You may not agree with all that is said here but is relevant to this conversation https://www.facebook.com/reel/872683952250418

I can only repeat what I said: these studies are framed within standard definitions of 'mental'* illnesses. Psychic damage does not necessarily fit into these academic definitions. Many many people are damaged in this way but don't fit into the academic criteria of mental illness.

*Generally speaking, 'mental' conditions are spiritual conditions. In recent times the medical community has created a misleading nomenclature that has replaced traditional spiritual language. Now spiritual conditions are bleached of their meaning and turned into a kind of medical tautology: new labels have been invented and everything has been renamed. As a result the psyche has become little more than an academic medical tautology. But changing labels and renaming everything does not change reality. The mind is a real thing, not the academic whirl of definitions that have been invented.

You are not capable of a rational exchange on this, it seems. — AmadeusD

Like I said, I have seen with my own eyes what this stuff does. Nothing you post can compete with first hand knowledge. I don't see anything 'irrational' about reporting first hand experience. You are gaslighting me.

With the greatest respect, you are entirely ignorant about that which you speak: — AmadeusD

There is a link to mental illness. I have seen it with my own eyes. I once witnessed a friend of mine in a state of pure terror from taking this stuff. No 'study' can nullify what I have seen with my own eyes.
I just posted a link showing that lsd can cause schizophrenia. You posted one saying the opposite. So much for links. I'll trust my own first hand experience of people who take this stuff.

Supernatural beliefs motivate behavior. This is a bad thing because any negative result can be attributed to the will of the supernatural. Its simply intellectually dishonest. — AmadeusD

Unscrupulous individuals can use anything as an excuse for evil. Even Stalin used religion. That does not, in itself, make religion evil. The world is corrupt. What's new? At any rate these evil uses of religion say nothing about whether spiritual teachings are true. Religion begins with revelation to various individuals. The problem begins when people distort the original teachings and infiltrate them with untruths and corruptions of all kinds. But revelation is continually given to humanity. Read the saints. Read Kahlil Gibran or the many mystics who have continually updated the correct teachings of religion.

I am big Pink Floyd fan, and know well Syd Barrett's story. If that's your rebuttal to peer-reviewed meta studies, I'm going to say you're trolling. — AmadeusD

Let me put it straight to you. These substances are a kind of poor man's magic. They open the mind to maligned spirits and terrible things can result. Syd Barret is only one of many examples of people who have been destroyed by this stuff. The studies you mention don't measure psychic damage. Schizophrenia for example is mentioned in this link https://americanaddictioncenters.org/lsd-abuse/what-does-lsd-do-to-your-brain

I can't believe you are defending something that has been clearly shown to be psychically lethal.

Not at all, and explicitly so. I take it you've not read any of his work? He's clearly not an angry man beyond watching religious zealotry illogically cause damage, whether personal or social. — AmadeusD

Religions are corrupt. Supernatural beliefs per se don't cause damage, it is the corruption and misuse of religion that causes damage.

Physical, psychological, social, economic. — AmadeusD

Read about Syd Barret from Pink Floyd and the damage these substances did to his mind.

You're going to need to say a lot more about what you mean by "psychic realities" and how they could be "dangerous" for this to fly anywhere. — AmadeusD

Syd Barret. There are many who have been seriously damaged. This is well documented.

What do you mean by 'best'? — AmadeusD

There are many levels of faith. Some have an intuitive sense of God, some have deeper faith and enter religious life, some become mystics and have a deeper relationship with God. By 'best' I mean the most instructive and exemplary - Julian of Norwich, Teresa of Avila, Kahlil Gibran...

what is it - everyone can commune with God, or that God choose who to commune with arbitrarily? — AmadeusD

There are many reasons. There is a time for everyone, People need to be ready. This is what religion is for: it makes it know to people that they can know God. Many people are not interested because they want to live on their own terms. Some - like Dawkins - seem very angry about God.

Psychedelics cause the least amount of damage along any axis of known, reported drug use metrics. — AmadeusD

What kind of damage are they measuring? I'm talking about psychic damage. These people are entering into areas they don't understand. These substances can open the mind to dangerous psychic realities. I knew one such 'psychonaut' as he called himself. His mind was visibly burned out.

Without circular reasoning, please explain how you (we) "really know" this. — 180 Proof

Understanding comes from God. God teaches and guides those who desire the good. Goodness is ultimately obedience to God. It is not the same for everyone.

Afaik, every person who rescues a child from sexual abuse by clergy is morally good in contrast to the immoral indifference (or sadism) of a "God" that does not. — 180 Proof

There is basic morality and there is deeper faith. There are degrees of goodness.

