L. A. Paul, PhD. April 2022

Transcript

• 00:02All right. Welcome everyone.
• 00:04Thank you for joining us.
• 00:06We've got a treat today.
• 00:07Laurie Paul in the philosophy
• 00:09department is going to be speaking
• 00:11to us about conceptions of of self
• 00:15and change and how they interact
• 00:18with the the profound experiences
• 00:21that can come from psychedelics.
• 00:23I do want to say just to everyone,
• 00:24I want to apologize that I sent
• 00:26out the wrong link to this meeting.
• 00:27So I'm thrilled that such a large
• 00:28number of people got the corrected
• 00:30link so quickly and and are here,
• 00:33and I apologize to anyone
• 00:34who wasn't able to come even
• 00:35though they're not hearing me say this.
• 00:38Because of my error. So.
• 00:40But we've got a great crowd here.
• 00:41Laura, it's wonderful to have you join us.
• 00:43Thank you. And take it away.
• 00:45OK. So thanks very much for having me.
• 00:47I what I thought I would do is just
• 00:51spend a little bit of time kind
• 00:52of going through the structure,
• 00:54the conceptual structure of transformative
• 00:55experience as I understand it,
• 00:57and draw some connections to psychedelic
• 00:59experience along the way. I know that.
• 01:04Lawyers often just talk for a while
• 01:05and then people have questions.
• 01:07Umm, I can either do that or
• 01:09you can stop me as we go along.
• 01:11I'm sort of happy with either.
• 01:12But let me just start and
• 01:14we can see where we go.
• 01:16OK, so imagine that suddenly
• 01:19a traversable wormhole,
• 01:22which is a tunnel through space-time,
• 01:23opens up a few miles from where you live.
• 01:25OK, this is incredibly exciting.
• 01:27And so you rushed to the scene and
• 01:29discovered that physicists from around
• 01:31the world have also flown into conducted.
• 01:34Comments.
• 01:34And in fact they're super keen
• 01:37to get you to be a volunteer.
• 01:38A research volunteer.
• 01:41And what you're informed is that
• 01:43if you agree to participate,
• 01:44you're going to be sent through the
• 01:46wormhole to an under an undisclosed location,
• 01:49OK?
• 01:49They assure you that it will be safe,
• 01:52that the wormhole is stable enough
• 01:53for you to safely go through it,
• 01:55and that they'll make sure that you end up
• 01:57in a place where you can survive adequately.
• 01:59But once you go through,
• 02:00you can't come back.
• 02:01OK, now?
• 02:02You, of course,
• 02:04are committed to research,
• 02:06as you know, an excellent thinker.
• 02:08And so you say, absolutely,
• 02:09I want to do this.
• 02:09You sign up and you rush back home
• 02:11and start packing your things,
• 02:13make your will and tell your family member,
• 02:15OK.
• 02:16But now think about,
• 02:18as you go to sleep that evening,
• 02:19because it turns out you're going to
• 02:20be living off the whole next morning,
• 02:22how you embark upon this journey.
• 02:24And in particular,
• 02:24as you reflect on what's going
• 02:26to happen the next morning,
• 02:27how are you supposed to imagine what's
• 02:29going to happen to you tomorrow?
• 02:30And also beyond, right,
• 02:31like you know you're going to experience.
• 02:33New and incredible things,
• 02:35but you don't know what these
• 02:37new incredible things will be.
• 02:38And this raises the question like how are
• 02:40you going to mentally prepare yourself,
• 02:41right?
• 02:42How do you plan?
• 02:42How do you make sense of
• 02:44what's going to happen to you?
• 02:46And what I think is that in a very
• 02:48important and distinctive sense,
• 02:49you can't grasp the nature
• 02:51of your impending future,
• 02:52right?
• 02:52You're you can't prospectively grasp it from
• 02:55your current first person point of view, OK?
• 02:57And in particular,
• 02:58you can't imagine the nature and character
• 03:00of what your future will be like.
• 03:02Even if the scientists tell you,
• 03:03give you a certain amount of information,
• 03:05there's a sense in which the
• 03:07new and strange and unknown is
• 03:09going to transform you, OK?
• 03:10And in particular,
• 03:11it's going to transform you both
• 03:13epistemically and personally.
• 03:15And this is the a structure
• 03:17I'd like to talk
• 03:18about. Now, a key with all of this
• 03:20is that it's only in, in fact,
• 03:22of actually having this experience,
• 03:23actually going to the wormhole and
• 03:25discovering what's beyond that.
• 03:26You're really going to know
• 03:27what it's going to be like.
• 03:28And this is actually an important constituent
• 03:31of transformative experience, right?
• 03:33So by actually having this experience,
• 03:35you'll discover amazing new
• 03:36things about the universe,
• 03:38and you'll also discover amazing new
• 03:39things about yourself in particular.
• 03:41You're going to change yourself,
• 03:43and you'll change yourself dramatically.
• 03:45So as I describe it,
• 03:47the experience of traveling through
• 03:49the wormhole is both epistemically
• 03:51and personally transformative, OK?
• 03:53And that is,
• 03:54it's an experience that's both radically new,
• 03:57such that you have to have it to
• 03:58know what it would be like for you.
• 03:59And moreover,
• 04:00the experience will change you in
• 04:02central and significant ways now.
• 04:04Just as a side note,
• 04:07I think that thinking about the
• 04:09conceptual change involved and
• 04:10thinking about the implications it
• 04:12has both for changing the self and
• 04:14I'm happy to talk a little bit more
• 04:16about how I'm thinking about what
• 04:18itself is and also interest there.
• 04:19I think implications for how
• 04:21we think about decision making,
• 04:23both in terms of standard decision theory,
• 04:25but also for applications,
• 04:26for example advanced directives
• 04:28and things like that.
• 04:29And so it's, I think,
• 04:31applicable then to the concept of
• 04:34transform of psychedelic experience.
• 04:35I'd also like to know that there
• 04:37are some interesting connections
• 04:38to how other thinkers have talked
• 04:40about transformation.
• 04:41In particular,
• 04:42Edna Woman Margaret understands the
• 04:44concept of transformative experience
• 04:45as a kind of big life change that sort
• 04:48of has with decision theoretic implications.
• 04:50And I'm happy to talk about
• 04:52that a little bit more too.
• 04:53OK, so to explain what I mean by an
• 04:56epistemic and personal transformation,
• 04:59I'd like to go back to the wormhole example,
• 05:03right,
• 05:03and to think about how that might change us.
• 05:05Um,
• 05:06but also note that there are lots of
• 05:08real life transformative experiences.
• 05:10I think includes ones first
• 05:12experience of psychedelics,
• 05:14I've also argued elsewhere,
• 05:15can include the experience
• 05:17of becoming apparent.
• 05:18I think it can compared to losing or
• 05:20gaining a sensory abilities such as the
• 05:22ability to see or the ability to hear,
• 05:25to going to war for the first time,
• 05:26or perhaps to radical sort of
• 05:29disability and cognitive decline
• 05:32such as can happen with Alzheimer's.
• 05:34OK,
• 05:35so let's go through briefly
• 05:37the conceptual structure of
• 05:38transformative experience.
• 05:40I think it can be helpful to look at
• 05:42examples to understand what I'm saying.
• 05:43So the first conceptual part involves
• 05:47the way that actually having new
• 05:49experiences can teach us things
• 05:50that we didn't know otherwise.
• 05:52And let me illustrate this with
• 05:54one of my favorite cases,
• 05:55the choice or the chance to try Durian.
• 05:59So Durian is known to have a foul smell,
• 06:01but a very distinctive and delicious flavor.
• 06:04And if you've never tried durian,
• 06:06you don't know what it's like to taste it.
• 06:08OK, it doesn't mean you can't
• 06:10understand evocative statements
• 06:11about what it tastes like.
• 06:13Some people will describe it as a combination
• 06:16of strawberry cream eaten next to a sewer.
• 06:18There are a famous chef has described it as.
• 06:23What does he say? He says taste.
• 06:24It's taste can only be
• 06:26described as indescribable,
• 06:27something you either love or despise.
• 06:29And then afterwards your breath will smell
• 06:32as if you've been French kissing a dead rat.
• 06:34OK, so that's very evocative,
• 06:36but you can hear these evocative
• 06:38descriptions. And yet,
• 06:39because this is a new phenomenal experience,
• 06:41you still don't know what durian tastes like.
• 06:43And the only way you're going to know
• 06:44what a durian tastes like is to try it.
• 06:46OK? And when you taste it for the first time,
• 06:49you will have a new experience.
• 06:51OK, so. The way that I described
• 06:53this is that when you discover what
• 06:55it's like to have this new taste,
• 06:57you're undergoing an
• 06:58epistemic transformation,
• 06:59maybe a minor epistemic transformation,
• 07:01but it's an epistemic
• 07:03transformation nonetheless.
• 07:03That is, it's an experience that
• 07:05gives you new information, right?
• 07:07This information,
• 07:08crucially,
• 07:08has to come through having the experience,
• 07:11and in particular,
• 07:12it gives you new abilities.
• 07:14It gives you new abilities to kind
• 07:15of imagine and represent other kinds
• 07:17of experiences that are like it.
• 07:19Now,
• 07:19the durian examples related to
• 07:21a famous thought experiment in
• 07:22philosophy involving a pretend
• 07:23case of a woman named Mary who
• 07:25grows up in a black and white room.
• 07:26In the pretend case,
• 07:28we imagine that she's never seen
• 07:30color and she has lots of friends who
• 07:31tell her what it's like to see color,
• 07:33and she knows all the latest
• 07:35science about the brain and about
• 07:37color and about consciousness.
• 07:39However,
• 07:39does she know what it's like to see red,
• 07:43even though she has all this knowledge
• 07:44and I and many people would answer no,
• 07:47she doesn't and she doesn't because
• 07:48she's only had black and white.
