiown wrote:
| > There's no telling what time perception is "correct" or
| "real".
|
| Perception is always, always false, the same way that our
| internal reality is imperfect. The only way to trust
| perception is to go through repeatable experiment and see
| that results conforms to prediction, eg. science.
|
| Science is the only and sole way to determine our shared
| reality, anything else is literally lucky heuristics,
| including the behavior of scientists. The worst deceit
| from those heuristics being our conviction that there is
| any kind of truth in what we think, preventing the whole
| thing to fall appart.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I feel like the statement only holds true if you are
| trying to learn about shared reality.
|
| Perception Isn't false, it's subjective. It's real in its
| own domain, but that domain may not generalize or overlap
| with a shared physical reality or perceptions made by
| other people.
| tuyiown wrote:
| The perception as two sides: the signal, and how it's
| processed. The signal is real and true just by it's
| existence. Note that this also applies with self-
| generated signal such as phantom limbs.
|
| For the processing, the subjective part of the
| perception, lot of things falls appart, attaching any
| notion of reality and trustiness looks like a choice to
| enable some lines of reflection. A choice heavily
| oriented by our own experience of existence, nobody wants
| to see themselves as a bag of more or less working
| heuristics with conscience as meta processing and data
| acquisition for self-correction mechanism.
|
| But if you have a solid source or line of thought that
| manages to explain one's sense of reality being more than
| <<it's how I feel it for me, so that must be true of
| others, otherwise it's quite scary>>, I'm really (really)
| interested.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think the point I was making is different. It was that
| perception and experiences are real, just not necessarily
| reflective of a shared reality. The state of
| consciousness is much more than just the processing of
| external signals.
|
| > if you have a solid source or line of thought that
| manages to explain one's sense of reality being more than
| <<it's how I feel it for me, so that must be true of
| others, otherwise it's quite scary>>, I'm really (really)
| interested.
|
| The best example I can think of is a dream. Dreams are
| real experiences despite not being shared with any other
| human. It would be absurd to say that you can't have
| dreams because they aren't perceived by or true for other
| people. The same holds true for thoughts and feelings.
|
| People don't get sent into an existential crisis because
| they feel happy while someone somewhere is unhappy.
| Having a feeling is a real experience, despite being
| personal and subjective.
| tuyiown wrote:
| Foreword: I don't wan't to be contrarian or combative,
| but I see unjustified universal truths laid out in your
| comment, 2 specifically:
|
| > The state of consciousness is much more than just the
| processing of external signals.
|
| Complex life evolution is 100% based on best survival
| interpretation of surrounding environment. I understand
| how we can try to figure out what is more in the human
| way of doing it, but I really think that has to hold on
| something before getting past it.
|
| > It would be absurd to say that you can't have dreams
| because they aren't perceived by or true for other
| people.
|
| It is, and yet, if you do the exercise of imagine that
| dreaming is a social construct that you are the only one
| to really experience it, discarding that idea is solely
| based on belief. A belief I share, based on trust in
| others, and what seems the most probable. If it's absurd,
| it's only because we can rule it out as highly
| improbable.
| 2358452 wrote:
| How would you design an experiment to tell whether a
| perception of love is to be trusted or not?
| tuyiown wrote:
| I would advise others methods to convince the loved one
| the reality of your love. As for yourself, well, this is
| some aspect where the brain decides on your behalf,
| consciousness can be damned.
| mistermann wrote:
| > The only way to trust perception is to go through
| repeatable experiment and see that results conforms to
| prediction, eg. science.
|
| Is this claim not self-referential? Did you apply its
| ~~recommended~~ _necessary_ methodology to itself?
|
| > Science is the only and sole way to determine our
| shared reality, anything else is literally lucky
| heuristics, including the behavior of scientists.
|
| This too... _plus_ , who will be performing these
| experiments if scientists are not trustworthy?
|
| Maybe this is brand new territory and we need new
| theories (&/or revisit old ones) and techniques.
| tuyiown wrote:
| I don't think it's self referential, the whole idea holds
| on that if you manage to do predictions that are
| confirmed, you still have to assume that your perceptions
| are consistent across time. As an individual you can
| check you perceptions across time, with several people
| you remove yourself as a variable.
|
| I've been extreme in the formulations, but no, you don't
| need other methods, repeatable experiment with accurate
| predictions is enough. The heuristics are quite reliable.
| It's just that we tend to forget/ignore that everything
| that what we think of being true is just a large compound
| of beliefs, and that the only way to validate those
| beliefs is to use them to make prediction, and validate
| it through experiments.
| Spkeat17 wrote:
| It only generates false memories, reality is creative ideas
| that get into the memory system
| ilyt wrote:
| Well I can stop a fast spinning (to the point of blurry) tire
| with my mind into a still image of the thread, all I need to
| do is to be tired enough to have micro-conciousness lapses...
| doesn't make that into some new perception state
| rthomas6 wrote:
| I haven't done any psychedelics but I spent a lot of time
| meditating a few years back, and I experienced something like
| this on a smaller scale. It wasn't quite as profound as
| "thousands of years" or anything, more like, subjective hours
| over the course of 5 minutes.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Some subtle things can only be perceived as you slow down.
|
| Under mushroom, food tastes amazing, because you can suddenly
| perceived a lot more details.
| rvcdbn wrote:
| I agree that "computational advantage" is probably too strong a
| conclusion. However, it is intriguing to think about how this
| general effect (increasing the time span over which data are
| integrated) could extend to more abstract reasoning.
| Subjectively it certainly feels like when on these substances I
| am aware of more at once but perhaps with the loss of some
| focus.
| jovial_cavalier wrote:
| Do you think people have CPUs in their brains? There isn't a
| clock rate knob that LSD goes and turns all the way down. As
| another commenter said, this is about being able to correlate
| events across time, and distinguish patterns in a way that you
| would not normally be able to.
|
| Also, I think if you'd ever used LSD, you would never think it
| was "slowing your thoughts down".
| rileyphone wrote:
| Andres posted a reply on Twitter:
| https://twitter.com/algekalipso/status/1666091889500758016
| ilyt wrote:
| .
| rhaps0dy wrote:
| I think you need to accelerate it more / aren't high enough.
| If you persist the white dots, you'll see letters.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Is life just about "computation advantage" ?
| brutusborn wrote:
| You are probably right that having a slower processing speed
| isn't an advantage overall, but being able to perceive patterns
| like this may be advantageous in some situations.
|
| Maybe the slower processing speed is the cost of better
| processing power? Kinda like the tradeoff between high torque
| and high speed for gearboxes.
|
| Some tribes use psychedelics for hunting, and others that use
| psychedelics for introspection: maybe they are perceiving
| something that we ignore during normal processing modes.