The suggestion that if God is not real, an appeal to experience is meaningless. Given that this appears to be the only confirmation of God adherents can provide, it seems damning — AmadeusD

Theists believe in God for many reasons but the best reason is communion with God.

If it's not a defect to be unable to commune with God, everything we know about God is nonsense. — AmadeusD

Why anyone be unable to commune with God?

Transcendent psychedelic experiences are more effective than religion in ameliorating both long-term trauma and addiction issues. — AmadeusD

I am not talking about medical issues I'm talking about abuse of these substances. The damage they do is well documented.

I am not talking about ritual practices, they are just externals. I'm talking about moral issues, 'right living' which is an aspiration towards the good. We cannot really know what the good is until we direct our attention towards God.

Spiritual truth is not an intellectual abstraction, it is a way of being, a way of life. That is what 'I am the way' means. Buddhists call this 'right living'. Truth is a way of life that leads to a true perception of the world as it really is - insofar as human beings are capable of this.

You cannot be directly aware of a God which does not exist — AmadeusD

That seems to be another way of saying those who are aware, are aware of something real.

those who do not feel this impulse would be defective. — AmadeusD

I would not use the word defective. I was a (lukewarm) atheist until my early 20s.

I am well aware of what are called transcendent religious experiences. You can get these from taking LSD. — AmadeusD

I can sincerely assure you these are not spiritual experiences, they are psychic and are intensely dangerous and can do great psychic damage. To call them spiritual is like saying banging some irons together is music.

Drawing is the probity of art - Ingres.

I agree with your viewpoint. There is a river of evil flowing out of Hollywood. The world is soaked in evil. Unfortunately the little people will defend this relentlessly and say it is not evil.

That's probably the basis for most religion impulse. "We must be more than meat" But there is no real reason to think so. — AmadeusD

I would say most religious belief comes from intuition and awareness. The deepest form of belief comes from direct awareness of God - knowledge of God, not speculation. Read Teresa of Avila, Julian of Norwich etc.

AI will do a great job are summarizing competing theories. — AmadeusD

A great problem with philosophy and the intellect in general is that the intellect is earthbound. The naive (human) intellect believes, or acts as if, the human world is reality when it is only a physical analogue. Reality is spiritual. The human world exists within reality - in much the same way that a university exists in the world at large; the university is a concept, not the 'real' human world. Matter is not a real thing, it is an image of energy. Physical objects don't have an enduring reality so they are not real in the way that energy is real.

A person can interact in the most sophisticated and subtle ways in the social realm. The person can have great artistic or musical talent. We are thinking beings and our thought goes way beyond what I can believe is merely molecular activity in the brain. Whatever you consider the person to be, these qualities of consciousness go way beyond the 5 senses. There is a depth of thought and being that is not convincingly explained by materialism. Religion - despite its corruptions and distortions - explains the person more convincingly.

My argument is that people are pretending that such and such is established science when it is not, it is merely hypothesis, often based on ignorance of the simple premise; Correlation is not always causation. At any rate my alternative is non material mind. Otherwise I'm condemned to believing that a person is a property of the brain. A Person, with all its sophistication and subtleties and abilities? Think about it. No neurological experiment, that ignores this precept, will convince me the brain produces a person.

The amygdala participates in the regulation of autonomic and endocrine functions — Questioner

The key word is 'participates'. It correlates with various functions. Correlation is not always causation: https://theconversation.com/if-correlation-doesnt-imply-causation-how-do-scientists-figure-out-why-things-happen-243487

Yes.

I am saying that science has not shown that emotions originate in the brain. All that has been shown is that the brain is correlated with these things.

Time is normal in any frame of reference. It is only relative compared to other frames of reference.

Once you get into unproven assumptions you have a recipe for great confusion. How do you know love and hate are biological realities? Because scientists say so? But science does not know this. I don't think these emotions exist 'in' the brain. Science has not shown these things are biological in their origin. All science has shown is that the brain is associated with these emotions. But correlation is not always causation. Countless science writers ignore this common sense precept, assuming that things associated with the brain originate in the brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Intelligence [mind], or goal-directed agency, neither follows from nor is presupposed by the mere mathematicity of nature. — 180 Proof

The argument is strong. For example, fine tuning suggests the physical universe proceeds from mind.

Are you talking about applied math or pure math?
If p is prime a^(p - 1) = cp + 1 is a non physical truth about math.

God IS existence. Existence cannot be a property of anything. Existence is that which is. My argument is that since the universe is mathematical it proceeds from mind since mathematics needs a mind to reside in.