• 07:50Experiences.
• 07:50In order for her to know
• 07:52what it's like to see Red,
• 07:53she has to leave her black and
• 07:55white room and actually go out and
• 07:57experience the world of color.
• 07:58OK.
• 07:59And the point I think behind
• 08:02the Mary example?
• 08:04Because I want to understand,
• 08:05it's not actually the point that many
• 08:07philosophers want to make with regard to
• 08:09it is that for some kinds of experiences,
• 08:11we actually have to have them
• 08:12to know what they're like.
• 08:13OK, so like seeing right for the first time,
• 08:16or tasting something new that's very
• 08:17different from anything you've had before.
• 08:19You have to have that kind of
• 08:20experience to know what it's like.
• 08:22So seeing red, for example,
• 08:24no,
• 08:24that's one part.
• 08:25But the second part of the Nosema
• 08:27transformation is also crucial.
• 08:29And the idea here is that knowing or
• 08:32discovering what it's like to see red or.
• 08:34Tasted durian gives us a kind of
• 08:36information about the content
• 08:38of that experience,
• 08:39and that information is inaccessible
• 08:40to you until you've actually
• 08:42had the experience, right?
• 08:43And a philosopher will argue,
• 08:46at least I'll argue,
• 08:47that what you're doing when you go out
• 08:49and actually have the experience of
• 08:50seeing red is that you're discovering
• 08:52something about color under a
• 08:54particular mode of of experience,
• 08:55the kind of visual mode or the mode
• 08:58of consciousness. All right, so.
• 09:01These kinds of experiences, arguably,
• 09:03that are essential for a certain kind of
• 09:05human understanding or knowing, right?
• 09:06And the third part of this that I
• 09:08think is maybe not as essential to
• 09:11thinking about psychedelic experience,
• 09:12although it may be essential to thinking
• 09:14about doing testing on subjects
• 09:17involving psychedelic experience,
• 09:18is that this kind of knowing and
• 09:20understanding about an experience
• 09:21can be important to us,
• 09:23and in particular it might be important
• 09:24for certain kinds of decision making.
• 09:26If the decision crucially involved the
• 09:28kind of experience we haven't had before,
• 09:29then we can lack the information we
• 09:31need in order to make the decision
• 09:33in the way that we want to.
• 09:35And just very quickly,
• 09:36I'm going to run through an illustration
• 09:39of this again using the durian.
• 09:41So imagine that you are in Thailand
• 09:43and you have the choice of having
• 09:45right pineapple or durian for breakfast
• 09:46and you can't decide which one,
• 09:48but you've never had durian.
• 09:50Well,
• 09:50here's a way that you cannot make
• 09:52the decision right.
• 09:53You can't make the decision by
• 09:54choosing the one that you prefer.
• 09:56The taste that you like better, right?
• 09:58Why can't you?
• 09:58Because you don't know how to
• 10:00assign value to the table.
• 10:02Having a durian because you've never had one.
• 10:04You could choose,
• 10:05maybe based on what you'd like to try,
• 10:07but that's a different kind of decision.
• 10:09And the very same problem arises
• 10:10for a version of a Mary case where
• 10:13Mary has given the choice to leave
• 10:15her black and white moon,
• 10:16but she wants to decide,
• 10:17based on how much she'll enjoy seeing color,
• 10:19of how she'll value living in
• 10:21a world of color.
• 10:22And again,
• 10:22there's a way in which she can't assign
• 10:24values to some of the outcomes in her.
• 10:27Decision model,
• 10:27so she can't build as a decision
• 10:29model in the way that she wants to.
• 10:31OK now.
• 10:36This matters when you're
• 10:37making choices for yourself,
• 10:38but it can also matter quite important when
• 10:40you're making choices for other people.
• 10:41Imagine that you had to make a choice
• 10:43for your autistic child, right?
• 10:44And your choice about maybe how
• 10:46they're going to be cared for,
• 10:47their living arrangements,
• 10:48or something else,
• 10:49depending on the nature of
• 10:51sensory overload for them.
• 10:52You're going to find yourself,
• 10:53unless you yourself are autistic,
• 10:55having the same or similar sorts
• 10:56of problems when you try to
• 10:58build a decision model based on
• 11:00what you think it's like to have
• 11:02sensory overload to apply it to.
• 11:04To carrying or the,
• 11:05I guess the constraints of care for your son.
• 11:09The National Autistic Society in
• 11:10the UK recognizes this problem
• 11:12and in response developed.
• 11:13We are immersion experience for parents,
• 11:16trying to teach them something
• 11:17about what it's like to have sensory
• 11:19overload in order to help them,
• 11:20right?
• 11:21And this is arguably a kind
• 11:23of larger reason might be our
• 11:25technology is so important I think,
• 11:27and why there's been so much
• 11:29investment put into this.
• 11:30In other words,
• 11:30the idea is that this kind
• 11:32of first person immersion,
• 11:33first person experience.
• 11:34Carries a distinctive kind of
• 11:36character and content as distinctive
• 11:38kind of information that we
• 11:39can't get in other ways,
• 11:41and in particular we can't get it
• 11:43through exploring the testimony
• 11:45of those that had the experiences.
• 11:48Now consider a different application.
• 11:50Consider the possibility of a congenital,
• 11:52congenitally blind adult who's about to
• 11:54experience vision for the first time.
• 11:56Maybe he's going to have a retina
• 11:58operation that will give him
• 11:59something resembling ordinary vision.
• 12:01He wants to do it,
• 12:02his doctor tells him he should do it.
• 12:03He decides he wants to do it.
• 12:05And then imagine that he's in the
• 12:06same situation that you were in when
• 12:08you were about to jump to the world.
• 12:09In other words,
• 12:10it's the night before the operation,
• 12:12and he's reflecting on the nature
• 12:14of his life as it is to be.
• 12:16In other words,
• 12:17he knows he's going to have an operation.
• 12:19He's going to gain something
• 12:20that's close to ordinary vision,
• 12:21and he's reflecting on what
• 12:23his future is going to be like.
• 12:25And again,
• 12:25there's a very distinctive and
• 12:27salient way in which he can't
• 12:29project himself into his future
• 12:31and can't then assess what his
• 12:33future is going to be like.
• 12:35And the way I think about this is that
• 12:38the blind man faces an epistemic wall,
• 12:41right?
• 12:41There's a way in which you can't see forward,
• 12:43a way in which he kind of
• 12:45can't conceptualize the nature
• 12:47of his new experience.
• 12:48A different way to think about this,
• 12:50in terms of thinking about blind
• 12:52individuals is imagine if you are a
• 12:54version of what's called Molly knows problem,
• 12:56where you take a blind person
• 12:58who knows what it's like to what
• 13:00what a what a cube feels like
• 13:02and what a spear feels like,
• 13:04right?
• 13:04And so they know haptically
• 13:06what these shapes are
• 13:07like. And then imagine if after
• 13:09right after his operation,
• 13:10the blind man was confronted with a cube and
• 13:12sphere but was not allowed to touch them,
• 13:14could he distinguish between them, right?
• 13:16This isn't merely a hypothetical. Experiment.
• 13:19There actually is empirical work on this,
• 13:21and the work suggests that no, in fact,
• 13:24blind individuals can't immediately
• 13:25distinguish between the cone sort
• 13:27of between the sphere and the cube.
• 13:29They have to actually learn
• 13:31how to distinguish them.
• 13:32Which suggests that there's something
• 13:34distinctive that they're learning when they
• 13:36discover what it's like to see the cube,
• 13:38to see the sphere,
• 13:39something that is that extends past
• 13:41the geometric facts that they're
• 13:44able to represent haptically.
• 13:46And I'm just going to,
• 13:46I'm going to,
• 13:47I'm talking fast because I wanted
• 13:48to like be able to explore things
• 13:50for us to have some questions.
• 13:52But what I want to say is that
• 13:53I'm only know example.
• 13:55And maybe the larger example
• 13:57involving the blind man suggests that
• 14:00experience of things under a new mode
• 14:04presentation teaches us a different,
• 14:06how can I put it teaches us something
• 14:08by endowing with us with a new mode of
• 14:10presentation of that information and
• 14:11that we value that OK and then we use
• 14:14that in certain kinds of decision making.
• 14:16I think we also use it when we
• 14:17think about the nature of our life,
• 14:19and one of the cool things about
• 14:21psychedelic experience is that it
• 14:23seems to be that sort of thing.
• 14:25In other words, when you engage.
• 14:29With the drug such that you
• 14:30have a psychedelic experience,
• 14:31you're presented with elements of the world,
• 14:34in a sense, under a new mode of presentation,
• 14:36the nature and character of
• 14:38your sensory experience changes.
• 14:40And what's interesting about this,
• 14:41about this kind of epistemic transformation,
• 14:44is that, and it seems to scale up.
• 14:47In other words,
• 14:47and this is out on a parallel to the
• 14:49wormhole case and a parallel to our
• 14:51blind person who's going to become cited,
• 14:53the idea is that when you get this change
• 14:55in terms of a mode of presentation,
• 14:58it creates an epistemic.
• 14:59Change that's so profound that it
• 15:02scales up into a personal change and a
• 15:05personal change in the sense that if
• 15:06we think of a self in terms of a kind
• 15:09of first personal stance towards the world,
• 15:11involving representing what the
• 15:12world is like and what you are
• 15:15like as an agent in that world,
• 15:16if you undergo a radical epistemic shift
• 15:18in terms of how the world and how you
• 15:21yourself are presented to the world,
• 15:22it can change who you are.
• 15:26And that, I think, might be a framework
• 15:28to understand something of what's
• 15:29happening in certain kinds of cases.
• 15:31Psychedelic transformation.
• 15:35Briefly, there's also an application
• 15:37then to the research that we do
• 15:39on subjects involving psychedelic
• 15:41transformation or psychedelic experience.