| carlmr wrote:
| >Some tribes use psychedelics for hunting
|
| OP saying slow doesn't mean that it's actually slower. If you
| process more information time _appears_ more slowly, but
| you're processing more, i.e. faster.
|
| In hunting it might be good to have improved pattern matching
| abilities at the cost of a higher false-positive rate.
| batty_alex wrote:
| Yeah, it's very hard to describe. Almost like you perceive
| the present moment and the past couple seconds at the same
| time. Time seems to pass by you very quickly but, then you
| look at the clock, and it's only been 5 minutes
|
| That being said, I can't imagine having to hunt while on a
| lot of psychedelics
| dylan604 wrote:
| I downloaded and played back at higher speeds as well after
| your suggestion. Using the same technique to view the 3D image
| in those "posters from the 90s", I could make out the messages
| too.
|
| Persistence of vision type of tricks/effects have always been a
| favorite of mine. Even without LSD, I still enjoy finding ways
| to "trip" the mind. I have a ceiling fan with dark tone blades
| hanging from a white ceiling. When laying down in bed, I can
| stare at the ceiling fan for a couple of seconds, and then when
| I close my eyes, I still "see" the ceiling fan but in a
| negative view where the ceiling is now dark and the blades are
| light color. Cheap LEDs and fluorescent lights with cheap
| ballasts also cause me to see weird flickering when using
| averted vision or by turning my head back and forth in a rapid
| manner.
|
| Maybe it's because of the training my brain has undergone from
| using psychedelics, but I've tried to get other people that
| have never used psychedelics to see the same things without
| success.
| sayanwita wrote:
| There's a book called "Thinking fast and slow". It is a
| bestseller and that very clearly tells how thinking in
| different speeds helps particular tasks. Will you disagree with
| that?
| motohagiography wrote:
| This is consistent with the idea that the geometric patterns of
| hallucinogenic drugs are just feedback artifacts in an analog
| system of your senses, and by imparing its 'clock' signal
| chemically, you get periodic noise whose geometry is
| proportional to the signalling frequency and its failures. No
| higher dimensions, just maybe a lower, impaired, fractal
| dimension.
|
| There are still theraputic uses for this impairment, and
| definitely a lot of recreational ones that allow you to
| discover things about yourself like any other testing or
| resistance, but hallucinogens are at best biohacking via
| chemical glitching, not spiritual gateways.
| nbardy wrote:
| You admit that there is plenty of recreational and
| therapeutical use for them and then that leads you to the
| conclusion that they're not spiritual gateways. I find this
| surprising as those are one in the same to me.
|
| Spiritual experiences have been about recreation,
| understanding others, the self, personal growth, coming of
| age, etc...
|
| I feel like your post in general is full of acknowledgment of
| these drugs capabilities followed by attempts to downplay it
| with pejoratives like "chemical glitching" or "lower
| dimension". It's quiet confusing that you seem to think
| positively of the drugs but then dunk on them in the same
| breath.
|
| I don't think being able to explain, categorize and describe
| phenomena needs to make them less significant or impact. The
| mechanism of action being non mystical doesn't need to change
| the significance of the experience.
|
| This reminds me of a quote from Margaret Boden about her work
| on understanding creativity in a academic context.
|
| > A scientific understanding of creativity does not destroy
| our wonder at it, nor does it make creative ideas
| predictable. Demystification does not imply dehumanization.
| drdeca wrote:
| I don't think "lower dimension" is a pejorative, just,
| contrasting with the "higher dimension" claim. Like, just
| literally a lower dimensionality (on account of the fractal
| dimension, where the metric dimension is less than the
| (integer) topological dimension)
| falling_ wrote:
| LSD also seems to lead to extradimensional bypass
| drdeca wrote:
| Is this a hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy reference /
| joke ? About how they destroy the earth in order to make
| a travel route?
|
| If not, what do you mean?
| roqi wrote:
| > (...) leads you to the conclusion that they're not
| spiritual gateways. I find this surprising as those are one
| in the same to me.
|
| How does that surprise you? I mean do spiritual gateways
| exist at all? Is there even a concrete definition and
| concept? Or are they just a conjecture without any basis
| whatsoever?
|
| It seems you start from baseless beliefs and blindly assume
| they are require no validation and afterwards feel
| surprised others don't share your wild assumptions.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Would you describe the biochemical mechanisms behind
| aspirin as 'spiritual'? Why or why not?
| pulkitsh1234 wrote:
| This is a very interesting way to look at this. Do you have
| many more resources for this "interpretation" of a
| psychedelic experience.
|
| I believe, the slowing down of the "clock" can be said for
| meditation as well in some sense. Because even in a deep
| meditation you lose a sense of "time" and that's when it gets
| slightly "psychedelic", for a lack of a better word.
|
| One thing that is different with meditation is that the
| senses are somewhat rendered inactive. So that means, the
| feedback artifacts are generated on our internal networks,
| i.e. consciousness and not from external stimuli ?
| q845712 wrote:
| check section 3 of this review: https://www.asc.ohio-
| state.edu/golubitsky.4/reprintweb-0.5/o...
|
| or for a narrower slice this paper is reference [6]: https:
| //www.researchgate.net/publication/11500666_What_Geome...
|
| The full mathematics are quite challenging, but the gist of
| the result (iirc) is basically: many common hallucinatory
| experiences, including the geometric patterns reported from
| both psychedelics and migraines, can be explained by the
| inherent connectivity patterns in the visual cortex.
| Consistent with this idea, there's other strains of
| research (sorry, too lazy to look up more citations) that
| show that psychedelics tend to decrease input from the
| primary sense organs, so that during a trip we really are
| literally turning inward. (if you want to look it up, iirc
| the effect is called "thalamic gating" or something? the
| senses all come up the spinal nerves into the thalamus
| which helps gate our attention, but during psychedelic
| experiences all thalamic input is turned down.)
|
| So what happens when you turn down the dimmer on external
| senses, is that you "see" only from the "higher" cortical
| areas: suddenly the neurons that are several synapses
| removed from primary sense activity are the 'loudest' in
| our experience. This is why "set and setting" are so
| important in a trip, because you're going to literally
| experience your mood and emotional state more strongly than
| usual, since it won't be mediated as much by external
| sensory events. That's not to say there's no external
| senses- most people report experiencing a sort of
| psychedelic remix of ordinary reality. But back to the
| geometric patterns -- sometimes what you see really does
| seem to be based on the fundamental connectivity matrix.
| it's like in absence of strong input, the visual cortex
| just has activity rippling across it along its own wiring.
|
| anyways hopefully this rambling with a few sources cited
| helped a little.
