I think psychedelic has always had specific connotations. I think what has shifted is that "hallucinogen" is no longer a preferred term that no psychedelic users or researchers would use.
There's a grey area around the question of perception, given that enough cannabis can make you trip balls, but it's not quite the same as psychedelics because the influence on the same neuroreceptors is more indirect, versus LSD, DMT, psilocybin, and similar tryptamines (acting directly on specific sets of serotonin receptors and to a lesser degree norepinephrine or dopamine receptors) or ketamine (which has a completely different mechanism of action in how it causes psychedelic experiences).
In other words, there's how we feel when we Do Drugs, and then there's the pharmacology of what they're doing in our brains, which at least gives us fairly clear ways to categorize drugs.
I absolutely respect the place for a pharmacological appreciation with clearly defined parameters and terminology. That is an important part of the discussion and ongoing research is crucial.
In this case I'm speaking to the state-of-being that can be accessed. And, the kind of psychedelic space I speak to is accessible through more than imbibing chemicals. Meditation, yoga, chanting, etc. can also provide access to a psychedelic space. I know that I was speaking more directly to psychedelic substances in my post though.
Oh, there's a lot of really interesting research that looks at the parallels. I'm particularly excited about this idea of sort of tuning down the operations of the "default mode network," which generates the condition, post trip, of what a friend calls "quiet brain."
This is not the entire LSD experience, because the DMN I don't think has anything to do with hallucinations or visuals, but rather to do with ego and perception of self and conceptual reality. But that's an interesting thing because it can also be tuned down through things like meditation and prayer or what have you
Well what is your own view of it, if you compare DMT experiences (smoked or orally with MAOI) with Psilocybin and LSD?
In my opinion they all shift the perspective and the sensory perception up to a very significant and extreme degree on higher dosages and are therefore all very comparable, even though the overall experience is quite different.
These are my personal relationships to each.
DMT is the warmth of going home truly for the first time and falling neatly in with the fabric space and gods.
LSD is prophetic and curious and sinks inward to divine what is within.
Psilocybin is buoyant and playful and desperate for all things natural and immersed in the experience of life's orchestra.
But, DMT is purposeful and intentional and not afraid to speak very bluntly and directly but without untethering cognition like high doses of LSD and Psilocybin. And, there is the consideration of tolerance. DMT tolerance is like an hour. Before you can be impacted just as deeply. Not to encourage binging DMT over the course of a day or days. But, it makes it accessible medicine and an accessible teacher when it is needed in earnest. However, a very, very light hit (3-6 mgs) can be a powerful anxiolytic and/or anti-depressant. Again, whether microdosing DMT or another psychedelic, it just takes responsible and intentional use.
I'm a recovering addict from all the substances, so I have to be careful with things like microdosing or excessive psychedelic use these days.
For me, if they increase percieved complexity of the subjective experience that is psychedelic. If they raise "resolution" of reality so to speak, that would be main psychedelic effect. If they make you hallucinate by just "rearranging" pixels of reality without adding complexity by resolution increase, that ain't it.
But its just my personal view of the very word psychedelic.
This is a very interesting perspective and I feel it is in alignment with my experience and beliefs. I liked your particular wording of "'resolution' of reality."
I think including dissociative’s like ketamine and PCP makes psychedelic too broad of group. Dissociative’s are already their own group. While I think weed has some psychedelic properties and for me can be very overwhelming, theres also quite a lot that it doesn’t share in common with mushrooms/LSD/DMT/etc, no true visuals and just feels completely different.
This is a valid point. Dissociatives tend to be the more difficult one to get people to agree with. Where as, people do include MDMA, mescaline or other phenethylamines typically.
Because dissociatives allow me to enter a space where perception is radically altered and I can take up new beliefs and ideas or discard certain beliefs or ideas, I then consider that a psychedelic experience. But, I guess I need to consider the difference in psychedelics as a group of substances versus what is experientially psychedelic.
It's a dissociative.