• 15:43That's related, I think,
• 15:45to questions about subjective consent.
• 15:47It's not that.
• 15:48I mean, I'm a fan of, obviously.
• 15:49I think that we can get consent
• 15:50in ways that we might want to.
• 15:52But I think there are
• 15:53interesting questions here,
• 15:54because if you have to have an experience
• 15:56to know what's going to be like for you,
• 15:58and if in fact undergoing this
• 16:00experience is going to change who
• 16:02you are in some essential sense,
• 16:03then how are we supposed to
• 16:05frame the kinds of consent?
• 16:06That we're looking for when we're
• 16:08asking subjects to undergo this
• 16:09experience and talk more about that.
• 16:11But I think there are real questions
• 16:13about whether or not we can kind of
• 16:15rationally engage in a consent based
• 16:16process especially one that involves
• 16:18an experience is going to change us
• 16:20so fundamentally on the other end.
• 16:22So that was super quick,
• 16:23but I'm happy to talk to,
• 16:25to answer questions or talk some more,
• 16:27but I wanted to just kind of
• 16:29give a brief pitch before we.
• 16:31For everyone to think about.
• 16:39Oh, so how does this work?
• 16:40Chris? Do it any way we wanted
• 16:42to, but I see Phil's hand up.
• 16:46Hi, Lori, that was awesome.
• 16:49So, so interesting to think about how
• 16:53these compounds might intersect with,
• 16:55with your ideas about transformation.
• 16:58I want to push you a little
• 17:00bit on a couple of things.
• 17:02One is how important do you think
• 17:05the the person's expectation is
• 17:07going in and therefore what relevance
• 17:10might regret or counterfactuals have
• 17:13with regards to how someone finds
• 17:15something to be transformative?
• 17:17And I raised that because. Right.
• 17:19It was April 19th this week,
• 17:21Bicycle day, right,
• 17:23the very first time somebody accidentally
• 17:26ingested LSD and the ingestor,
• 17:28Albert Hoffman,
• 17:29the inventor of this problem child,
• 17:31wrote in his lab notebook the
• 17:33things that he was experiencing.
• 17:35And they weren't particularly pleasant and
• 17:37they weren't particularly transformative.
• 17:39He got quite paranoid and he thought that
• 17:41there were devils trying to mess with him,
• 17:43essentially.
• 17:44And so I'm wondering whether,
• 17:47you know, first of all,
• 17:49do these actual.
• 17:50Transformative things happen or do
• 17:51we just expect them to happen and
• 17:53therefore they manifest through some
• 17:55sort of perceptual control and 2nd
• 17:57like how important do you think that is,
• 18:00whether it has to be an authentic
• 18:02experience or or or something that
• 18:04was sort of derived from the kind
• 18:07of cultural baggage that these
• 18:08sorts of things have have acquired?
• 18:11OK. There's a lot there and it's also,
• 18:12I could say, even more than I probably
• 18:14should, but so thank you. Cool.
• 18:18So the first question with expectation,
• 18:23there's a kind of very,
• 18:25I have a very broad or how can I put
• 18:27it simple definition of epistemic
• 18:30transformation such that it's a kind of
• 18:32experience that just changes like that.
• 18:35How can I put it changes what you know?
• 18:38And so it's not clear to me that the
• 18:41experience that he had wasn't transformative.
• 18:44It just may not have been
• 18:45personally transformative.
• 18:46In other words, I think it involved.
• 18:51A changed kind of representation
• 18:53to the external world.
• 18:55I sometimes think of it as somehow
• 18:57presenting the properties of the
• 18:58world to you in a different way.
• 19:00And that's, I know that's,
• 19:02I mean it's it's famously hard
• 19:03to talk about these things in
• 19:04an acceptable sense, right?
• 19:05Try to describe what it's like
• 19:07even just to see read to somebody
• 19:09and quickly words run out.
• 19:10And so the thought is that the
• 19:13nature of the experience would be
• 19:15epistemically transformative as long
• 19:17as the nature and character of of.
• 19:19His uh, representations were
• 19:21different in a way that extended
• 19:24past his previous experiences, right?
• 19:27And then there's a further question
• 19:29about whether or not that was like,
• 19:32significant personally.
• 19:33OK, so but I do think that.
• 19:36Umm.
• 19:38The way that we Orient ourselves going
• 19:40into these experiences is going to affect
• 19:42our interpretation and then by extension,
• 19:44looks it affect the the
• 19:45nature of the experience.
• 19:47Because I don't think that the
• 19:49interface between perception
• 19:50and cognition is clear here,
• 19:52right?
• 19:52Or I don't think there's a kind
• 19:53of a clear line and we have these
• 19:54conversations and other kinds of conflicts,
• 19:56right?
• 19:56Umm,
• 19:57no,
• 19:58I was watching something.
• 19:59I'm trying to pause it.
• 20:02OK.
• 20:05Umm, so I don't deny that to have maybe
• 20:11a personally transformative experience
• 20:12of the sort that you see in the
• 20:14discussions of with Second Olympics,
• 20:16because you might not have to kind of
• 20:18prepare yourself in a particular way.
• 20:19But an interesting question is
• 20:20maybe with clinical applications,
• 20:22how do you prepare someone for a
• 20:24psychedelic experience when you can't
• 20:25describe two of them in a relevant sense,
• 20:27what it's like, right?
• 20:28And I guess the idea is we try to prepare
• 20:31them emotionally for something, right?
• 20:32It's like another example I have involves.
• 20:36Say somebody's been incarcerated
• 20:37for 25 or 30 years, right,
• 20:39and is about to be released from prison.
• 20:41And I have to go in front of the parole
• 20:42board and convince the parole board that
• 20:44they're ready to kind of, you know,
• 20:45refuse temptations of various sorts.
• 20:46This is a person who's never even
• 20:48seen a smartphone,
• 20:49at least not directly,
• 20:50and never even used the Internet.
• 20:51And I think there's a way in which they
• 20:54can't possibly prepare themselves for
• 20:56life on the outside and including kind
• 20:58of resisting temptation because they
• 20:59don't know what it is they're in for.
• 21:01And so I think there's an interesting
• 21:03kind of conceptual problem here
• 21:04that that I hope would be.
• 21:05We can't solve it,
• 21:06but I can at least articulate
• 21:07the conceptual framework.
• 21:12Laurie, there's a,
• 21:13I think a really interesting question in
• 21:15the chat from Anahita about, you know,
• 21:18isn't this true of all experiences
• 21:19that we don't really know what they are?
• 21:21And so I guess another way to frame that is,
• 21:24is a qualitative difference about
• 21:26psychedelic experience or other experiences
• 21:29of the class that you're describing,
• 21:30or is it a quantitative one that just
• 21:33all experiences are transformative?
• 21:35But it's kind of silly to use that word
• 21:37until you cross some quantitative threshold?
• 21:42Yeah. So OK, now we're going
• 21:43to do a little metaphysics, OK,
• 21:45so I think it's very important.
• 21:49Once someone needs
• 21:50to mute if you please. Oh, I did good.
• 21:55OK, so I think. This is one reason why
• 22:00I distinguish between kind of a minor
• 22:02epistemic transformation and maybe a
• 22:03more significant one that actually
• 22:05scales up into a personal change.
• 22:06So, Umm, it's true that we're always
• 22:09having new kinds of new new experiences.
• 22:13Like very often married minor,
• 22:14minor new experiences.
• 22:15Like I walked into my office today,
• 22:17and the light, the character of the
• 22:19light was slightly different probably
• 22:20than any other time I've seen my office.
• 22:22My desk was maybe messy in a
• 22:24slightly different way than you
• 22:25know than it ordinarily is.
• 22:27So my experience of walking into my office.
• 22:29Slightly different. But.
• 22:33Afternoon, we don't even notice.
• 22:34Like those kinds of variations.
• 22:35Maybe it's a little bit epistemically
• 22:37transformative in some sense,
• 22:38but it's not transformative
• 22:40in an interesting way.
• 22:41What I think is interesting is when
• 22:44we have new kinds of experiences.
• 22:48And again,
• 22:49it's where there are famously
• 22:51blurry blurry lines between slightly
• 22:53different instances of the same
• 22:55experience and we're kind of shifts
• 22:57over into kind of actually an
• 22:58experience in a new kind of category.
• 23:00So that's where the metaphysics comes in and.
• 23:03I tend to focus on very clear cases.
• 23:05If there's a case where the
• 23:07experience is just a little bit
• 23:09different from some of our other
• 23:11experiences we've had in the past,
• 23:13I think that.
• 23:13But there's probably enough similarity
• 23:15that we can draw on that to make
• 23:17the projective assessments at least
• 23:18in relevant cases that we need to
• 23:20make and ideally make the kinds
• 23:21of decisions that we want to make.
• 23:22And they also don't tend to be then
• 23:25revelatory in the epistemic way that's
• 23:27necessary to kind of change the kind
• 23:30of structure of someone first personally.
• 23:33So.
• 23:35I don't think it's silly to use
• 23:36the word transformative experience.
• 23:37I use that word.
• 23:40With care,
• 23:40what I'm trying to do is kind of capture
• 23:43something about the the nature of
• 23:46how transformative is ordinarily used.
• 23:48But then,
• 23:49like in my work,
• 23:50I try to be much more precise
• 23:51and think about notions of value
• 23:54and questions about building in
• 23:56particular decision theoretic models
• 23:57where we have to where we think of
• 24:00value functions and getting inputs
• 24:01and being able to assign outputs.
• 24:03And at the very least maybe trying
• 24:05to develop various kinds of scales
• 24:07for different kinds of value
• 24:08assessments and and make meaningful.
• 24:10Harrisons.
• 24:12Happy to say more about that,
• 24:13but that's basically my take.
• 24:14It's a good,
• 24:15it's a good question.
