DrugsForum

Desertsessions schreef:Iemand die daar een wetenschappelijke verklaring voor heeft ?

Azymuth schreef:The doctor legt mijn tijdsbesef onder LSD toch wel mooi uit

Bohr schreef:denken we... je bedoelt zeker jij en je vrienden.

Desertsessions schreef:, een bosje in,

endymion schreef:
Als iets leuk is lijkt de tijd ook sneller te gaan en bij iets vervelends lijkt het langer te duren.

Dus misschien is lsd ook niet zo leuk?

Pep dus duidelijk wel

If the human imagination is infinite, and if psychedelics can expand the capacity of human imagination, then psychedelics can paradoxically make the infinite even more infinite. This makes sense if you accept that infinity is a linear concept which starts at zero and goes in one direction forever; but if infinity is bent into a series of repeating loops and spirals then it begins to look more like a fractal than a line, and thus more psychedelic. Human perception is linear, but humans live in a nonlinear system. One of the basic limitations of human consciousness in the inability to think exponentially; even with mathematics to assist us, envisioning and predicting exponentially complex systems is a vast conceptual hurdle. Psychedelics destabilize linear perceptions of space and time to produce fractal states of frame layering, bifurcation, and infinite frame recursion. This allows perception to become exponential, to exist in multiple states at once, much like a quantum computer that processes multiple simultaneous probabilities. If normal human imagination is bound within the limits of linear infinity, psychedelic perception is expanded to the limits of exponential or fractal infinity. Psychedelic perception presents a progressive nonlinear bifurcation of recursive self-similar information corresponding to both internal and external perceptual space. The psychedelic layering, bifurcating, and regression of internal and external perceptions creates a timeless, transpersonal perspective of a fractal rendering of time and space.

Although the sense of time is not associated with a specific sensory system the work of psychologists and neuroscientists indicates that human brains do have a system governing the perception of time,[4] composed of a highly distributed system involving the cerebral cortex, cerebellum and basal ganglia. One particular component, the suprachiasmatic nucleus, is responsible for the circadian (or daily) rhythm, while other cell clusters appear to be capable of shorter-range (ultradian) timekeeping.

One of the most striking and immediate features of conscious perception is the passage of time. It is something so familiar to us that it comes as a shock to learn that our wonderfully precise theories of the behaviour of the physical world have had, up to this point, virtually nothing to say about it. Worse than this, what our best physical theories do say is almost in flat contradiction with what our perceptions seem to tell us about time.

According to general relativity, 'time' is merely a particular choice of coordinate in the description of the location of a space-time event. There is nothing in the physicists' space-time descriptions that singles out 'time' as something that 'flows'. Indeed, physicists quite often consider model space-times in which there is only one space dimension in addition to the single time dimension; and in such two-dimensional space-times there is nothing to say which is space and which is time (see Fig. 7.16). Yet, no one would consider space to 'flow'!

It is our apparent experiences that tempt us to bias our computational models of the world in terms of time evolutions (frequently, but not invariably) whilst the physical laws themselves do not contain such a compelling inbuilt bias.

In fact it is only the phenomenon of consciousness that requires us to think in terms of a 'flowing' time at all. According to relativity, one has just a 'static' four-dimensional space-time, with no 'flowing' about it. The space-time is just there and time 'flows' no more than does space. It is only consciousness that seems to need time to flow, so we should not be surprised if the relationship between consciousness and time is strange in other ways too.

Indeed, it would be unwise to make too strong an identification between the phenomenon of conscious awareness, with its seeming 'flowing' of time, and the physicists' use of a real-number parameter t to denote what would be referred to as a 'time coordinate'. In the first place, relativity tells us that there is no uniqueness about the choice of the parameter t, if it is to apply to the space-time as a whole. Many different mutually incompatible alternatives are possible, with nothing particular to choose between one and any other. Second, it is clear that the precise concept of a 'real number' is not completely relevant to our conscious perception of the passage of time, if only for the reason that we have no sensibility of very tiny timescale.

Is it possible to be more specific about the relationship between conscious experience and the parameter t that physicists use as the 'time' in their physical descriptions? Can there really be any experimental way to test 'when' a subjective experience 'actually' takes place, in relation to this physical parameter? Does it even mean anything, in an objective sense, to say that a conscious event takes place at any particular time? In fact certain experiments of definite relevance to this issue have indeed been carried out, but it turns out that the results are distinctly puzzling, and have almost paradoxical implications.