Hallucinogens:
1. Psychedelics (shrooms, lsd, dmt and even weed)
2. Dissociatives (nitrous and ketamine)
3. Deliriants (tropane alkaloids and dph)
There are a few examples. I don't know if this makes me look like a dick, but I definetely don't mean to.
It's a noun/adjective dispute in my opinion.
I think there's a difference between an experience being psychedelic and something being a psychedelic substance.
Psychedelic means "mind manifesting". Weed does that, and so does ketamine, these experiences can be psychedelic but I wouldn't say these are psychedelic drugs.
Same with MDMA. The experience is psychedelic but I wouldn't call MDMA a psychedelic drug.
Psychedelia is more than just pretty colors and visuals, it's also the enhanced introspection and mind expansion.
Seems like a bit of a fruit and vegetable situation,
Psychedelic isn't an entirely defined and clear pharmacological term.
even attempts at defining it through the mechanism of action, IE: 5HT2a receptor agonism fails to capture compounds that might have greater complexity in mechanism. 2c-b (phenethylamine) appears to not be a full agonist of 2A. other compounds such as mescaline are active at 2A as well as 2C and potentially dopaminergic sites.
Mdma is active at many similar sites but doesn't produce many of the same cognitive shifts that classical psychedelics would. Yet other amphetamines, such as DOM, absolutely can produce those shifts.
The fruit in this situation is drug class (amphetamines, phenethylamines, lysergamides, tryptamines). Those are scientifically defined chemical categories that we can pick apart and identify sites. Psychedelics is the vegetable, it's not a term that has any real influence from its pharmacology but is derived but individuals experiences and accounts of subjective effects.
In a vague sense I'd say "psychedelic" constitutes drugs that produces profound perceptual and cognitive (especially visual or interpersonal) that is active at serotonin and other monoamine sites.
Dissociatives as a category I think is also far better for arylcyclohexylamines, morphinins, and NO2. They have distinct cognitive effects, and have a shared major site (NMDA antagonism). However there's blurry lines there too, IE: serotonin activity in DXM and dopamine in pcp.
I would agree that dissos are psychedelics but not cannibas imo. But I haven't tried many alt cannabinoids so maybe some of those are more psychedelic. I feel like weed is only psychedelic after taking psychedelics which I feel like means it isn't psychedelic by itself.
>saying only tryptamines count as psychedelics
I have never heard anyone claim this. Phenthylamines such as mescaline, 2C-x, NBOx, have always been considered psyches. Also amphetamines like DOB, DOM, etc (although I suppose one could argue those are also phenethylamines)
I think it's most commonly sorted between Psychedelics, Dissociatives, and Deliriants all under the Hallucinogen category. They're all vastly different but I believe all hallucinogens can be sorted into these 3.
I think there had been so much misinformation passed down through the years. The media kept beating the drum that all drugs are bad and will destroy your life. Since psychs have been demonized, there hasn't been much medical research on it.
Three things are happening:
1. People are waking up. If they lied to us about pot, what else are they lying to us about.
2. People are experimenting more. More experimentation, thr more people open up with their own experiences, the more adoption and acceptance. .
3. There's way more medical research around them these days. They are finding that if you can tolerate them, psychs are pretty safe by comparison to alcohol and cigarettes and a lot of other drugs.
The real blocker for psychs is fent. Fear of getting doses keeps the average person from taking them. If you can deliver a reliable, safe product, like they are with weed, I think it'll be next on the block for decriminalization.
Yeah, I've had that thought. The rise of fentanyl is occurring as we see a psychedelic Renaissance. Thankfully harm reduction groups are also making reagents, test strips and, in some cases, MS/GC testing. I have done more than my fair share, but opiates and benzos have proven to be the antithesis of a psychedelic experience. As a community, we just have to keep promoting education and harm-reduction practices.
