*They're

You and the bot that changes "would of" to "would've" are doing the Lord's work. Thank you

"Prolly" is the worst for me. Drives me insane.

"your vs. you're" and "then vs than"

Damn sorry. You are prolly talked by about my comments ;)

I see what you done there.

That's just shorthand. Loosen up.

Yeah you save all that time putting two less letters. Must be a real convience. You look ignorant, but at least you saved that quarter of a second. So worth it, right?

I can kinda get with this -- after studying schizophrenia in undergrad, I definitely believe there is more to delusions, hallucinations, etc. than just being sick.

my best friend had a complete psychotic breakdown. it happened quickly, too. about 2-3 weeks from being "normal" to being full blown insane.

he broke into a church and threatened the pastor with a metal baseball bat. he threw away all his roommates clothes. he wondered through rush-hour traffic downtown ranting to people about his delusions. he went to a chinese restaraunt and stripped naked and lectured them about capitalism.

cops finally picked him up while he was lying shirtless in the street and laughing hysterically at "how funny the clouds were."

he had no family except me, so the judge granted me legal guardianship over him and i took him into the hospital (instead of him going to jail).

if you've ever had a close loved one develop schizophrenia, you wouldn't have made this post.

i've seen the sheer absolute insanity of a full-blown schizophrenic episode. there is no genius, no logic, no reason to any of it. it's pure, unfiltered madness, and it is terribly tragic.

Sounds a lot like taking mushrooms or acid. And there is the reason OP is missing, it all comes from our minds and our minds are all very similar. Sorry about your friend.

There are a bunch of people in the club every weekend on shrooms and acid. This is a mental issue.

yeah what the fuck is this? "Sounds like shrooms or acid" - someone who has never done either

So true. People who have no clue about drugs are always the first to default to them as the cause for... anything. Baffling.

this applies to a lot of things

1. people with no knowledge of politics thinking they know how it works
2. people with no knowledge of science thinking they know how basic science works (and are usually wrong around here)
3. people with no knowledge of mental disorders discussing what they are like
4. people with no knowledge of drugs discussing what they are like

so, basically, /r/conspiracy and the mandella effect subreddits

It used to be fun to read but I feel like everything is 14 year olds swapping pseudoscience now

Yeah, I underestimate how much the sheltered younger crowd dominates these types of sites. Makes you wonder how much of these bitter, certain of themselves outsiders of society have no real experience actually dealing with the world they feel so detached from. So much of what I see posted here (not so much theories, ideologies) could be broken down just by talking to people or being out there in some form.

Ok. I won’t argue about what I have or have not done because you can believe what you want...

Laughing at clouds, getting naked and complaining about capitalism? If that doesn’t sound like something a person on shrooms or acid would do you have no experience with them.

My point is that both psychedelics and schizophrenia can only “work” on what is already in your head, they just break down them things that normally filter it.

Are you not aware that psychedelics essentially cause a temporary schizophrenic state!?

Are you not aware that psychedelics essentially cause a temporary schizophrenic state!?

Says who?

Try looking that up.

That's not saying it causes a schizophrenic state. It's saying that hallucinogens can create effects (like hearing voices) which are also present in schizophrenia, and so it can be useful to study those particular effects and then trasnferring the learned knowledge into schizophrenia.

It's an oversimplification to say tripping = temporary schizophrenia.

It is very similar. Not exact. The greater point is getting lost here: schizophrenics and people who trip often see very similar things because our minds are very similar. That is also why certain dreams are very common.

Says who?

I've done a lot of research on the subject because of my own personal experiences but I will just link this quickly.

http://mentalhealthdaily.com/2014/03/28/lsd-and-schizophrenia-does-acid-cause-mental-illness/

Some would argue that LSD and schizophrenia are closely related. Some would go as to far as to say that frequent usage of LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide) or “acid” can actually cause a person to develop schizophrenia. LSD or LSD-25 is known to have profound psychological effects that include: altered thinking, hallucinations, altered sense of time, and spiritual experiences.

There is not currently any research in support of the idea that LSD can cause schizophrenia. Although it may induce a state of psychosis that is very similar to schizophrenia – this is considered “drug-induced psychosis” and does not stem from other factors.

While I've had bad trips on shrooms, I've never done acid. But my ex used to (many eons ago) and sometimes I would see him on bad trips or he would call me when he was on one. If you stuck him on a street corner with dirty clothes during his bad trips, people would assume he was a schizophrenic that was long gone.

My first bad shroom trip (never thought I'd have one) made me delve into the mysteries of schizophrenics even more. I spoke to angels and demons, spoke with the devil, saw the magical spell that had been conjured upon all of us that is keeping us in our current state (actually saw a power grid/web that controlled us all), saw what the kingdom of God is, the list could go on. If I were to describe my experience in detail to someone that didn't know i had taken shrooms, they may think I was a complete "schizo".