• 24:15I can I can say more if I haven't
• 24:17answered it enough for people.
• 24:23Yeah, I have a question.
• 24:24I really enjoy the talk so far.
• 24:27So I guess one thought I had on
• 24:29this same line of of thought is,
• 24:31in this framework of transformative
• 24:33experiences for you,
• 24:34is it possible to have a false
• 24:36transformative experience?
• 24:37Meaning that an experience which
• 24:39doesn't actually change one's
• 24:41values or appraisal of, you know,
• 24:43the current situation or future,
• 24:45the value of the decision
• 24:46that the person made,
• 24:47but which does convey the
• 24:50revelatory experience and makes
• 24:52you feel that that has happened?
• 24:54It's interesting.
• 24:58I'm sure it does. So one of the
• 24:59things I'm really interested
• 25:01in involves self deception, OK?
• 25:02And you just described kind of a case of
• 25:04where there's a kind of self deception.
• 25:08But actually, let me explore this
• 25:09a little bit. So is the thought.
• 25:11So what I'm arguing is that
• 25:12in certain kinds of context,
• 25:14when there's a kind of an epistemic
• 25:17revelation like you discover the like
• 25:19a new kind of mode of presentation
• 25:22of the world and it's significant.
• 25:24Like you take it to be significant.
• 25:27There's a sense in which that's
• 25:29just going to change you, right.
• 25:31And it changes how you think
• 25:33you view the world,
• 25:34just to kind of be consistent
• 25:36with your example.
• 25:37So there's a kind of higher order
• 25:39self representation that's clearly
• 25:40changed and yet there's an element
• 25:42of self deception because as you're
• 25:43suggesting like some of your basic
• 25:45moral values haven't changed the
• 25:46way that you're thinking about what
• 25:48you want to do hasn't changed.
• 25:49But I would say if the higher
• 25:51order self conception has changed,
• 25:53that counts as a change in self under.
• 25:56I mean I think in in, in many relevant.
• 25:57And I'm happy to say I'm not talking
• 25:59about when I say someone has changed,
• 26:01like has changed their like who
• 26:02they are in some sense.
• 26:04I'm not saying everything has changed.
• 26:05Many fundamental psychological
• 26:06dispositions are probably the same.
• 26:09But if this person thinks there's
• 26:10a kind of persistent change and
• 26:11that's reflected in kind of at
• 26:12least a persisting higher order
• 26:14difference in how one regards oneself.
• 26:15And I would say, yeah,
• 26:16that entails the kind of transformative
• 26:18experience that I'm describing.
• 26:20So I guess my answer would be maybe
• 26:22it's not possible if the right
• 26:23kinds of epistemic constraints are,
• 26:25are, are, are, are in play.
• 26:27Thanks.
• 26:30Hey, can I just add to that because I was,
• 26:33I'm sort of intrigued by by AL's question.
• 26:35So when I was a graduate student,
• 26:38we did some experiments with amphetamines.
• 26:42And our pilot subjects were other graduate
• 26:44students from different departments,
• 26:46not from our own.
• 26:47And one of the effects of a fairly
• 26:50high dose of amphetamine is the
• 26:52sort of pseudo profound insight.
• 26:54So the other graduate students would have
• 26:56these flights of ideas and they'd say,
• 26:59Phil, get your notebook.
• 27:00I've just solved everything for you.
• 27:01Just write this down.
• 27:02I know exactly what you need to do to
• 27:05solve this problem that you're working on.
• 27:07And so I would get my notebook and
• 27:09pen and get ready to write down.
• 27:12The insight and it would be gone and
• 27:14they'd move on to the next thing.
• 27:16So I think to sort of frame our
• 27:18question slightly differently,
• 27:19you can have an experience of awe
• 27:22or insight without actually sort of.
• 27:28Or embodying that that insight, right.
• 27:30Yes. Yes. Yeah. So one thing I didn't say
• 27:32in response to his question was to say,
• 27:34look, they take virtual experiences, right.
• 27:37There's this interesting thing
• 27:38where there's a sense in which
• 27:40a virtual experience isn't real.
• 27:41OK. I mean, you're not, you know,
• 27:43whatever is you're flying or something that
• 27:45you're not really flying and yet you're
• 27:48still having a certain kind of experience.
• 27:50And so we have to distinguish between.
• 27:53Um, getting um,
• 27:54the kinds of information you can
• 27:56get just from having an experience
• 27:57and then one might say like whether
• 27:59or not there's anything,
• 28:00there's any content,
• 28:01any significant let's they believe for other
• 28:03kinds of content associated with that.
• 28:07Here I want and this is a little
• 28:10bit related to like what I said,
• 28:12what I said to was it all OK?
• 28:16But we want to distinguish them between
• 28:18what are the causal consequences
• 28:19of merely discovering the nature
• 28:21and character of that experience,
• 28:23and then what are the causal consequences of,
• 28:25like discovering new content,
• 28:26if there is any, right.
• 28:27And I think we can have downstream
• 28:29consequences in both cases.
• 28:31It's just really important to distinguish
• 28:32between those and not think that.
• 28:34So, for example, with psychedelics,
• 28:36one of the things that's fascinating,
• 28:37I mean many things, obviously,
• 28:39is that, you know, intelligent, smart,
• 28:41thoughtful people will go and have a
• 28:43psychedelic experience and know afterwards,
• 28:45after they've recovered,
• 28:45say, look,
• 28:46I've changed the way that I think about.
• 28:47Like myself in the nature of the
• 28:49world and I think but you're a drug,
• 28:51you know like you were on a drug it
• 28:53was you know in some sense you know
• 28:54you were kind of misrepresenting the
• 28:56nature of reality and yet you think
• 28:58there's there's some interesting
• 28:59implication here and I think that's
• 29:01coherent but figuring out how it could
• 29:03be coherent and I don't mean that
• 29:05they're having a spiritual revelation.
• 29:06I know that some people do.
• 29:07I mean that they feel like they
• 29:09kind of went back to they're saying
• 29:11very scientifically kind of maybe
• 29:13non spiritual sense of thinking
• 29:15about the world and yet they think
• 29:18they've learned something.
• 29:20I want to say that in this kind of context,
• 29:22maybe what they've learned is something
• 29:23about how the mind meets the world.
• 29:25Like they've learned something about
• 29:26how by changing the way that their mind
• 29:29met the world through chemical means,
• 29:30there's something kind of deep
• 29:32that they understand about the
• 29:34structure of of that relationship
• 29:35and can't really say more clearly.
• 29:37But I'm fascinated by this possibility,
• 29:39and I think there's a kind of
• 29:40philosophical implication of it.
• 29:45Emmanuel.
• 29:49Emmanuel, you're muted.
• 29:51Sorry, you think I I learned
• 29:53by now after two years.
• 29:55This is a fascinating discussion.
• 29:58Your your example that you
• 29:59gave of Mary, I think it
• 30:01was who was in a room
• 30:02with the black and white and then
• 30:04she'll never know color until
• 30:05she sees it made me think of,
• 30:07I believe back in the 70s and 80s they
• 30:10had experiments where they raised
• 30:11cats in a room with a strobe light,
• 30:13so they couldn't identify moving objects
• 30:15the same way and they actually measured
• 30:17in their visual cortex that that the
• 30:20layout was completely different. And
• 30:21I believe that some of the cats
• 30:23will were able to eventually learn. But so
• 30:26this, this made me think about how
• 30:29there's also a lot of variability
• 30:31in between people and how
• 30:32they experience psychedelics.
• 30:34And as a practical example in
• 30:36the studies that I've done,
• 30:38there are some some some subjects
• 30:41without even having their own
• 30:43personal experience who are just very
• 30:44much, you know invested in the in the
• 30:47idea of of psychedelics and maybe had
• 30:49tried pot before, so it had some idea
• 30:51of. Of what to expect.
• 30:53And then there are others
• 30:54who just wanted treatment.
• 30:56They didn't care what the medication
• 30:58was they they knew that they were
• 31:00going to experience some some changes
• 31:01but you know,
• 31:02didn't really care what it was and
• 31:04they would have very different
• 31:05experiences on the test days.
• 31:07So it just made me think about how
• 31:09there's going to be a lot of variability
• 31:11based on your life experiences.
• 31:13And the example of the cats being raised
• 31:16in strobe light versus not isn't
• 31:18it is an extreme example, but
• 31:20I think that
• 31:21that sort of. Why
• 31:23I've seen a lot of variability
• 31:24with with how people experience
• 31:27psychedelics because they they have
• 31:28been raised in different environments
• 31:30or have different ideas about
• 31:31what to expect and that goes back
• 31:33to expectancy that was that was
• 31:35offered earlier as a confounder to.
• 31:38So that's a lot.
• 31:39I don't know if you have
• 31:40any comments on that.
• 31:42Yeah. No, I appreciate the
• 31:43remarks and I think it both,
• 31:46it connects both to Phil's point about how.
• 31:53I guess the beliefs and attitudes that
• 31:54you have going in can affect the nature
• 31:56of the experience you have because it
• 31:58affects in some sense the interpretation
• 32:00of the perceptual changes, right,
• 32:02and your emotional response to them.
• 32:05But I also think it connects to these
• 32:07problems like problems with testimony
• 32:09that I'm that I'm concerned with.
• 32:11In other words, Umm, one of the ways,
• 32:14OK, so one of the ways I think that we,
• 32:17when we, we contemplate having
• 32:19a new kind of experience.
• 32:22We often like we'll rely on testimony
• 32:24or trying to go and try to get
• 32:25anecdotal or maybe scientific
• 32:26testimony to try to decide whether
• 32:27or not we want to do something.
• 32:29And what's important sometimes in
• 32:32this case is that we understand which
• 32:35testimony applies to us, right?
• 32:37Because some people will say,
• 32:38well, I responded this way,
• 32:39other people will say they
• 32:40responded this way.