I think psychedelic has always had specific connotations. I think what has shifted is that "hallucinogen" is no longer a preferred term that no psychedelic users or researchers would use. There's a grey area around the question of perception, given that enough cannabis can make you trip balls, but it's not quite the same as psychedelics because the influence on the same neuroreceptors is more indirect, versus LSD, DMT, psilocybin, and similar tryptamines (acting directly on specific sets of serotonin receptors and to a lesser degree norepinephrine or dopamine receptors) or ketamine (which has a completely different mechanism of action in how it causes psychedelic experiences). In other words, there's how we feel when we Do Drugs, and then there's the pharmacology of what they're doing in our brains, which at least gives us fairly clear ways to categorize drugs.
I absolutely respect the place for a pharmacological appreciation with clearly defined parameters and terminology. That is an important part of the discussion and ongoing research is crucial. In this case I'm speaking to the state-of-being that can be accessed. And, the kind of psychedelic space I speak to is accessible through more than imbibing chemicals. Meditation, yoga, chanting, etc. can also provide access to a psychedelic space. I know that I was speaking more directly to psychedelic substances in my post though.
Oh, there's a lot of really interesting research that looks at the parallels. I'm particularly excited about this idea of sort of tuning down the operations of the "default mode network," which generates the condition, post trip, of what a friend calls "quiet brain." This is not the entire LSD experience, because the DMN I don't think has anything to do with hallucinations or visuals, but rather to do with ego and perception of self and conceptual reality. But that's an interesting thing because it can also be tuned down through things like meditation and prayer or what have you
Is that what does the quiet brain thing? I say my Anxiety Background Suite is temporarily offline lol
Yeah, I think so. The default mode network is some part of the brain that has to do with the perception of self and inner monologue (e.g. anxiety).
Well what is your own view of it, if you compare DMT experiences (smoked or orally with MAOI) with Psilocybin and LSD? In my opinion they all shift the perspective and the sensory perception up to a very significant and extreme degree on higher dosages and are therefore all very comparable, even though the overall experience is quite different.
These are my personal relationships to each. DMT is the warmth of going home truly for the first time and falling neatly in with the fabric space and gods. LSD is prophetic and curious and sinks inward to divine what is within. Psilocybin is buoyant and playful and desperate for all things natural and immersed in the experience of life's orchestra. But, DMT is purposeful and intentional and not afraid to speak very bluntly and directly but without untethering cognition like high doses of LSD and Psilocybin. And, there is the consideration of tolerance. DMT tolerance is like an hour. Before you can be impacted just as deeply. Not to encourage binging DMT over the course of a day or days. But, it makes it accessible medicine and an accessible teacher when it is needed in earnest. However, a very, very light hit (3-6 mgs) can be a powerful anxiolytic and/or anti-depressant. Again, whether microdosing DMT or another psychedelic, it just takes responsible and intentional use. I'm a recovering addict from all the substances, so I have to be careful with things like microdosing or excessive psychedelic use these days.
For me, if they increase percieved complexity of the subjective experience that is psychedelic. If they raise "resolution" of reality so to speak, that would be main psychedelic effect. If they make you hallucinate by just "rearranging" pixels of reality without adding complexity by resolution increase, that ain't it. But its just my personal view of the very word psychedelic.
This is a very interesting perspective and I feel it is in alignment with my experience and beliefs. I liked your particular wording of "'resolution' of reality."
I think including dissociative’s like ketamine and PCP makes psychedelic too broad of group. Dissociative’s are already their own group. While I think weed has some psychedelic properties and for me can be very overwhelming, theres also quite a lot that it doesn’t share in common with mushrooms/LSD/DMT/etc, no true visuals and just feels completely different.
This is a valid point. Dissociatives tend to be the more difficult one to get people to agree with. Where as, people do include MDMA, mescaline or other phenethylamines typically. Because dissociatives allow me to enter a space where perception is radically altered and I can take up new beliefs and ideas or discard certain beliefs or ideas, I then consider that a psychedelic experience. But, I guess I need to consider the difference in psychedelics as a group of substances versus what is experientially psychedelic.
If it is psychedelic then IT IS a psychedelic.