| MAGZine wrote:
| that is a pretty sweeping claim given the limitation of
| science when it comes to understanding the psychoactive
| effects of entheogens.
|
| Especially for something like spirituality, which is almost
| by definition something experienced within.
| sayanwita wrote:
| That's true! But, don't you think that our inner state can
| be correctly described in terms of electrochemical
| activities inside the brain, including spirituality?
| roughly wrote:
| In the same way that the current state of a computer can
| be described by the position of electrons within its
| components or a party can be described by the relative
| position and density of various types of atoms in the
| room, sure.
| diydsp wrote:
| I believe the electrostuff in the brain is determinstic,
| but we exist in a parallel dimension which is able to
| bias the movement of any of those interactions. Picture
| the brain as a pinball game, and we're able to "tilt" the
| table to influence it to some extent to go in a direction
| we want, but only in a very limited way :)
| bannedbybros wrote:
| [dead]
| whalesalad wrote:
| I hadn't heard this theory before but it makes sense at first
| glance.
| Spkeat17 wrote:
| It is that when you realize that they are conveniently
| created with your own mind, they disappear immediately, you
| become tolerant because you have learned not to lose track of
| reality. I do not recommend it at all, meditation is
| preferable in all its aspects.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| I am not at all qualified to say this, but that sure does
| feel like an answer that makes sense.
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| there's some seriously Joe Rogan-esque horseshit on that page.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| This example is basically adding a low pass signal filter on a
| signal, not processing speed.
|
| Every electronic device you use requires low pass signal
| processing to function and transfer information.
|
| It isn't just about speed. A clear image on your TV is a clear
| advantage over static.
|
| Similarly, there is a clear "computational advantage" to
| processing data at the right rate it is being transmitted. You
| can process a binary signal at faster rate than transmission,
| but 100% of your data will be lost.
| jcims wrote:
| It's opening up a perceptual time domain that is not available
| in a sober state. That's not 'slower processing speed'.
| red75prime wrote:
| I quickly looked up research and, yeah, while LSD does impair
| many cognitive functions, reaction time seems to be
| unaffected.
| Retric wrote:
| It's presumably extending persistence of vision not slowing
| reaction time. Seems easy enough to test with revolving
| wheel/stroboscopic discs.
|
| Which if true, sounds like an artifact from less processing
| power to me.
| generalizations wrote:
| > it starts to become readable at 2.5x and is essentially a
| clear static image at 4x
|
| > having a 2.5x to 4x slower processing speed
|
| I'm confused. Wouldn't this imply a 2.5x to 4x _faster_
| processing speed?
| Georgelemental wrote:
| No. The world is moving 2.5x to 4x faster relative to your
| perception.
| whynaut wrote:
| Shameful such a short-sighted conclusion sits at the top of HN.
| teucris wrote:
| Can we please stop putting things on a 1-dimensional
| "better/worse" scale? Even more, can we stop assuming that there
| is a high correlation between "processing power" and this
| reductive grading system?
|
| It's clear to me that the brain, the brain on psychedelics,
| computers, etc are all just systems that are attuned to specific
| things. These tests do not show a system that is purportedly
| better than a sober mind using technologies to achieve the same
| effect - they provide some insight into how the mind, in
| particular the visual system, works.
| mijoharas wrote:
| What are the messages hidden in each video. Unless I'm mistaken,
| the text below doesn't say what the hidden message is?
|
| In addition, does anyone have a version of the video with the
| messages visible, as outlined in the first description:
| Entire message can be seen clearly by using video editing
| software and applying a tracer/echo effect and having 60 images
| in a trail that each are 0.033 seconds after the previous. This
| process can also be repeated with code.
| nine_k wrote:
| The first video shows diagonal rows of.. creatures, reminiscent
| maybe of crabs, or maybe flowers. They are pretty clearly
| visible once you repeat the video several times, and watch _the
| black empty spaces_ between color lines, instead of the lines
| themselves (much like Castaneda describes it).
|
| The second one contains some intricate pattern or maybe
| letters, but still more like flowers. I was unable to make out
| any definite shapes.
|
| The third one contains letters in the vertical columns. I could
| not make out enough to read a complete message, but certain
| letters, like R, S, or E in the left columns are pretty clearly
| visible after several repetitions. The largest fragment I could
| detect with enough certainty is ...ERS IS THE... in the
| leftmost column.
|
| Disclaimer: absolutely clean, no psychedelic or other mind-
| altering substances.
| WinstonSmith84 wrote:
| I've not been able to figure much in the first and second
| video, but in the third I think it's written "XXXXXX IS THE
| GATE"
|
| edit: the first word could be like INVERSE. Not 100% sure
| Retr0id wrote:
| The repeated pattern in the first one is the classic "alien
| head", like the emoji: (which I pasted here but I assume HN
| will strip it out...)
|
| Edit: The emoji was indeed stripped. This one
| https://emojipedia.org/alien/
| jibbers wrote:
| I see the words "WE LOVE YOU" in the negative space in the
| first video.
| stavros wrote:
| Ahh yes, you're right! The expanding circles show the text,
| it's just disappearing too quickly after. I imagine that,
| if you're on acid, the afterimage is strong enough to read
| the message clearly.
| thumbuddy wrote:
| Ding ding ding. Loving you
| nine_k wrote:
| In what part of the video? The top?
|
| The bottom is definitely covered with repeating non-letter
| shapes.
| jibbers wrote:
| In all parts. The center is has the biggest text. If it
| helps think of it this way: you're looking through a
| black fence at something colorful on the other side.
|
| Edit: You're right, the text is only in the middle and
| next largest "fold." The rest is, spoiler, alien face
| glyphs.
| nine_k wrote:
| Confirmed! The letters are easy to read once you know
| where to look.
|
| Indeed the regular pattern can be seen as alien faces.
| But they are so close by that to me the slanted "eyes"
| and the cup-like "chins" more readily form plant shapes,
| with pairs of "leaves" and "flowers" above them instead.
| a1369209993 wrote:
| > The third one contains letters in the vertical columns.
|
| (The text is stationary; if it were moving, that would make
| the following fiddly and annoying, but not genuinely
| difficult. So it would provide the illusion of security, but
| no actual security. For this (kind of) reason, "psycrypto"
| strikes me as a rather bad idea.)
|
| I transcoded the video to gif with: ffmpeg -i
| ZNpfcfHwdhA.mp4 -pix_fmt rgb24 -r 6 ZNpfcfHwdhA.gif
|
| then opened it in GIMP and copy-pasted various frames to a
| new image as layers with additive blending (Layers window >
| "Mode:" > "Addition") until legibility (somewhat) ensued.
|
| The text says "UNIVERSE IS THE GATE" in a obnoxious ultra-
| stencil font.
| dannyw wrote:
| Amount of acid consumed today amongst HN readers must be higher
| today.
| Spkeat17 wrote:
| There's always a head start when you overclock, but we all know
| the rest.
| tanseydavid wrote:
| >> Messages that can only be understood under the influence of
| psychedelics
|
| "I'll take _Microsoft Marketing_ for $200 "
| enono wrote:
| [flagged]
| [deleted]
| LoganDark wrote:
| This is awesome. As someone who occasionally used LSD for a
| couple months, I have a ton of appreciation for psychedelics and
| altered states of consciousness. This is super fascinating to me
| and I hope to experience it for myself one day.
| johnea wrote:
| In an article that can only be read under the influence of js...