• 32:41And there's already the problem of
• 32:42being able to kind of understand
• 32:44what's being communicated,
• 32:45given that we're talking about experience
• 32:47and languages kind of famously
• 32:50poor at communicating experience,
• 32:51but on top of it.
• 32:53We're being asked to try to
• 32:56understand which like which person's
• 32:58testimony will apply to us.
• 33:00And often the way we do that is we simulate.
• 33:02We think, OK,
• 33:03well,
• 33:03this is the kind of person I am and so
• 33:06I'll respond in the following sort of way.
• 33:08But the problem is in this context,
• 33:11we don't have the capacity to simulate.
• 33:13So there's a distinctive version of what
• 33:15we call the reference class problem,
• 33:17like in terms of like how to locate
• 33:20yourself basically like in the subject pool,
• 33:22so that you know.
• 33:23Um,
• 33:24which kind of data applies to you and
• 33:26how you and how you can then use what
• 33:28we think is going to happen to you,
• 33:30or at least what we what happens
• 33:31to various members of populations?
• 33:32Now you can apply that that message
• 33:34to yourself.
• 33:37So yes. And I'm, I mean again,
• 33:40so my job is usually to raise
• 33:42questions rather than answer them.
• 33:43So I'm not going to, I'm not answering
• 33:46anyone's question aside from saying,
• 33:48yeah, so, so I agree that this is a
• 33:49problem and these are some of the ways,
• 33:51I think interesting ways in which
• 33:53it starts to come out. Makes sense?
• 33:59There was another person,
• 34:01Anahita also who who was going to ask
• 34:05a question and and I just wasn't sure.
• 34:08I don't want to call you out,
• 34:09but I saw you. Yeah, I did.
• 34:11But so because I already asked the question,
• 34:14the comments I just wanted
• 34:16but but I can ask it now.
• 34:18So I was just wondering.
• 34:21So I've seen.
• 34:24Many people who had secondary
• 34:26experience and they,
• 34:27they call it transformative,
• 34:28but also some other people who
• 34:31had really very intense and also
• 34:33different kind of like emotions
• 34:35and perceptions and sensations,
• 34:37all those kind of like psychotic effects,
• 34:40but it was not really
• 34:42transformative for them.
• 34:43Like they didn't it didn't change
• 34:45their world view or anything
• 34:47kind of like really major.
• 34:49So, so that's what?
• 34:51So I was wondering if we can say this
• 34:54transformation is kind of like we can
• 34:57say it's an interaction between the
• 34:59people who experience it and the psychedelic,
• 35:02and not just a characteristic of
• 35:06the psychedelic compound itself.
• 35:08That's great.
• 35:08And so again, here for me is again,
• 35:11why I like to talk about epistemic
• 35:13transformation and personal transformation.
• 35:15The way that I define a transformative
• 35:17experience in my work is to say,
• 35:19well, when you have both the
• 35:21epistemic side and the personal side.
• 35:23And that kind of,
• 35:24I think fits with at least the
• 35:25kind of the kind of more ordinary
• 35:26notion of transformative experience,
• 35:28at least broadly.
• 35:29But the notion of just epistemic
• 35:32transformation is, again,
• 35:33I think that's the key one in many ways,
• 35:34I think for psychedelic experience.
• 35:36So it's like short or sometimes.
• 35:38People,
• 35:39maybe there's ego dissolution or
• 35:40whatever in some significant way.
• 35:41And, you know, I mean,
• 35:42so sometimes people really will
• 35:44change something very basic about,
• 35:46you know,
• 35:46who they are as at least in the
• 35:48way that I would define that.
• 35:49But the really interesting thing
• 35:51is the epistemic change.
• 35:52And just to go back to some of the
• 35:54things that we were saying before,
• 35:55it's like when when you change the way
• 35:57that you represent the world through
• 35:59chemical means or through other means,
• 36:02it's just through discovering some new,
• 36:03you know,
• 36:04like some entirely new sensory capacity,
• 36:07let's say.
• 36:09If there's a kind of revelation there,
• 36:10even if it's,
• 36:11one might say,
• 36:12nearly an epistemic revelation.
• 36:14And I think there it's just
• 36:16kind of philosophically and
• 36:18scientifically extremely interesting,
• 36:20even if it doesn't have the kind of
• 36:22downstream effects that many people in
• 36:24the population might be interested in.
• 36:26And obviously there are.
• 36:27There's a question of like you want a
• 36:29certain amount of epistemic change to
• 36:30lead to the right kinds of like clinical,
• 36:32like the right kinds of
• 36:34like health based changes.
• 36:35But it needn't revise one sense of self,
• 36:38let's say I think in all contexts,
• 36:40at least for me to count as at
• 36:43least epistemic transformative
• 36:44and therefore quite interesting.
• 36:46No. Maybe I'll say one reason.
• 36:48That's another reason why I
• 36:49think that kind of philosophy
• 36:50is actually useful here, to make
• 36:52these distinctions when we're kind of
• 36:54framing the ways that we might want
• 36:56to kind of explore some questions.
• 36:59So. So one of the things that really worries
• 37:01me here is is called Collider bias, right?
• 37:04So the types of people who volunteer
• 37:07for our studies are the types of people
• 37:11who already believe in and expect and
• 37:13want and desire this sort of change.
• 37:16And so we have colleagues around the
• 37:19world now in this sort of booming
• 37:22cottage industry of giving psychedelics
• 37:24and looking for epistemic change,
• 37:25who will make claims like, oh,
• 37:27you know, our participants.
• 37:29Now believe in panpsychism.
• 37:32And, and if you actually,
• 37:33you know, address previously what
• 37:35they thought coming in,
• 37:36they were already inclined towards
• 37:39panpsychism and they just became
• 37:42more entrenched in that view having
• 37:44had the psychedelic experience.
• 37:46And So what I've been trying to do is,
• 37:48is find instances where experiences
• 37:50with psychedelics were either non
• 37:52consensual or LED someone to become
• 37:55more right wing in their beliefs.
• 37:57And the only instance I can find is,
• 38:00is of both cases.
• 38:01So it's actually with the
• 38:03Elm Shinrikyo cult in Japan.
• 38:05So they were being exposed to low
• 38:08doses of psychedelics by their leader
• 38:11and did not become more panpsychist
• 38:14actually as a group became much more
• 38:16right wing in their views to the
• 38:19point where they decided to release
• 38:21sarin gas on on the Tokyo subway.
• 38:24And so I I guess I'm again kind of not
• 38:27wanting to sound like a broken record,
• 38:31but I think.
• 38:32You know,
• 38:33the people that are in our studies
• 38:35currently really want this type of
• 38:37change and so it's not clear to
• 38:39me whether the compound itself is
• 38:42necessarily facilitating change or the.
• 38:46Experience that one has changed
• 38:47in a manner that one desired to
• 38:49change in the first place.
• 38:52If I can add Phil,
• 38:54it's not just the expectancy of the.
• 38:57The people who are really looking
• 38:59for this change, but also. Umm.
• 39:03The what the researchers bring to
• 39:06it and how they are framing this,
• 39:09it's really a powerful message that some
• 39:11of the researchers are giving to patients,
• 39:14and it feeds into their expectations
• 39:16in a way that may be actually just as
• 39:19important as the effects of the drug.
• 39:23Right. OK. So let me.
• 39:30I think there's a number of issues there.
• 39:31There are a number of moving parts here and
• 39:33so it's because I take the general like the,
• 39:36the point being that you know there's
• 39:38these ways of the problem is first
• 39:40you've got you can't identify the right,
• 39:42you haven't got the right population
• 39:43to do the experimental work on.
• 39:45And then also part of what both
• 39:48of you are saying is that. Umm.
• 39:52Particular orientations obviously are
• 39:53infecting people's response as well as the
• 39:55population that you're starting with, right?
• 39:59Again, I think it's really important
• 40:01to distinguish between the
• 40:02epistemic change involved and the
• 40:03personal change involved, right.
• 40:05Let's start with like just with the
• 40:07epistemic change and within that and
• 40:09just feel just to go back to like
• 40:12perception versus cognition, right,
• 40:14like you could think and the other person's.
• 40:18Deepak, is that and you got you,
• 40:20you could think. That, Umm,
• 40:23there's a blend of perception and cognition,
• 40:26so there's never any kind of epistemic
• 40:28transformation doesn't involve both.
• 40:29But you don't have to think that, OK,
• 40:32you could think that perception is
• 40:34basically a prior in some sense to cognition,
• 40:37that things are encapsulated in some sense,
• 40:39the way that, say,
• 40:40branchal would think that they are.
• 40:41And yet you have the perceptual experience
• 40:44that causes an epistemic change,
• 40:46like a cognitive change,
• 40:48but not at the personal level yet, right?
• 40:50It's just that. When that.
• 40:52Cognitive changes is.
• 40:55Significant enough or if it's a change,
• 41:00if that kind of perceptual change.
• 41:03Happens to somebody who's got the
• 41:05right kind of cognitive stance,
• 41:06maybe they're biased in the right
• 41:08kinds of ways.
• 41:09Then it's just more likely to kind of
• 41:11cause personal change as well, right.
• 41:13And so.
• 41:14So I think part of what I'm saying is.
• 41:19It's important to separate out the
• 41:21epistemic side from the personal side.
• 41:23And I think it's further like
• 41:24this interesting question about
• 41:26like perception versus cognition.
• 41:27I think there's a way in which we
• 41:29can understand the problem in each on
• 41:31each side of things and that might
• 41:33be relevant for different kinds of
• 41:34different kinds of exploration.
• 41:35It'd be great, for example,
• 41:36like one way to look at some of the
• 41:38change could involve just some of
• 41:40the techniques that people use when
• 41:41they're looking at perceptual change already,
• 41:43like, you know,
• 41:44eye tracking and people arbitrary
• 41:45and various kinds of very low
• 41:47level changes in subjects.
