The problem is, of course, you have no idea if that dose is what caused the change. That change in personal outlook may have been coming your direction anyway, or you may have experienced it sooner if you hadn't been doing LSD at all.
That's a bold claim. You can try multiple different substances, the test subjects know they ingest a psychedelic, but don't know which, which allows you to have a control group.
Clinical trials would face other issues, but not this one.
The radical changes in mentality from psychedelics is well documented. Not understood but documented.
Humans do all the time. A person does very seldomly.
Was that not self-evident?
Also, countering a point is itself a point in a conversation.
For more information, see this paper for instance – Psychedelics and Immunomodulation by Dr. Attila Szabo of the University of Norway, published in 2015: https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffimmu.2015.00358
It's okay to recognize that people consistently claim an effect, and to affirm that it is indeed a possible effect without knowing why.
What problem exactly? This seems like a dismissive take on someone's positive experience.
Are your referring to the scientific problem of studying cause & effect of the psychedelic experience? Science is figuring that out.
The way you are doing it, could maybe be improved.
"The problem is, of course, you have no idea if that dose is what caused the change"
You clearly judged here based on little information. How do you know, that he cannot know?
(Unless you argue about philosophical limits of "knowing")
When till time X there was behavior Y and at time X there was a strong trip - and afterwards differences,then it seems pretty linked to me.
(I did not take part in the conversation before).
So you are not really in a position to tell me, what to do, yet you did. And I am not in a position to tell you, what to do. I merly answered your open question on what I think you could improve.
But if you would like a meta comment from me: I think you might benefit from not considering every online discussion as something you have to win.
(I have been there as well)
Sure, "person ready to take drugs to have epiphany" might mean they were on the cusp of one anyway, but it doesn't really matter.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsptsci.0c00194
> Our position contrasts the idea that subjective effects of psychedelics may be irrelevant to their therapeutic effects.
> The meaning and significance attributed to psychedelic experiences has been well established in laboratory settings. Psilocybin administration studies have repeatedly shown that participants frequently rate their psychedelic experiences as among the most meaningful of their entire lives (5,6,8,16−19) and they are sometimes compared to the birth of a first-born child or death of a parent. Due to their salience, such experiences may serve as narrative “inflection points” in one’s life that could provide an impetus for changing one’s identification with certain patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
It'd be like if you said 'I had an idea yesterday...' and I responded with 'Did you though? Maybe you just overheard it and thought it was yours! Maybe you just thought of it now and incorrectly associated it with something you did yesterday!' It doesn't add any extra information while dismissing your own conscious experience completely.
No, there's no problem. It doesn't change the fact that the dose is when it happened.