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Anyone brave enough to leaf through the Voynich manuscript on
| their next acid trip? Maybe that's the key?
| myfirstacchere wrote:
| Shift your perspective, instead of imagining that the lines are
| flowing over the black (along the paths with coloured borders),
| imagine that black stripes are flowing and covering the surface
| which has something inscribed on it.
|
| So before you can actually start reading the text, you have to
| actually see the surface, which will in some sense appear as the
| widening of the lines across the curved flow axis. So the lines
| start turning into flowing stripes which reveal the surface
| beneath (full of text and aliens), you then have to try and hold
| that state.
|
| It is like that spinning balerina.
|
| EDIT: One more thing. The lines flicker, right? Since the
| "surface" underneath is interchangeably black & white, you must
| notice that the black stripes have straight borders. This will
| also make it easier.
|
| ...
|
| The white lines turn into "stripes revealing the surface
| underneath" even though when ignoring this, you only observe a
| white line. For me, if that shift of perspective is possible,
| then as an observer I can't vouch on the true width of the white
| lines, because if I switch my perspective, even as slightly as
| the lines widen, I cannot as a single observer give a definite
| statement on their width. Video analysis would only empirically
| confirm it if I stay correct.
| dieselgate wrote:
| This is a very cool post. It's a bit funny to see the HN crowd
| polarized with how best to view the messages but doesn't seem
| anyone has viewed yet under psychedelics
| LoganDark wrote:
| > It's a bit funny to see the HN crowd polarized with how best
| to view the messages but doesn't seem anyone has viewed yet
| under psychedelics
|
| Honestly, I probably would if I wasn't all out of LSD, hehe. It
| sounds like a fun experiment and I still hope to try it one
| day.
| speed_spread wrote:
| Yeah let me drop acid in my morning cereal right before the
| daily scrum. This day's gonna be a fun if unproductive one
| finding patterns across Confluence pages.
| swader999 wrote:
| Don't do that, I already put it in the team water jug.
| speed_spread wrote:
| Oh yeah, talk about _real_ team building. Offsite and all
| over the place without leaving the building.
| jejeyyy77 wrote:
| :D
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| also wondered about that. nobody here from the valley who'd up
| the micro dose today and confirm the claim?
| xyproto wrote:
| If this becomes widespread, I predict that police will start
| walking around with a cellphone app at festivals that can decode
| all the images.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| I have a replica of an old painting of the Buddha, Tibetan.
|
| Once on truffles I shouted out there is a snow lion in the
| painting.
|
| Very vividly the pattern of the composition turns into a snowlion
| in 3d on truffles.
|
| Sober I can now see the patterns in there, but not the strong
| visual representation.
|
| They defintely put it in there on purpose. Not sure what tools
| they use to alter their vision.
| stavros wrote:
| Can you post a photo?
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| This one: https://i.etsystatic.com/25915090/r/il/ed3d36/46287
| 46212/il_....
|
| Not sure the rest saw it, not everyone recognizes Tibetan
| symbols.
| stavros wrote:
| Interesting, thanks! I can't make out anything resembling a
| lion, but I imagine I need to be higher for that.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Haha yeah it's harder for me to see now also. Two of the
| leaves of the lotus are darker those are his eyes, the
| white flower & female buddha are his tongue. The white
| skin of people are his hairs. When sober it feels
| farfetched, but it's all much clearer on a substance :)
| wingerlang wrote:
| Any chance you can draw on top of the image? I don't
| really know where to begin to look from your description.
| Archelaos wrote:
| It is easier to spot when the details become blurred. So
| either zoom out of the image or look at your screen from
| afar. Because I am shortsighted, I am also able to see it
| easily when I remove my glasses and move back somewhat
| from the screen. I get the best result when I am just a
| bit outside the range were the image is sharp. Then I
| still have something like a 3-D effect from the potest.
| -- So no substance needed to see it.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Yeah that's how I try to see the image again now. But
| it's not as vivid.
| lukas099 wrote:
| I see it better when my head is really close to the
| screen.
| stavros wrote:
| Ahhh I kind of see what you mean! Very interesting, I
| wonder if this was on purpose or if the mind is just
| great at seeing things in shapes when on drugs.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Thangka's are always filled with symbols.
|
| And the Tibetans have a strong culture of visions in
| dreams and real life.
|
| For instance they often meditate long times without food
| & water, and they speak about how to protect against
| "demons" persuading you to jump of cliffs.
|
| Although most or much more positives, projections of
| buddha forms appearing next to teachers etc.
|
| There are also some shamanistic leftovers from the Bon
| Tradtion before buddhism took over. And some claim
| substances where used in certain traditions.
|
| So I wouldn't be surprised if certain painters could see
| things like this, since it was so vivid while on truffles
| I think someone knew what they were doing, but who knows.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| People throughout time and culture have described the
| experience of seeing auras, and I believe that's a result
| of peeling back inhibitory responses to really "see" what
| the eye and mind see without too much heavy filtering.
|
| Like today there are people who experience things like
| psychedelic flashbacks or HPPD, many report being able to
| trigger those experiences willingly, and sometimes
| uncontrollably.
|
| I think you can train yourself to see this way, and
| meditation is a great way of peeling back your brains'
| pattern matching and assumption making to do it. It's
| similar to learning to "see" as an artist, or the
| artist's eye. When you first start out, you have to learn
| to look past the generalizations your mind fills in for
| what you think you're looking at to actually "see" what
| needs to be seen to capture what you want in art. It's a
| different type of perception.
|
| For that reason, I don't think drugs need to be involved
| at all to make art like this, just a different way of
| perceiving things.
| echelon_musk wrote:
| Thank you for sharing your story. I have had similar
| experiences.
|
| I have reverse image searched to provide a higher
| resolution image https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/com
| mons/e/ef/Shakyamu...
| spiritplumber wrote:
| I want this in a They Live remake
| personjerry wrote:
| One time I took way too much weed butter and watched
| Interstellar, and I swear I could tell exactly where the green
| screen and photoshopping points were.