My state of psychosis on my bad shroom trip was a prison in my own mind but I learned a lot from it. Unfortunately, some of us naturally encounter these states without drugs and they have no idea how to escape, and the result is a very secluded and misunderstood life, especially because nobody wants to hear what the "schizo" has to say.

There is not currently any research in support of the idea that LSD can cause schizophrenia. Although it may induce a state of psychosis that is very similar to schizophrenia – this is considered “drug-induced psychosis”

I wasn't implying these drugs caused schizophrenia, just linked to this article quickly as it compared taking lsd as a drug induced schizophrenic state...which is what we are discussing. This isn't the only article, feel free to dig more.

personal experiences. Sorry but this is irrelevant. The fact that your perception of a trip resembled what you think schizophrenia is like doesn't say much except what you personally think schizophrenia is like.

I have family members that are schizophrenic so I have a pretty good idea. One of these family members comitted suicide so I've delved pretty deeply into this, which is why my bad trip affected me so much.

I want to hear more about the kingdom of god.

Long story short, we achieve the kingdom of God once we escape the spell that is over us. It is a state of consciousness that we will all one day reach (including criminals here on earth). The Kingdom is always there waiting for us with open arms, as long as we are ready. Being in this state you feel pure joy and bliss, and create anything your mind desires and share it with the entire "universe". It is non judgemental and is whatever you want it to be. The magical trap is in place to enslave us from reaching our true destination and potential, but my visions also told me this trap is not permanent for humanity. Also, the kingdom of God isn't the end, but the beginning. I know this is a crappy description, as the past few years I've had troubles conversing my thoughts and visions. And keep in mind this was a shroom trip, so could possibly be a big nothingburger.

Sounds somewhat in line with my understanding of buddhism. Funny how trips usually describe indra's net and other buddhist metaphysical concepts over judeo-christian ideals.

Bruh, from the about page on that blog:

It’s not an authority or professionally written – and I am NOT a medical professional. I do however have a lot of first-hand experience ingesting pharmaceutical (psychiatric) medications and a Bachelor’s degree in psychology.

Laughing at clouds, getting naked and complaining about capitalism? If that doesn’t sound like something a person on shrooms or acid would do you have no experience with them.

i think you misunderstood my story. or perhaps you have no experience with very serious mental illness, i'm not sure.

but i have lots of experiences of psychedelics, and what happened to my friend was nothing like that.

laughing at clouds

i said hysterically laughing. key word hysterical. think like, The Joker cackling like a mad man. not your innocent acid head giggling about the absurdity of reality.

getting naked and complaining about capitalism?

we're talking aggressively berating an old chinese woman for feeding into the capitalistic system, while methodically disrobing and then proceeding to threaten the customers. alright maybe this one is sort of like some of the bad trips i've seen, but only sort of.

schizophrenia can only “work” on what is already in your head

that's not true. that's an outdated view of psychosis from freudian times. now we know that schizophrenia is essentially a "short circuit" of the brain, where the neurons are firing too rapidly and overloading the neural network, in a sense. so the brain starts spitting out incoherent and false conclusions based on "faulty wiring"

I think you misunderstood my meaning, and that I failed to explain it better... Also the condescending tone made me make a similar reply.

Let me separate a few things. Psychedelics: current research is indicating that they work on the hardware of the brain very much like schizophrenia does... hence my comparison. They can cause many of the same behavior and perceptions distortions that a schizophrenic brain creates naturally.

The comparison to your friend was simply to say that someone could see the behavior you describe and think he was. “on drugs.”

Then, the last part was aimed more at the subject of the op: similar phenomenon among schizophrenic people. As you pointed out, it is a malfunction of the brain’s “wiring”. Well, all humans have the same hardware, so there is no surprise that they have very similar experiences. It is all inside: schizophrenics are not actually hearing external voices or seeing real things, it is all what is already in their brain. That is also where I compared to people thinking psychadelics connect to any “cosmic conscience”, just like schizophrenia, it isn’t real, it is all in your head, but since we all have similar brains, we all see experience similar things.

Take 2 tabs, lose control of your senses, are already a bit nuts and don't know what to expect. There's a good chance you gonna do some fucked up or weird or aggressive shit...

My understanding is that the classical dissociatives (ketamine, PCP, DXM) simulate psychosis much more than serotonergic psychedelics, since they act on NMDA receptors in a way similar to glutamate (which, according to one theory, has a role in schizophrenia). This is me being a totally unqualified layman, and of course you can't just mimic a mental illness with a drug.

I, too, have close personal relationships with schizophrenics, including a sister in law. I have seen the very dark side, including a physical fight she started with my father (this was many many years aftet her diagnoses). I also saw the dissent. What started out as hearing voices, things got much much worse when she was told over and over again how this was a problem and she ultimately broke after being on and off so many harsh medications.