• 41:48I mean, I know that.
• 41:49It's very hard to kind of then translate
• 41:51this into subjective experience.
• 41:52But if we had correlations in other cases,
• 41:55maybe we could isolate what was going
• 41:57on like perceptually at the level
• 42:00of kind of precognitive experience
• 42:01to try to figure out the different
• 42:03parts of of the puzzle so that people
• 42:05didn't overclaim about like what the
• 42:07psychedelic experience itself was
• 42:08doing as opposed to prior beliefs
• 42:10and attitudes and things like that.
• 42:12Just kind of greasing the the causal wheels,
• 42:14one might say.
• 42:16So one really nice example in that
• 42:18regard is I think this is a single
• 42:19case study of somebody who was,
• 42:21I think congenitally blind or at least
• 42:23early blind and given a psychedelic and
• 42:25like describing what their experiences are.
• 42:27And they're actually kind of fairly
• 42:29synesthetic and and super interesting.
• 42:31So you might imagine that that type,
• 42:33you know, say that that person
• 42:36was indeed congenitally blind.
• 42:38The nature of their psychedelic
• 42:40experience by definition doesn't
• 42:42have some of those kind of important
• 42:45features built into it, right?
• 42:46Um. And so that might circumvent
• 42:48some of the criticisms
• 42:50might it might be too to consider
• 42:52like the empirical work done
• 42:53on Molly knows problem, right?
• 42:54So I mean, because the question
• 42:56is so the blind person knows how?
• 42:59Like knows the geometric facts,
• 43:00like knows the shape of the Cuban,
• 43:02knows the shape of the sphere haptically,
• 43:05right? And then so presumably.
• 43:10When they gained vision,
• 43:12what they discover is like just
• 43:14a new mode of presentation.
• 43:15And it would be interesting if
• 43:17that's like what happens there when
• 43:19someone basically discovers the
• 43:20world under new mode of presentation.
• 43:22And if we saw the same kind of
• 43:24thing in psychedelic experience,
• 43:25like that's just like, you know,
• 43:27there's no kind of spiritual component.
• 43:28Usually in these cases it's like,
• 43:30you know, understanding mathematics.
• 43:31So I mean there's, I mean obviously
• 43:33people have emotional responses,
• 43:35but there might be interesting
• 43:37ways of of given that it's about,
• 43:40I would say sometimes it's about.
• 43:42Like motive mode?
• 43:43Like it's a distinctive mode of
• 43:45presentation switch, maybe that.
• 43:46Maybe, yeah, maybe.
• 43:47There's some interesting things to explore.
• 43:51It's interesting to me to think about
• 43:53the distinction you're making between an
• 43:55epistemic transformation and a personal one,
• 43:57and how that interacts with
• 43:58something that comes up.
• 43:58And we're thinking about these
• 44:00issues clinically, which which Cyril
• 44:02and others have have referred to,
• 44:03which is that what are people bringing
• 44:04to the table? What is this the,
• 44:06the preconceptions, the expectations,
• 44:08the subpopulation that's volunteering?
• 44:10And I wonder if it.
• 44:12So we think of, you know,
• 44:13what are the things that modulate
• 44:15the psychedelic experience and
• 44:16the long lasting effects or lack
• 44:18thereof in an individual case.
• 44:19Well, some of its pharmacology,
• 44:21you know what how much drug
• 44:22gets there and how does it,
• 44:24you know what brain,
• 44:24what kind of brain is it interacting with.
• 44:26And then some of it is perhaps the
• 44:28context in which the pharmacology is
• 44:30happening which is going to modulate the
• 44:32details of the experience as a different.
• 44:34The pharmacology affects the substrate,
• 44:36but then the sensory input interacts
• 44:38with it with an altered substrate
• 44:40to affect the experience and some
• 44:42of it is going to relate to.
• 44:43Preconceptions and pre-existing,
• 44:45you know,
• 44:46so basically I'm wondering what if
• 44:48the epistemic portion we can think
• 44:50about as being related directly to
• 44:53the pharmacology and the environs?
• 44:54And the transformative portion may
• 44:57require an interaction of a sufficiently
• 45:00profound or effective epistemic
• 45:02experience with preconceptions
• 45:04and setting and readiness for
• 45:06change and but so I'm just,
• 45:08I'm trying to think about how this,
• 45:10you know,
• 45:10this conceptual dissection that
• 45:12you've that you've shared interacts
• 45:14with some of those questions which
• 45:16ultimately are clinically extremely
• 45:17important when we think about who
• 45:19does this help and why and who might
• 45:21it actually be harmful for and why.
• 45:25So I guess there isn't a question there.
• 45:26I'm just trying to to to wrestle
• 45:28with the interaction of these
• 45:30two conceptual frameworks.
• 45:32So
• 45:32one thought experiment would be
• 45:33to give the psychedelic while
• 45:35someone is under anesthesia, right?
• 45:36So then you don't have to
• 45:38have the profound experience,
• 45:39but you might still show the transformation.
• 45:42And those two things
• 45:43isolate the pharmacology from
• 45:45even the experiential, let alone
• 45:47the cognitive self conception.
• 45:51Wait, wait. We talked about last
• 45:54week in our lab meeting we talked
• 45:56about would it be possible to?
• 45:58Give it to them just before
• 46:00they fall off to sleep.
• 46:01Because the anesthesia might
• 46:03introduce another set of factors,
• 46:06but I wonder whether people will have
• 46:08the same transformative experience.
• 46:10If they have the pharmacological
• 46:13effects while they're asleep,
• 46:14but then someone said that perhaps the
• 46:17effects would be so powerful that it
• 46:19would wake someone up from their sleep.
• 46:21Well, they might have such vivid
• 46:22dreams that their dreams themselves
• 46:24would be transformative. Very.
• 46:26So I I actually want to also
• 46:29separate out from what you said,
• 46:31I think Phil was indicating this as well.
• 46:33There's the pharmacology and then
• 46:35there's the what happens at the level
• 46:37of like conscious experience, right.
• 46:39And so and then so there's the pharmacology,
• 46:43the experiential, the character of the of
• 46:46the experiential character of something.
• 46:48And then there's the effect of that
• 46:50experiential character like on let's say
• 46:52the person's dispositions or whatever else
• 46:54it was that we want, we want to say. Umm.
• 46:58And so I think it would be useful to try
• 47:00to distinguish all three of those things.
• 47:02The anesthesia would presumably,
• 47:04although there were these,
• 47:05the problems that Cyril was raising.
• 47:08My boss to identify the the the
• 47:11pharmacological effects but.
• 47:13It would be.
• 47:15Great to try to identify. Look,
• 47:17what is the nature of this epistemic change?
• 47:21I would call it transformation.
• 47:22You don't have to call it transformation.
• 47:23I would call it an epistemic revelation.
• 47:25You don't have to call it that.
• 47:27But yet.
• 47:27I mean,
• 47:28think of the parallel between someone who's
• 47:30blind and then gained sight or somebody who's
• 47:32congenitally deaf and gets cochlear implants,
• 47:35right?
• 47:35There's a similar kind of like
• 47:37revelation in conceptual expansion.
• 47:39And it does change like it has a
• 47:41downstream change on how someone
• 47:43experiences and lives their life.
• 47:48And so. Um, if I mean and I'm I mean.
• 47:54If that. Some of those
• 47:56changes can be identified,
• 47:57and I think there is work.
• 47:58There's actually quite a bit of good
• 48:01work on particular blind subjects.
• 48:03Seems to me that there the
• 48:04parallels could be explored there.
• 48:09So really interested in
• 48:11this use of Molinos problem,
• 48:14which it sounds like is is pretty important
• 48:16in the way that you're thinking about this.
• 48:18So I guess is the idea that.
• 48:21The the person who's taking
• 48:23psychedelics and experiences revelatory
• 48:25experience or feeling of epiphany,
• 48:27whatever the specific content of it is and
• 48:30whether it actually maps on to, you know,
• 48:32some specific fundamental truths or not,
• 48:35they have experienced like the like the blind
• 48:38person experiencing the spheres by touching.
• 48:40They've experienced the this,
• 48:41this experience and then they're going
• 48:43to go out into the world afterwards and
• 48:46six months or a year later when they go,
• 48:48you know, eat a delicious meal or climate.
• 48:51Contain or do something interesting
• 48:52in their sort of intellectual lives.
• 48:55They're gonna have that experience
• 48:56again and they're going to interact
• 48:58with it differently,
• 48:59which is then kind of proof that
• 49:00they've had a transformative experience.
• 49:08Wait, so you're saying,
• 49:09I think I lost the thread there for a second.
• 49:11So you were saying like if
• 49:13someone does something like this,
• 49:15like under the influence of something or if
• 49:16they're blind or whatever in other words,
• 49:18and then they have the experience
• 49:20under different mode of presentation
• 49:21that will can, you can, yeah.
• 49:23So I guess basically I guess
• 49:25the question distills down to
• 49:26in this monos problem example.
• 49:30Can we map it on in the following
• 49:32way that the person who is taking
• 49:34psychedelics the first time?
• 49:36They them having that revelatory
• 49:38experience is similar to cut a
• 49:40blind person touching the the the
• 49:41spheres or or or cubes or whatever,
• 49:43and then they're going to go back
• 49:45into their life and their they're
• 49:48now transformed because they have
• 49:50this knowledge of what it feels
• 49:52like to have revelatory experience.
• 49:54And that is really the what,
• 49:56regardless of the content of the experience.
• 49:58The key
• 49:59OK, so OK, so with the Molino case,
• 50:02the idea was to say look.
• 50:05Let's say somebody isn't like it.
• 50:08What's useful about that case is
• 50:10it isolates the importance of it
• 50:11of the mode of presentation, right?
• 50:13So it's clear,
• 50:14or at least what was maybe not clear,
• 50:16but I think many people would
• 50:19want to say that.
