Yourself?

yes, actually, that was the general idea of my thesis. pretty interesting really, if i would only get down to doing it.

the universe must be governed by a certain set of laws- that in itself is a limitation of the mind.
also that is an assumption; i can similarly 'assume' that there is a God who can alter those laws at will;
or that just because we have never seen it happen doesnt mean that it can't happen.
but that was nitpicky, sorry.

true, our somewhat limited perception is sufficient for us
but that is because our scope of thought, feeling, expression, interest is similarly limited
we can't focus on more than that finger; that is usually adequate, yes,
but it is not always adequate, and seldom satisfactory
and even if we wanted to, we would not be able to focus on more than that finger.
which is just sad.
but there are also things that you cannot see even if you wanted to; like what was on the other side of the world, of so-and-so was alive or dead.
such sight may not be necessary for survival (which is a base instinct) but it is equally... desired, so to speak, because as 'higher' animals we are beyond mere survival.
similarly while the standard laws of the universe are more or less predictable, and all we need for immediate survival and comfort,
it it infinitely harder to understand the thoughts, emotions, perceptions of a person whose mind you are not connected to, but which are equally important.
that was what i meant by 'perceiving'... not so much knowledge but empathy, wisdom, etcetera.
also, while we may be able to see the finger, can we see ourselves from the finger's point of view?
another mental/ physical impossibility, limitation.
(cute analogy, by the way, i had fun with it.)

i thought you were the one who termed the mind a jail!
(but that was also nitpicky.)

point 2.
ahwell.
miscommunication there.
not sure about the sanity of an altered state, as never experienced (unfortunately)
possible that may believe self capable of what self is not capable of,
or that may accurately divine what self is actually capable of through expanded consciousness.
hmm... altered vs expanded. interesting distinction.

nevermind. that wasnt the point.
i quote the whole paragraph:
"...today one can't responsibly advocate the use of psychedelics. The risks are too high. "Bad trips" are an ever-present possibility. Informed consent is biologically impossible. For psychedelia is not just weirder than the drug-naive mind conceives, it's weirder than the drug-naive mind can conceive. One can't grasp, in advance, the nature of the sorts of experience to which one is nominally consenting. Yet in consequence of this taboo, unimaginably alien state spaces of consciousness remain off-limits to most of us. Trapped in the squalid psychochemical ghetto of Darwinian life, we lack the necessary wetware to conceptualise radically altered states of mind. We haven't even names for the strange new textures of selfhood and introspection that their metabolic pathways disclose; and alas pure reasoning is impotent to access their nature because it lacks the semantic primitives with which to do so. Yet when the vertebrate genome is rewritten, and genetically-preprogrammed bliss becomes the norm of mental health, our veil of ignorance can be safely ripped aside. Armed with exquisite designer-drugs, even the most outlandish realms of psychedelia can then be investigated in depth. The study of consciousness can become a true experimental discipline. And crucially, we can explore other-worldly forms of mental life in the confidence that they will all, without exception, radiate the sparkle of earthly paradise..."
tripping through paradise.

informed consent: if that is the definition, then a 'patient' can actually take that risk herself, without full knowledge, and the paragraph above is void.
but i feel that an important clause is that the person knows the full risks, benefits, effects. which is the point of that passage: that since altered perception is beyond human conception, it is not possible for the person to understand fully what she is consenting to, and informed consent is "biologically impossible".

cool stuff, eh. (and incidentally, why 'she'? how sexist. hah.)

posted by inventing @ 6:35 pm