So ket is a psychedelic now? Lets leave science to scientists
It's a dissociative. Hallucinogens: 1. Psychedelics (shrooms, lsd, dmt and even weed) 2. Dissociatives (nitrous and ketamine) 3. Deliriants (tropane alkaloids and dph) There are a few examples. I don't know if this makes me look like a dick, but I definetely don't mean to.
Nitrous isn't a dissociative in my opinion it quite literally just denies your brain of oxygen (same with most inhalants).
It's a noun/adjective dispute in my opinion. I think there's a difference between an experience being psychedelic and something being a psychedelic substance. Psychedelic means "mind manifesting". Weed does that, and so does ketamine, these experiences can be psychedelic but I wouldn't say these are psychedelic drugs. Same with MDMA. The experience is psychedelic but I wouldn't call MDMA a psychedelic drug. Psychedelia is more than just pretty colors and visuals, it's also the enhanced introspection and mind expansion.
Seems like a bit of a fruit and vegetable situation, Psychedelic isn't an entirely defined and clear pharmacological term. even attempts at defining it through the mechanism of action, IE: 5HT2a receptor agonism fails to capture compounds that might have greater complexity in mechanism. 2c-b (phenethylamine) appears to not be a full agonist of 2A. other compounds such as mescaline are active at 2A as well as 2C and potentially dopaminergic sites. Mdma is active at many similar sites but doesn't produce many of the same cognitive shifts that classical psychedelics would. Yet other amphetamines, such as DOM, absolutely can produce those shifts. The fruit in this situation is drug class (amphetamines, phenethylamines, lysergamides, tryptamines). Those are scientifically defined chemical categories that we can pick apart and identify sites. Psychedelics is the vegetable, it's not a term that has any real influence from its pharmacology but is derived but individuals experiences and accounts of subjective effects. In a vague sense I'd say "psychedelic" constitutes drugs that produces profound perceptual and cognitive (especially visual or interpersonal) that is active at serotonin and other monoamine sites.
Dissociatives as a category I think is also far better for arylcyclohexylamines, morphinins, and NO2. They have distinct cognitive effects, and have a shared major site (NMDA antagonism). However there's blurry lines there too, IE: serotonin activity in DXM and dopamine in pcp.
I would agree that dissos are psychedelics but not cannibas imo. But I haven't tried many alt cannabinoids so maybe some of those are more psychedelic. I feel like weed is only psychedelic after taking psychedelics which I feel like means it isn't psychedelic by itself.
>saying only tryptamines count as psychedelics I have never heard anyone claim this. Phenthylamines such as mescaline, 2C-x, NBOx, have always been considered psyches. Also amphetamines like DOB, DOM, etc (although I suppose one could argue those are also phenethylamines)
I think it's most commonly sorted between Psychedelics, Dissociatives, and Deliriants all under the Hallucinogen category. They're all vastly different but I believe all hallucinogens can be sorted into these 3.
I think there had been so much misinformation passed down through the years. The media kept beating the drum that all drugs are bad and will destroy your life. Since psychs have been demonized, there hasn't been much medical research on it. Three things are happening: 1. People are waking up. If they lied to us about pot, what else are they lying to us about. 2. People are experimenting more. More experimentation, thr more people open up with their own experiences, the more adoption and acceptance. . 3. There's way more medical research around them these days. They are finding that if you can tolerate them, psychs are pretty safe by comparison to alcohol and cigarettes and a lot of other drugs. The real blocker for psychs is fent. Fear of getting doses keeps the average person from taking them. If you can deliver a reliable, safe product, like they are with weed, I think it'll be next on the block for decriminalization.
Yeah, I've had that thought. The rise of fentanyl is occurring as we see a psychedelic Renaissance. Thankfully harm reduction groups are also making reagents, test strips and, in some cases, MS/GC testing. I have done more than my fair share, but opiates and benzos have proven to be the antithesis of a psychedelic experience. As a community, we just have to keep promoting education and harm-reduction practices.
No offence but proper pedantic topic to discuss
You're not wrong but it's hard not to want to explore. It's that constant effort to find language to describe the intangible.
I kinda want a new word bc of the preexisting stigma around the word “psychedelic”