• 50:20You know, the blind person has
• 50:22the geometric knowledge about the
• 50:25shapes and then but still learn
• 50:27something new or Marina Bedney does.
• 50:30Johns Hopkins has done a lot of
• 50:32interesting work on blind subjects
• 50:34and argues that they have vision
• 50:36based concepts like they they use
• 50:38the concept of like it's dazzling
• 50:39outside or the sun is dazzling outside
• 50:41or something like that or Oh yeah,
• 50:43the umbrella is like behind the door
• 50:44over there or something like that,
• 50:45even though they're congenitally blind
• 50:47and so they're kind of functionally
• 50:49sophisticated in the right sorts of ways.
• 50:51And in an important sense,
• 50:52have the content of those concepts.
• 50:54And yet they're blind.
• 50:56And so when they if they,
• 50:58if they gain vision,
• 50:59there's still something that would
• 51:01change about what they know.
• 51:03And in these cases,
• 51:05it seems like something changes
• 51:08in virtue of the world being
• 51:10presented to them differently.
• 51:13In such cases,
• 51:14it's about gaining a new sense capacity.
• 51:16But I think there's an analogy between
• 51:19getting a new sense capacity and then
• 51:21the change in sensory representation
• 51:23that comes with psychedelic experience.
• 51:26So if that analogy holds right,
• 51:29the thought would be,
• 51:31well,
• 51:31we can demonstrate in the Molino.
• 51:33Place at least.
• 51:35Reasonably well that something is
• 51:38learned because Pawan Sinha at MIT
• 51:41has done all these experiments on
• 51:43people with cataracts in India who
• 51:46were who grew up blind and then
• 51:48throughout the simple operation
• 51:50is able to give them sight.
• 51:52And he used some of of of of
• 51:55the people who had had these
• 51:57operation they they agreed to join
• 51:59experiments testing Molinos.
• 52:02Puzzle.
• 52:03And it turns out that it takes newly
• 52:06sighted people some time to learn the
• 52:08difference between the cube and the sphere.
• 52:10And so the argument is actually
• 52:12they do learn something.
• 52:13There's some difference there.
• 52:14Lots of, you know,
• 52:15questions you can raise about that.
• 52:17But if all of that holds,
• 52:18then we've got arguably like
• 52:20proof that mode of presentation,
• 52:22sensory mode of presentation like,
• 52:23makes a difference.
• 52:25If shifting the nature of the
• 52:27sensory mode of presentation it
• 52:29happens in with psychedelics then.
• 52:31By analogy,
• 52:32maybe we can find some kind of
• 52:34proof that there's an epistemic
• 52:35impact that's separate from
• 52:37these testimonials about,
• 52:38like how it changes someone's life,
• 52:39or something like.
• 52:40That's the thought.
• 52:45There's a question in the
• 52:46chat that I want to read
• 52:48out from Jordan Slusher.
• 52:49There's much debate about whether
• 52:51psychedelic researchers and
• 52:52therapists ought to have personal
• 52:54experience with the drugs they study.
• 52:55Regarding the issues of consent specifically,
• 52:57we often focus on whether the participants
• 52:59can actually consent to the experience,
• 53:01given that they've never
• 53:02gone through this wormhole.
• 53:03What are your thoughts on how
• 53:04how was the personal experience
• 53:06among the researchers affects the
• 53:08ability to more effectively consent
• 53:09someone to go through the wormhole?
• 53:11Good question. OK, so.
• 53:15There's a lot of,
• 53:16there are a lot of issues here,
• 53:17but I mean and one of them which we haven't,
• 53:20which we haven't discussed,
• 53:21I didn't really go into it was even
• 53:23about the endogenous nature of the change
• 53:25involved and how consent can happen.
• 53:27But let me set that aside for the moment.
• 53:30Right. So the first issue is,
• 53:31if the nature of the experience
• 53:33can't be communicated to the
• 53:35individual who's about to undergo it,
• 53:37how can they then knowledgeably
• 53:39consent to undergo it?
• 53:41But that's assuming at least that
• 53:43they have testimony from a trusted
• 53:45expert who knows who's under,
• 53:46like in some sense, where we think,
• 53:47well, at least that person knows
• 53:49what the experience is like.
• 53:50But in this kind of context,
• 53:52I guess is like the old things,
• 53:54like the blind leading the blind, right?
• 53:55Like it's like,
• 53:56it's like this person if the
• 53:58experimenter hasn't undergone.
• 54:00Um, the experience, then.
• 54:01They might not be knowledgeable in a
• 54:04test in the relevant testimonial sense.
• 54:06On the other hand,
• 54:07the issue I raised when I first
• 54:09started talking comes up,
• 54:10namely if there's something about
• 54:12transformative experiences like this,
• 54:13like psychedelic experiences like this,
• 54:15that kind of reform your preferences.
• 54:17And my favorite analogy here is like parents,
• 54:19like when before you become a parent,
• 54:21then you have you have your baby.
• 54:22And so glad that Phil brought exhibit one.
• 54:26Or earlier in the talk,
• 54:27like you have a child.
• 54:28Then you form this attachment
• 54:29relation to the child.
• 54:30That you that you have,
• 54:31I mean,
• 54:32there's an endogenous effect
• 54:33here that's really significant.
• 54:34So my preference is to have had that child.
• 54:37I think in some ways should be suspect.
• 54:40And the same can happen here.
• 54:42If if researchers are going to be changed,
• 54:44if their preferences and orientation
• 54:45can be changed in virtue of
• 54:47undergoing experience of the drug,
• 54:48then it's not clear whether their testimony
• 54:51is is unbiased in the relevant way.
• 54:53So yeah, that's how I would,
• 54:55that's how I would.
• 54:56I'm not answering his questions
• 54:57much as saying,
• 54:58yeah,
• 54:58that's really cool and here
• 54:58are some of the things I think
• 54:59about when when I hear it.
• 55:02I mean I this one have to have
• 55:05cancer to be a good oncologist.
• 55:08Do you have to experience the effects
• 55:10of a drug to be able to describe it?
• 55:13I think that having done
• 55:14studies with a number of drugs,
• 55:16I would say that there are very
• 55:18few subjects who at the end of
• 55:21having that experience have said.
• 55:23Wait a minute.
• 55:23You didn't tell me this
• 55:24was gonna happen to me,
• 55:25or that was gonna happen to me,
• 55:27or or I wasn't informed adequately.
• 55:30I think for the most part
• 55:33we actually provide.
• 55:34Perhaps too much information which
• 55:36has its own set of you know,
• 55:40effects including, you know.
• 55:44Having an effect on expectancy. So, yeah,
• 55:48I think the thing about the, the,
• 55:50the objection I would have to the cancer
• 55:52example is it depends on what we're asking.
• 55:55If. I mean if, if if you're an
• 55:56expert on like drug effects and you
• 55:58and that's what you're advising on,
• 56:00then of course you don't have had cancer.
• 56:02But imagine somebody who's counseling
• 56:04someone about depression or anxiety
• 56:07or or other kinds of experiences,
• 56:10but who never, who themselves has never
• 56:13experienced depression or anxiety.
• 56:14I mean I think they probably
• 56:15could do a good job in many ways,
• 56:17but there's still something that's lacking.
• 56:19Um, in that kind of context,
• 56:20let's say that like somebody who's
• 56:22like counseling depressed patients,
• 56:23and then they say these things.
• 56:24I say, OK, hang on, let me go.
• 56:25And they look up in their book,
• 56:26but they're supposed to say to someone else.
• 56:28That's because there's a there's a certain
• 56:30kind of empathic connection that they lack.
• 56:32And I'm not saying you can't adequately
• 56:34treat or counsel someone without that.
• 56:36It's more that this empathic connection
• 56:39arguably informs the expert advice.
• 56:41But in this case,
• 56:42it's really bizarre because the way that it
• 56:45informs it may also actually bias the bias.
• 56:48The ability for someone to to.
• 56:51I agree with you.
• 56:52I mean I think that I agree with
• 56:55you to the extent that if if.
• 56:57If it's about empathy,
• 56:58but if it's about providing
• 57:00information for a consent process,
• 57:02then I don't think that's the case
• 57:04because most of us have physicians.
• 57:06Right. Don't have the conditions that
• 57:09we are experts in treating our patients,
• 57:12but I think we.
• 57:14I would say that we we can still
• 57:18develop empathy and show empathy and
• 57:20provide information that would be
• 57:22really informative to patients without
• 57:25having that personal experience so
• 57:29well. I think it depends on what the
• 57:31consent is about, if it's consent to
• 57:34have a particular type of experience.
• 57:36Then the problem is you might not have
• 57:38the phenomenal information you need to
• 57:39know about that type of experience.
• 57:41But if it's about like treatment for cancer
• 57:43or some of these other sorts of things,
• 57:45then I mean, I guess that the dimension
• 57:47of empathy needs to be sort of in
• 57:49terms of like understanding anxiety
• 57:50and fear and that sort of thing,
• 57:52which I I I take it that.
• 57:55Practitioners do do care about it.
• 57:58I mean, there's something problematic
• 57:59about somebody who can't.
• 58:01I mean, I know you have to at least have,
• 58:02let's call it sympathy, right?
• 58:04Like, I mean that you have to have
• 58:06an appreciation for the nature of the
• 58:08experience that a person is going
• 58:10to undergo in order to advise them.
• 58:12Or do you disagree?
• 58:13I mean that's so that's what I'm
• 58:14trying to say.
• 58:14I think this is a special kind of
• 58:16case where the judgment has is in
• 58:17part to do with the the nature of the
• 58:20experience that someone's going to undergo.
• 58:22And it's not that.