| driesv wrote:
| This has happened to me nearing the end of LSD trips watching
| movies or TV a couple times. Glad to finally hear someone else
| has experienced it too.
| thumbuddy wrote:
| Cannabis is indeed a psychedelic substance. Many users don't
| experience it as such, but in the proper dose, and especially
| ones first usage of it, can be intensely psychedelic. The
| challenge with the cannabis experience is, it is often deeply
| clouded in fear and paranoia.
|
| I bet someone could read the messages in these videos quite
| easily under the influence of cannabis, but I doubt most would
| be comfortable at that level of intoxication to enjoy the
| experience while it occurred.
| notamy wrote:
| > Many users don't experience it as such, but in the proper
| dose, and especially ones first usage of it, can be intensely
| psychedelic.
|
| ime/imo the main reason why it's so uncommon is because you
| have to go _comically_ far over your tolerance to hit the
| truly-psychedelic effects, and, as you said, it can be deeply
| uncomfortable. I've only ever managed to hit truly-
| psychedelic effects by ex. eating 600mg of RSO with a low
| tolerance, or doing a dab after a t break and way
| overestimating my tolerance.
| LoganDark wrote:
| > ime/imo the main reason why it's so uncommon is because
| you have to go _comically_ far over your tolerance to hit
| the truly-psychedelic effects, and, as you said, it can be
| deeply uncomfortable.
|
| I tried taking something like 50mg THC once and it just
| made me feel like my head was imploding for around five
| hours. No visuals or altered thoughts or anything. Made me
| conclude that my brain probably just isn't receptive to
| weed or something.
| nbaugh1 wrote:
| That's a pretty high dose if you aren't a regular user.
| Most of my friends who are very casual with it usually go
| for 10mg max. Altered visuals on cannabis are very rare,
| its almost entirely a psychological effect in my
| experience. As far as altered thoughts - did you think
| something was physically wrong with you? That paranoia
| 100% counts
| LoganDark wrote:
| > That's a pretty high dose if you aren't a regular user.
|
| Exactly. The goal _was_ to take a really high dose, to
| see if it would do anything--I was getting impatient
| tapering up with 2.5mg (or so) edibles, so I bought some
| tincture, did some calculations, and took 50 milligrams '
| worth. (Just drank it directly from a dropper.)
|
| Now that I've tried such a high dose and not detected any
| desirable effects, I can basically rule out THC
| completely as a recreational drug. And it didn't require
| being uncomfortable more than a single time; pretty
| efficient if you ask me.
|
| > Altered visuals on cannabis are very rare, its almost
| entirely a psychological effect in my experience.
|
| "Visuals" includes imagination / mind's eye, but I also
| got no effect there whatsoever. I mentioned it because I
| know someone who claims that THC edibles added more
| "depth" to their imagination, almost like they could see
| it more clearly when they closed their eyes. I had no
| such effect. (The effects of THC seem to differ for every
| brain, depending on the location of the cannabinoid
| receptors or something?)
|
| > As far as altered thoughts - did you think something
| was physically wrong with you? That paranoia 100% counts
|
| Not really. I have dysphoria normally though, so I
| probably wouldn't be able to tell if it was coming from
| the THC.
|
| I did experience very strong dissociation, since THC is a
| dissociative, but I already have a dissociative disorder,
| so that's not very exciting or compelling. (I didn't know
| how to recognize the feeling of dissociation until I
| tried THC, though, so I will give it credit for teaching
| me what that feels like.)
| mrguyorama wrote:
| It took me several attempts with weed before it would
| affect me. I smoked like gram of flower one of my first
| times and had no effect, while my friends were zonked off
| of a few puffs. This isn't bragging about my tolerance,
| as nowadays a single puff can get me high, it's as if I
| had to "sensitize" myself to it.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| A shot in the dark, here, but it does have an effect on
| blood pressure, so it's probably a bit of that, and the
| increase in general sensitivity you experienced. Pretty
| normal. Some strains are even known for their "headband"
| effects (at maybe more pleasant intensities)
| LoganDark wrote:
| It could be blood pressure, yeah. I've only really also
| tried LSD recreationally, but it creates a similar head
| feeling (though much less dysphoric). It's probably
| caused by blood flow to the brain, specifically, due to
| the drugs being psychoactive.
| Nihilartikel wrote:
| Similarly, when enjoying an edible of a strongish dose, I
| become hyper-sensitized to digital compression artifacts. Low
| bit-rate media is really obtrusively ugly to me in that state..
| the swishing of the drums and cymbals in music, and the
| smudging of B-frames in the mpeg are just so front-and-center
| that it's hard to pay attention to the narrative (more so than
| usual, at least ;) ).
| ActorNightly wrote:
| Main insta
|
| https://www.instagram.com/inner.reflection/
|
| So far the closest visualization I have seen in terms of visuals
| that happen under effects of LSD/Shrooms
| actualwitch wrote:
| Have you seen /r/replications?
| programmarchy wrote:
| Surprised there's not more skepticism about the "Qualia Research
| Institute" behind this study. It's funded by the founder of
| Polychain Capital, which might raise some eyebrows. I also find
| it amusing that people in tech have a tendency to reject
| traditional Western religious forms, but readily adopt Eastern
| ones or modern New Age spinoffs, which are arguably just as bad
| if not worse in terms of being anti-intellectual, anti-rational,
| mystical, etc.
| tezza wrote:
| Hmm. "Right state of consciousness" makes it sound exotic in a
| click baity way
|
| It is more like "Experiencing a visual trip compatible with the
| image whilst also still lucid enough to communicate and remember"
|
| Tripping comes in all varieties of strengths and effects. Often
| the effects are barely visual. Also you can be so out of it that
| you cannot speak and perhaps also cannot remember the test image
| when you've come down.
| [deleted]
| gowld wrote:
| How do psychadelics affect the experience of "gradual change"
| illusions like:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nL5ulsWMYc
|
| or selective attention:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bnnmWYI0lM
| dvt wrote:
| For those that are curious, these are the messages:
| https://imgur.com/a/y0mXbAk
|
| Decoded using: ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vf
| tmix=frames=36:weights="1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
| 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1" output.mp4 ffmpeg -i
| output.mp4 -vf "curves=all='0/0 0.05/1 1/1'" bright.mp4
|
| We need to use the second command, as frame averaging in ffmpeg
| lowers luminosity. There's probably a way to cleverly get around
| this, but I'm no ffmpeg expert. The secrets are: "WE LOVE YOU,"
| some alien heads, "UNIVERSE IS THE GATE," and "MIND IS THE LOCK
| (?--the last word is a bit hard to read)." Pretty neat, fun
| puzzle, though there's probably ways to make it tougher to solve
| in the context of something like a hacker tournament (as the
| negative space is a dead giveaway).