The problem with defining "now" as the moment information reaches our senses is the use of the word "moment". "Moment" assumes the existence of time, which "now" specifically excludes.

The definition of "now" cannot include the word "moment". — RussellA

But what if we leave out 'moment' and instead say that light beams arrive simultaneously at a certain location. Isn't that a 'now'? We can even, in principle, predict where a now will be if we forecast when the information/light beams will arrive at a specified location. Or, more simply, we can say there is a unique "information set" at a certain location in space and that information constitutes a 'now' at that location.

If 'now' is defined as the moment information reaches our senses (say light beams from various sources coincide with your position in space) we can define now in terms of information being at a certain point in space. But what if nobody is there to know the information (light beams) is reaching that point in space? The light beams still arrive so do they constitute a 'now'?

Change is not a strong definition of time. Change is about how information reaches a certain point in space (our senses, as far as our experience is concerned). A better definition of time is given by Einstein's 'spacetime', which is a mathematical description of HOW change happens in physical space. In other words, the mathematics that describe change, is time (spacetime as far as physical time is concerned).

Some mathematicians see geometry as space and mathematics as time. Time is simply the mathematics/logic according to which change happens.

In this sense there can be different kinds of time: physical time, mental time, logic, mathematics, eternal 'time' etc.

So time is mathematics. It doesn't require change or our experience of it to exist. It is the 'way' of things.

Aleph Null + Aleph Null = Aleph Null

I find it is much easier to diagnose other people's stupidity than my own. That is surely stupid of me. — unenlightened

Well, I suppose it is harder for us to see our own selfishness/stupidity because we don't want to, of course.

Reality is what it is. Truth is why it is what it is.

Very often stupidity is not a failure of intelligence, it is a moral failure. Selfishness ignores the good and leads to behaviors that others find incomprehensible. As you say, intelligent people can do stupid things. This is because they use intelligence in the wrong way - they are clever. Selfishly so. Stupid behavior is often about putting the intelligence in the service of self interest, at the expense of the good.

Subjective views are part of an overarching reality. 'As above, so below'. Nature is universal and tells us about the world in general. For example, nature tells us a lot about geometry/mathematics but mathematics is also mathematical, obviously, but without the need for nature to tell us so. Induction from experience goes hand in hand with deduction. There are no real contradictions in nature, only more or less accurate perceptions. The spider is right and so are you - to an extent.

A tautology is a logical statement that does not contradict the axiomatic set within which that statement is made.

Axiom 1: All hyenas play chess.
Axiom 2: Joe lives with two hyenas.
Statement: Joe lives with two chess players.

The statement is a tautology regardless of whether the axioms are true.

Regardless of whether you felt the need for her to recriprocate, a relationship has to be a two way thing. It won't work otherwise. Sometimes a person will feed off your energy like a vampire. Avoid them.

There was once a guy in a war and the bullet killed him. He didn't see it coming...

To me, Infinity and Existence denote the same. — Philosopher19

Existence is, from the beginning. It is eternal and infinite. That which exists is eternal. Finite things are events in eternity.

I tend to agree. I think comedy is one of the finest arts and expressions of 'non linear' intelligence.

Objects are not ultimate realities. The hydrogen atom is an image of energy. When energy is configured in a certain pattern it forms an image; hydrogen, carbon, chair, table...
Matter can evaporate back to pure energy. This happens all the time in stars. In principle the entire universe can evaporate back to energy. If this happened it would disappear, along with physical spacetime.

After that time, the universe enters the so-called Dark Era and is expected to consist chiefly of a dilute gas of photons and leptons.[15]:§VIA With only very diffuse matter remaining, activity in the universe will have tailed off dramatically, with extremely low energy levels and extremely long timescales. Speculatively, it is possible that the universe may enter a second inflationary epoch, or assuming that the current vacuum state is a false vacuum, the vacuum may decay into a lower-energy state.[15]:§VE It is also possible that entropy production will cease and the universe will reach heat death.[15]:§VID
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe#:~:text=The%20heat%20death%20of%20the,sustain%20processes%20that%20increase%20entropy.

"But ideas are fictions. They're just brain processes."

Brain processes are physical images of thought. The object is an image of energy/spirit/mind.

"What number is "i"? You see? It makes no sense as a question, because you're not even referring to it with a numeral to begin with."

Why do you want to make 'i' a 'number'? It is a component in the logic of mathematics. 'And' is not a number but it has a place in mathematics. Like with with 'or' and 'if' etc. See "Logical Operators". - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_connective