• 58:23I mean I just think there's an
• 58:24interesting conundrum here because
• 58:26if you're advising someone on what to
• 58:28expect with respect to that experience
• 58:30and then you yourself has never have
• 58:31never had that type of experience,
• 58:33there's a certain kind of essential
• 58:35information that's not available to you.
• 58:37So, so at the risk of of of,
• 58:40at the risk of too much self disclosure,
• 58:44I I was the first subject in.
• 58:47In in several of my studies,
• 58:51and I don't think it made me any better
• 58:54in being able to inform my subjects.
• 58:57About what to expect,
• 58:59I really think that the consent form.
• 59:02You know, had all the information and
• 59:04then I I'm pretty sure it didn't give me
• 59:07any unique perspective in how to explain
• 59:10what subjects we're going to get into.
• 59:13Um, and I went through the exact
• 59:15process that they went through,
• 59:16you know, as part of the study.
• 59:18So I'm not so sure about that.
• 59:21I think we do a pretty good job.
• 59:24You know, explaining what people can
• 59:27expect to the extent that one can,
• 59:30that these experiences can be so personal in
• 59:33nature that even having gone through that,
• 59:36I don't think I would be able to tell,
• 59:38you know,
• 59:39if I was telling Phil what to expect,
• 59:41I'm sure he'd have his very unique,
• 59:44idiosyncratic feel experience that,
• 59:47yeah, anyway.
• 59:50I mean, I guess I would say
• 59:53that I mean language runs out,
• 59:55so it's really impossible in many
• 59:56ways like to to tell someone what
• 59:58to expect with the new experience,
• 60:00but it's interesting if you
• 01:00:01think that it also didn't help
• 01:00:03you to understand the type of.
• 01:00:05Of of experiences that people would
• 01:00:07have to confront or the possible like.
• 01:00:09I guess I would have guessed that
• 01:00:11having had that experience that
• 01:00:13would inform and maybe that,
• 01:00:15and that's why you did it,
• 01:00:15that it would inform like the
• 01:00:17structure of the experiment that
• 01:00:19you designed and might inform
• 01:00:20the way that you prepared people.
• 01:00:22And also and when you inform them
• 01:00:24and maybe in general terms of
• 01:00:26things that they had to confront,
• 01:00:28I don't think it would have
• 01:00:30maybe given them enough.
• 01:00:32Information for them to consent
• 01:00:33in the knowledgeable way that
• 01:00:34we would we would like, but.
• 01:00:36I still think, it's just seemed,
• 01:00:38I would still have guess it would get
• 01:00:39an have given you some information
• 01:00:40that would have improved the structure.
• 01:00:41But it doesn't matter, right?
• 01:00:43Is that what you're saying?
• 01:00:45What
• 01:00:46what it, what it made me acutely aware
• 01:00:48of is how my own expectancies of not
• 01:00:52having a transformative experience
• 01:00:54influenced my own experience,
• 01:00:56which was not transformative.
• 01:00:59And so it made me acutely aware
• 01:01:01of how expectancies play a role
• 01:01:04and how we as practitioners also.
• 01:01:06Contribute to the that expectancy and
• 01:01:09how it can be manipulated in different
• 01:01:12ways depending on what the goal is.
• 01:01:15So if if this was,
• 01:01:16if I wasn't doing a study,
• 01:01:17if I was using this to to treat people,
• 01:01:22then I would try and magnify
• 01:01:24those expectations, expectancy.
• 01:01:26And that's not my purpose.
• 01:01:27My purpose was to really investigate
• 01:01:30the effects of the drug.
• 01:01:32Controlling as much as one
• 01:01:34could possibly for expectancy.
• 01:01:37Can can I just add to that though,
• 01:01:39in a really sort of deflationary way?
• 01:01:42These sorts of discussions are super
• 01:01:44interesting from the point of view
• 01:01:47of philosophy and pragmatics as
• 01:01:48these drugs move into the clinic.
• 01:01:50But correct me if I'm wrong,
• 01:01:52but I'm pretty sure in all of our
• 01:01:54ketamine studies, for example,
• 01:01:55we don't let anybody in who hasn't
• 01:01:57ever been drunk before, right?
• 01:01:59And in every single psychedelic study
• 01:02:01that I think has been published so far,
• 01:02:04all of the participants and
• 01:02:05most of the clinicians have had.
• 01:02:07Experience with psychedelics before.
• 01:02:09And so they're not truly transformative in
• 01:02:13the sense that you're talking about Laurie,
• 01:02:15I don't think because for me a
• 01:02:18transformative experience has to
• 01:02:19be one that you haven't had before.
• 01:02:21Otherwise you've already gone through
• 01:02:22the transformation and and so I I do
• 01:02:25think that these issues are super
• 01:02:27important to iron out as we move
• 01:02:29into this sort of brave new world.
• 01:02:32Forgive the pun of giving these drugs to
• 01:02:34people who haven't experienced them before,
• 01:02:35but so far,
• 01:02:37pretty much everybody.
• 01:02:38Yes,
• 01:02:38I don't think that's.
• 01:02:41Well, I don't think that's
• 01:02:41true of the clinical studies.
• 01:02:44I know that's true of the
• 01:02:45studies in depression and in
• 01:02:47cancer patients and so forth.
• 01:02:48It certainly may be true of
• 01:02:49the the majority of the early
• 01:02:51healthy control studies.
• 01:02:53And those studies are
• 01:02:54rather small, no? So far
• 01:02:56up to 70.
• 01:03:00No one study, the Hopkins Depression study,
• 01:03:02had a nanoflex 70.
• 01:03:03And we have also hand up and then
• 01:03:05we are at the end of the hour.
• 01:03:07I passed the end of the hour which
• 01:03:08just speaks to how much people are
• 01:03:10engaged in and enjoying this discussion.
• 01:03:11But I want to suggest we have Alex's
• 01:03:13question and then any any you know
• 01:03:15response and follow up and then we'll
• 01:03:16draw to a close for today and maybe
• 01:03:18have you back some other time. So
• 01:03:20I guess the question that I had related
• 01:03:23to this idea of their comment about
• 01:03:25experiencing anxiety or depression and then
• 01:03:27treating someone who has those scenarios.
• 01:03:29I guess in that case I
• 01:03:32think almost I may be over.
• 01:03:34Emphasizing this, but I think that
• 01:03:36almost everyone would agree that.
• 01:03:38A psychiatrist or other mental health
• 01:03:40professional has to have experienced
• 01:03:41these emotions in order to treat people.
• 01:03:44However, they may not have experienced them
• 01:03:46to the degree or the duration of someone
• 01:03:49who has a severe mood or anxiety disorder.
• 01:03:51I think it would be.
• 01:03:53A list in my view,
• 01:03:55like a huge barrier if someone has not
• 01:03:58experienced anxiety to to recognize
• 01:04:00this emotion or to to adapt to that.
• 01:04:02So I guess the question that I had was.
• 01:04:05Like specifically what would be the
• 01:04:08constitutive experiences that exist
• 01:04:10outside of the psychedelic experience
• 01:04:12that we can think about as as the ones
• 01:04:15which are then amplified or in in
• 01:04:17degree or or so on that that that one?
• 01:04:23Might need to have had to empathize
• 01:04:24or or connect to someone who's
• 01:04:26experiencing a psychedelic experience.
• 01:04:32That's a really good question.
• 01:04:35And I don't think I have
• 01:04:37a quick answer for you.
• 01:04:38I mean that I it's I guess I'll say
• 01:04:41that I mean one of the things again
• 01:04:43I mentioned it I think earlier in
• 01:04:46talking with Phil is that I'm really
• 01:04:48fascinated about the distinctive kind of.
• 01:04:51One might say epistemic revelation that
• 01:04:53psychedelic experience seems to bring.
• 01:04:54It's really hard for me to even kind of
• 01:04:57figure out exactly how to frame that.
• 01:05:00Like, I called it a mode of
• 01:05:02presentation like analogous to
• 01:05:03getting a new sense experience.
• 01:05:04But it's not the same.
• 01:05:06And so to answer your question in any way,
• 01:05:09that wasn't like kind of utter ********
• 01:05:10I'd have to think carefully about.
• 01:05:13Uh, if I could try to identify any
• 01:05:17clearer way what this distinctive mode
• 01:05:20something more about this distinctive
• 01:05:22but that would be like that would be.
• 01:05:24That the challenge,
• 01:05:25and that's a really interesting one.
• 01:05:28Umm.
• 01:05:31I'm not sure what else
• 01:05:32to say aside from that.
• 01:05:33I mean obviously like maybe,
• 01:05:35well, I don't know.
• 01:05:36I've never had ketamine so.
• 01:05:39Um. Umm. Yeah.
• 01:05:43Maybe I'll leave it at that.
• 01:05:44Thanks for the question.
• 01:05:44I don't really have a good
• 01:05:45answer for you, but I want
• 01:05:46to think about it some more.
• 01:05:47Thanks. Yeah.
• 01:05:50So I think in the interest of time we we do
• 01:05:52need to wrap up, but this has been
• 01:05:53such an invigorating discussion.
• 01:05:54Laurie, I don't know if you want to say
• 01:05:56anything here at the end and closing.
• 01:05:57Ohh, just thank you very much.
• 01:05:59I really appreciate all the comments
• 01:06:01and all the discussion and I am
• 01:06:03hoping to at some point explore this.
• 01:06:05I mean I'm wanting to write on this.
• 01:06:07And so I really appreciate the
• 01:06:09discussion and would love to follow
• 01:06:10up with anybody if anyone else is
• 01:06:12interested in in talking about this more.
• 01:06:14Yeah, thanks.
• 01:06:16Thank you so much. Good to see everyone.
• 01:06:18Apologies again for the
• 01:06:19confusion with the link,
• 01:06:20but I'm so glad so many people
• 01:06:21made it Despite that my errors.
• 01:06:23Have a good weekend, everyone,
• 01:06:24and thank you, Lori.
• 01:06:27Great talk.