| pera wrote:
| Hah that's cool, reminds me a little bit to those LED message
| fans
| [deleted]
| MrPoush wrote:
| A couple of quick optimizations:
|
| - If weights are repeated, you only need to specify the last
| unique one
|
| - You can chain filters using a comma
|
| - You can drop that last point in the curve
| ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -vf
| tmix=frames=36:weights="1",curves=all='0/0 0.05/1' output.mp4
| dvt wrote:
| > You can chain filters using a comma
|
| Haha, I _knew_ there was some way of doing this, but I couldn
| 't remember how (tried semicolons which didn't work), thanks
| :)
| xattt wrote:
| Mad respect for your solution, but how do you get to this point
| where you can look at a thing and say "oh yeah, it's XYZ"?
| dvt wrote:
| > how do you get to this point where you can look at a thing
| and say "oh yeah, it's XYZ"?
|
| What do you mean exactly?
| quibono wrote:
| I think GP meant: how do you go from watching the
| obfuscated video to going, "To see the message I need to
| use mix=frames=36 with the following weights..."
| dvt wrote:
| Oh, well the weight was going to be 1 since I needed the
| frames need to be fully overlayed, and I randomly ended
| up at 36, since I just kept upping the frames until I got
| a good-enough image via trial & error. Then I had to fix
| the gamma, because it ended up being "smeared," which is
| exactly what I wanted, but extremely dark and hard to
| see.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| I've learned that a lot of what we think of as art or
| mastery is just the end result of trying shit and then
| remembering what works.
| temptemptemp111 wrote:
| [dead]
| sayanwita wrote:
| I tried a new one yesterday using cuprous benzene. I had a long
| standing ML problem to solve. It did get solved yesterday! Now,
| finally, I can launch that product!
| pbj1968 wrote:
| None of this is real. Don't fuck with your brain, pal, it ain't
| worth it.
| colordrops wrote:
| Your two sentences contradict each other.
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| Do you not suffer from how painfully boring reality and the
| default mode of consciousness are?
|
| How can one stand decades of stagnation without the desire to
| escape?
| ilyt wrote:
| If I won lottery today I'd have enough hobbies and interests
| to fill a lifetime.
|
| There is so many interesting things to _do_ (let alone watch)
| to last multiple lifetimes.
|
| > How can one stand decades of stagnation without the desire
| to escape?
|
| I guess by not being totally unimaginative and boring ? There
| is no nice way to say it.
| lrvick wrote:
| To stimulate my brain I just learn new skills and solve
| puzzles constantly.
|
| I am pretty happy so there is no need to escape.
|
| I admit I am -curious- to try psychedelics but in no hurry.
| Plenty of things to entertain me in this life.
| LoganDark wrote:
| > I admit I am -curious- to try psychedelics but in no
| hurry. Plenty of things to entertain me in this life.
|
| If you ever do decide to try them, it should still be an
| interesting experience. Personally, I loved to watch what
| happened to my computer screen during my first LSD trip,
| and I spent a lot of time obsessing over how pretty it was.
| It's definitely a different type of experience than
| learning a skill or solving a puzzle.
| ilyt wrote:
| Seriously, my current motivation to work is _basically_ to
| afford a place where I can indulge in more of my hobbies
| and skills. I can 't imagine "running out of things to do"
| (aside from "I am so tired after work I can't be arsed" I
| guess) anytime soon
| alecbz wrote:
| Kinda crazy to realize/appreciate how not-depressed some
| people are.
| ilyt wrote:
| Oh, no, you can have plenty of hobbies but still be too
| depressed to touch any of that, lived thru that too, and
| still didn't drop the weight I gained because of that...
|
| Plenty of stress or frustration to be had from hobbies
| too
|
| I do feel lucky that the thing I don't hate and are
| reasonably good at allows me to get decent job and money
| LoganDark wrote:
| It depends on your definition of depression. For example
| I could be either depressed (there are some facts about
| my life that I've always been unhappy with, even if they
| don't necessarily distress me every day) or not depressed
| (I'm pretty happy and can't remember any real recent
| gripes) depending on how you define depression.
|
| By the clinical definition, I _don 't_ have depression,
| because it doesn't impact my enjoyment of or
| participation in hobbies, and I also don't seem to have
| any persistent or recurring mood problems.
| BasedAnon wrote:
| >Do you not suffer from how painfully boring reality and the
| default mode of consciousness are?
|
| Maybe its just your default mode of consciousness that's
| boring.
|
| Yesterday I had a dream where Elon Musk was making blow-up
| spaceships like balloons and I met Natalie Portman in a crowd
| of people and told her I hated Trainspotting, also there were
| Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles at some point but I don't
| remember why.
|
| One time I had a dream that changed my entire view of reality
| where I experienced passing into the afterlife as if I were
| diving into a pool of water and the transition was like
| touching the surface of the water.
|
| Even during the day time, my brain just produces stuff like
| this but it's 'behind my eyes', that's where my imagination
| goes. Sometimes I'll just decide I want the colors to melt,
| or objects to explode like glass, and I can just do that.
| LoganDark wrote:
| > Do you not suffer from how painfully boring reality and the
| default mode of consciousness are?
|
| Agree... I'm nearly unable to fantasize properly (dream or
| daydream what I want), and it's difficult to describe how it
| makes me feel, but I would probably use something like
| "fantasy withdrawal".
|
| I've gotten pretty upset in the past over it and keep wishing
| I could find some drug to help me experience the things that
| I can't normally. LSD was the first thing I tried, ketamine
| will probably be next.
|
| Curse my stupid brain for being stuck in reality. Makes one
| wonder what the purpose of dreams really is. It could be to
| try to prevent something like this from arising, but mine
| don't properly address that need.
|
| It's not aphantasia, not even close. My coping mechanism for
| most of my life has been roleplay and story writing, which I
| have no trouble imagining (in fact I can seemingly do it
| better than most people). It's just that I can't properly
| dream it, can't experience it using the slots reserved for
| the normal senses.
|
| I've never gotten a straight answer to whether this is normal
| or not, but I have heard that similar things can be caused by
| being autistic (which I am). Some autistics are known to be
| very literal and aware of reality and only reality. I just
| don't want to be that because it's painful.
| BasedAnon wrote:
| Have you tried watching and listening to harsh noise? Idk
| if it'd overstimulate you, but it might help you learn to
| break out of reality. It's also harder to do if you're
| stressed.
| LoganDark wrote:
| AFAIUI, being autistic can completely remove the ability
| for the brain to filter out certain types of stimuli.
