L. A. Paul, PhD. April 2022

January 25, 2023

Information

Title: Epistemic change and transformation

Description: Certain types of life experiences can be transformative, both epistemically and personally. By transforming you, they change how you think and value, and in the process, they restructure the nature and meaning of your life. L.A. discussed the nature of transformative change, with particular attention to how it involves a distinctive kind of epistemic revision that may be helpful in framing the epistemology of psychedelic experience. L.A. also discussed connections to philosophical issues that arise with informed consent, advance directives, and disability.

ID9412

To CiteDCA Citation Guide

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.