| (Autism is a spectrum, but defective filtering of certain
| stimuli is a known autistic trait.) It might not
| necessarily be possible to train/practice dissociation
| like that.
|
| I haven't tried it though, that sounds interesting. I
| would probably want to use headphones for it though, as
| otherwise, the volume required to actually bother me
| would probably fill the entire apartment complex ;D
| kfrzcode wrote:
| Arguable. Entheogenic drugs are likely a significant driver
| behind human cognitive evolution.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogenic_drugs_and_the_arch...
| arunix wrote:
| Are you referring to the Stoned Ape hypothesis? I couldn't
| find any mention of evolution in the linked article.
| kfrzcode wrote:
| Yes, in part, and generally there's a close relationship
| between humans and many interesting psychedelic sources:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_entheogenic_drugs
| eftokay83 wrote:
| Just in case you don't get it, I think this is a quote from the
| movie 'Total recall'
| dist-epoch wrote:
| > _At a theoretical level, this confirmation is significant
| because it is the first clear demonstration of a real perceptual
| computational advantage of psychedelic states of consciousness._
|
| This is a pretty strong claim, considering that while psychedelic
| states of consciousness do allow you to see these messages, they
| also have a lot of other side effects.
|
| I'm pretty sure you can do the reverse too, create a message
| which can only be seen in a normal state of consciousness - for
| example you use the same tracer phenomenon to obscure instead of
| to reveal the message.
|
| So a psychedelic state is not strictly superior to normal state,
| it's just different.
| lukas099 wrote:
| It's not claiming that there's a net advantage.
| sayanwita wrote:
| It should because there is a net advantage coming from this
| difference. If some problem seems unsolvable in your normal
| state, try thinking that out in high state. So, at the end,
| creative tasks become easier as we can easily get two
| different perspectives for the same problem. Sometimes, it
| will help, sometimes not much. But the net is always positive
| because you visit both the states to solve the problem
| thinking out different possible angles.
| eimrine wrote:
| Vision is a wrong envirenment for the messages which can only be
| understood under the influence, try sound.
| varelse wrote:
| [dead]
| redox99 wrote:
| You can see the messages if you take a long exposure shot (2s)
| from your phone
|
| Here are the photos from my phone
|
| https://imgur.com/a/WOqbQVo
| dandanua wrote:
| So, psychedelics can give you a longer exposure vision.
|
| It might be useful for looking at stars and galaxies. Not so
| much for everything else.
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| It's not just vision!
|
| Psychedelics give all perceptions including mental concepts
| "long exposure" as well, causing them to overlap in ways
| which rarely happen sober.
|
| This allows for forming wholly new connections and insights
| otherwise out of reach for the sober mind.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| Citation? I have done a few and didn't really experience
| anything like that. Most things to me seemed somewhat
| shallow just like this visual trick.
|
| It was fun though!
| LoganDark wrote:
| > Psychedelics give all perceptions including mental
| concepts "long exposure" as well, causing them to overlap
| in ways which rarely happen sober.
|
| > This allows for forming wholly new connections and
| insights otherwise out of reach for the sober mind.
|
| For me, LSD seemed to reveal some brand new type of thought
| or concept that could be recognized by the sound or
| impression that it made. My speech center would spit out
| complete gibberish when fed these types of thoughts. Actual
| quotes I typed while on LSD:
|
| "can have a haves and take a three sixteenth quarters"
|
| "can have an um somethings or others .... mmm much of
| somethings or others.... can havings a taken umpteenth very
| good time ...."
|
| Normal thoughts for me are based on words and images, but
| these ones were based on some sort of "proximity". I could
| somehow sense the strength of certain patterns, recognize
| them, and manipulate them, even if they had no actual
| meaning. It felt like I got to re-learn very basic
| fundamental concepts in the form of this brand new type of
| thought. Some of them just felt pleasant to think about
| even if I didn't know what they meant, so I'd commonly find
| them looping in the background. I still find this extremely
| fascinating and it's probably one of the biggest reasons
| why I hope to have more psychedelic trips in the future.
|
| I learned plenty of patterns and have plenty of memories of
| them, but seemingly can't decode those memories when sober,
| probably because those mental patterns simply aren't
| visible to me right now. I can remember certain types of
| artifacts generated by them though, like the gibberish
| words, some sounds, etc., at least the ones I committed to
| memory.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| You have to try it to have any idea. The effects are beyond
| any words or concepts that can be expressed vocally or
| through internet text.
| e_i_pi_2 wrote:
| Caffeine can cause pupil dilation - might be useful for low
| light conditions, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have
| plenty of other effects and uses. Same for any other drug
| DonHopkins wrote:
| People who haven't used psychedelics don't tend to get or
| appreciate The Congress as much as those who have.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPGhw4nACfk
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPAl5GwvdY8
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pqzaZcivh4
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMMI8HWhqEc
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHBl43lMJY0
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Congress_(2013_film)
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| This is absolutely amazing to me -how would one go about
| finding more gems like that?
| DonHopkins wrote:
| It's well worth reading the book by Stanislaw Lem that it's
| based on, The Futurological Congress!
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Futurological_Congress
|
| >The book opens at the eponymous congress. A riot breaks out,
| and the hero, Ijon Tichy, is hit by various psychoactive
| drugs that were put into the drinking water supply lines by
| the government to pacify the riots. Ijon and a few others
| escape to the safety of a sewer beneath the Hilton where the
| congress was being held, and in the sewer he goes through a
| series of hallucinations and false awakenings, which cause
| him to be confused about whether or not what's happening
| around him is real. Finally, he believes that he falls asleep
| and wakes up many years later. The main part of the book
| follows Ijon's adventures in the future world -- a world
| where everyone takes hallucinogenic drugs, and hallucinations
| have replaced reality.
|
| In the same way that the epic movie Blade Runner was based on
| Philip K Dick's classic book Do Androids Dream of Electric
| Sheep, both movies are deeply inspired by but quite different
| than the books, so they both have unique important things to
| say and are worth reading and seeing.
|
| Both pairs of movies and books are among my top favorites!
|
| Many of Lem's books and stories are also excellent mind
| bending gems -- especially The Cyberiad!
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cyberiad
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_Lem
|
| >[...] The Cyberiad (Cyberiada) provide a commentary on
| humanity in the form of a series of grotesque, humorous,
| fairytale-like short stories about a mechanical universe
| inhabited by robots (who have occasional contact with
| biological "slimies" and human "palefaces").[11][35] Lem also
| underlines the uncertainties of evolution, including that it
| might not progress upwards in intelligence.[36]
| echelon_musk wrote:
| I've recommended the film previously on HN [0]. It's a movie
| that only gets more relevant with time.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30628290
| koromak wrote:
| Regardless of the claims made, its a really neat idea. Confirms
| that tracers are a genuine artifact in your vision at least.
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| >first clear demonstration of a real perceptual computational
| advantage of psychedelic states of consciousness.
|
| I feel like this is technically true but also misleading towards
| the belief that there is an overall perceptual computation
| advantage of psychedelic states. You can maybe get a higher score
| on certain tests, but it comes at a loss on other tests. I'm
| willing to bet basic tests like an eye exam will score worse when
| all the letters are dripping. The reality is psychedelics effect
| a particular band of brainwave frequencies, and so is not like
| the blunt general stimulation or inebriation of other drugs. It
| may be better for your brain to be in a psychedelic state on
| certain tasks, but if it was better in the general case evolution
| would have already made it so. Remember, I can rig a system with
| absolute perfect perception just so long as you don't mind a rate
| of 100% false positives.
|
| Still congrats to QRI on this research. Very impressive result.
| Seems like they had some of the same method ideas I've had, or
| thought my ideas were worth taking last I spoke with them.
| mistermann wrote:
| > It may be better for your brain to be in a psychedelic state
| on certain tasks, but if it was better in the general case
| evolution would have already made it so.
|
| Would the same not be true of delusion, psychopathy, and
| various other human shortcomings?
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| In the general case, having delusions and other psychotic
| issues are not selected for traits with positive outcomes for
| the individuals having them. Your life is hard if you have
| them and conventional success is rare.
|
| They persist in the general population to an extent for the
| same reason other hereditary illness persists. "I would die
| for two brothers or 8 cousins". A gene that is to your
| detriment in 1/3 cases but carries an advantage in the other
| 2/3 is still selected for. We have lots of examples of this
| in other heritable disease types, though admittedly no one is
| quite sure what advantage there might be to you if your
| brother or cousin is schizophrenic (for example).
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| Here's a lecture by Robert Sapolsky where he goes into some
| theories involving schizotypal individuals (and other
| mental disorders) and culture:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WwAQqWUkpI
|
| Long story short, the theory goes that being schizotypal
| (but not full-blown schizophrenic) could be an advantageous
| trait in human society, usually by filling some spiritual,
| ritual, or religious role in the group. These people are
| high status in their societies, and have many chances for
| passing on their genes.
| alecbz wrote:
| > We have lots of examples of this in other heritable
| disease types
|
| You're saying that diseases persist in humans because
| they're selected for, because they're beneficial to others?
| That's interesting, do you have some examples?
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| sickle cell anemia is the classic example; one copy of
| the gene gives you malaria resistance, two copies gives
| you the disease
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| I would phrase it as the genes are selected for, not that
| the diseases are selected for, but yeah you understand
| correctly. Others have already filled in examples like
| you asked for.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235230
| 421...
| djaouen wrote:
| I can't see it, but I trust others when trhey tell me it's there.
| :)
| djaouen wrote:
| https://youtu.be/ila-hAUXR5U
| Retr0id wrote:
| I can see the first one fairly clearly in my default state of
| consciousness, which I suppose confirms my theory that I have
| higher-than-average vision persistence. (I have never used
| psychedelics, and do not plan to)
|
| Tips to make it stand out more: HDR monitor at max brightness,
| increase playback speed to 2x
|
| Try not to follow the movement, but keep your eyes on a fixed
| location (e.g. a speck of dust on your screen)
| GolDDranks wrote:
| > I have higher-than-average vision persistence
|
| First time heard about this. Do you think that you have more
| "buffer space" for past visual input than average, or do the
| older and newer visual input "merge together" in the same
| "buffer space"? What I'm trying to get at is that does this
| come at cost of blurring vision or reaction speed, or do you
| have no problems related to those?
| Retr0id wrote:
| The latter. This is the first time it's ever been remotely
| "useful", the rest of the time it's annoying.
| dieselgate wrote:
| It seems like that's one of the reasons the first piece won -
| because it's quite accessible compared to the others.
| s-lambert wrote:
| Putting at 2x speed made it easy to read for me too, only the
| 3rd one was hard to read and I feel like that's because the
| lettering there is strange.
| gowld wrote:
| Do you see all of your life with extreme motion blur? Can you
| see anything clearly while walking or driving?
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| > increase playback speed to 2x
|
| But that's cheating -make it fast enough any anyone can see it
| I suppose.
| Retr0id wrote:
| I can see it without, I just noticed that 2x made it easier.
| gowld wrote:
| Do you normally have the ability to see things at half-speed?
| therein wrote:
| Yeah I can too but I have done psychedelics in the past,
| despite not having any HPPD symptoms.
|
| I believe it is WE LOVE YOU with some aliens.
| wcerfgba wrote:
| Wow this is way cooler than the ski goggles announcement! :D
| DiscourseFan wrote:
| Imagine subtly encrypting a message on all the users of ski
| goggles such that only people using psychedelics could see it.
| albert_e wrote:
| Click on the period at the end of this dot.
|
| "Informed Consent" to capture user tracking data will have an
| interesting interplay with "Dark Patterns".
| dieselgate wrote:
| Ironically these clips would probably be great to view with
| said ski goggles
| Aerbil313 wrote:
| For anyone in pursuit of surreal experiences and reality-
| perspective shifts without using LSD, lucid dreaming works just
| great. I didn't use LSD but from what I read, I can tell the
| experience is very similar. Source: I am a lucid dreamer.
|
| It's totally learnable (if you don't have aphantasia afaict),
| although the internet is full of clickbait scammers. I can
| recommend learning sources if anyone wants.
| daef wrote:
| Recommend already :)
| liampulles wrote:
| Is there a way to make some psychedelic LLM middleware to
| translate any new breaking API changes down into an acceptable
| format? High-level abstractions...
| smilespray wrote:
| I mean, the LLMs are already hallucinating, so it shouldn't be
| that much of a stretch...
| brutusborn wrote:
| The phrase "psychedelic LLM" reminded me of this paper.
|
| This is your neural net on drugs!
| https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2020/1/niaa024/6032852?l...
| oneshtein wrote:
| Please, record this message and make an animation for a car
| dashboard.
|
| "IF YOU CAN READ THIS YOU ARE DRUNK! YOU CANNOT DRIVE!"
| BasedAnon wrote:
| I feel like with enough training you could decode these in normal
| states of conciousness under low light conditions
| tesdinger wrote:
| This is like a mutation in a dungeon crawl game, that affects
| most of your stats negatively but gives you the ability to
| discover the effect of scrolls.
| Spkeat17 wrote:
| It's nothing you can't chime in mentally sober.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-06 23:01 UTC)