I was told by a quack psychiatrist many years ago that I was showing signs of schizophrenia (I wasn't, I was showing symptoms of bipolar) and was prescribed a drug cocktail that treats schizophrenics. The outcome was horrible. The medication itself manifested voices in my head and hallucinations that were never there before. They also completely fucked with my short term memory, which still effects me many years later. I'm very happy I went to my GP who was absolutely mortified and helped me ween off the medications. I know that I would have gone crazy if I had stayed on that medication and stayed with that doctors misdiagnoses.

My sister in law is very "loopy" without meds, but she's safe, just much different than your average joe. She would have her violent episodes when starting or stopping a medication.

I know everyone is different, but I just wanted to share my story as well. I believe there is a lot we misunderstand about schizophrenics, and also when you're told over and over again that you're crazy, you will eventually become it. Just my 2 cents, and thank you for sharing your story.

welcome to /r/conspiracy where facts don't matter and nobody has actually experienced anything they talk about which makes it easy for them to convince other people of their made up bullshit

my best friend had a complete psychotic breakdown.

Also known as psychosis.

schizophrenic episode.

"Schizophrenia" is a state of mind, as is psychosis or 'psychotic breaks' (all heavily saturated with bias) but independent from the each other.

To someone outside of a reality perspective, who objectively criticizes nearly any polarized foundational beliefs of that perspective, those inside appear 'schizophrenic.'

Doctors administer chemotherapy in cases where only 1-2 /100 are going to recover.

In another example, a treatment may offer a chance for a cure, but only for 1or 2 people out of every 100.

Mayoclinic. 'Scitzofrenia' is defined as having false beliefs, or not being able to determine what is 'real'. Are the doctors who administered a cocktail of debilitating drugs to 98 people so 2 could survive schitzo? They took an oath to do no harm. What about those who prescribed new analogue pain killers for reasons - yet witnessed all their patients suffer addiction.

The world is schizophrenic. The difference is that some types are socially acceptable while other forms are not.

"Scitzofrenia' is defined as having false beliefs, or not being able to determine what is 'real."

That does kinda sound like a real easy way to completely discredit some nutter that's speaking some sense but is also crazy.

If it doesn't work they can just zap em in the temple and cabbage em. Which obvs shut em up.

Wow. This post is incredibly offensive, nonsensical, and pushes an unrelated conspiracy about doctors. Bravo

It's not a conspiracy, it's human behaviour, human nature & the underlying metaphysical, existential realities.

Look into philosophy of medicine for starters

Then look at culturally bound illness which is defined by the epistemological expression of evil spirits, demons, etc. Modern medicine has little effect on these but they can be cured by local witch-doctors.

Here's another from Philippines documented by US National Library of Medicine

Epistemologically, disease can be culturally bound to spirits and 'demons' and whatever else if it's engrained or believed in by the people. This is objectively true.

Thus, the 'belief' in cancer and medicine can not only be used to 'cure' it but also to succumb to it.

One very interesting correlating system of disease seems to be tied to Authoritarianism. The authors erroneously try to frame it as disease as the cause yet the correlation is all that's objective. Since belief (and cultural state or state of being) is already expressed objectively to impact disease, it's indicative that an authoritarian state is the cause rather than the effect.

Another historical blip in philosophy of medicine was Sister Kenny90134-4/pdf) who had a purported cure-rate around ~87% of Polio using rehabilitation which was contrary to the stated guidelines at the time.

Epistemologically, disease can be culturally bound to spirits and 'demons' and whatever else if it's engrained or believed in by the people, resilient to any western medical attempts to cure it. This is objectively true.

I'm sorry, but no. You can't just make a blanket statement like that. First of all, by 'disease' are you specifically talking about culturally bound illness? Because that is a completely separate phenomenon from things like cancer.

Thus, under the same framework, the 'belief' in cancer and medicine can not only be used to 'cure' it but also to succumb to it.

Yeah, but cancer is a real thing. You don't have to believe in it for it to exist. Case in point: https://www.livescience.com/44269-oldest-metastatic-cancer-skeleton.html

One very interesting correlating study of disease seems to be tied to authoritarianism. The authors erroneously try to frame it as disease as the cause yet the correlation is all that's objective.

Okay, you do know that parasite-stress theory is a thing, right? And that it reaches the opposite conclusion to what you're proposing? They are using it as the foundation of their hypothesis for this study. If you think you have such a solid case, then you should try to disprove parasite-stress theory and possibly win a Nobel Prize. You could change the entire fields of sociology and anthropology.

Since belief (and cultural state or state of being) is already expressed objectively to impact disease, it's indicative that an authoritarian state is the cause rather than the effect, or perhaps it is acausal.

So we're taking your undocumented, unresearched claim as fact now?

Another historical blip in philosophy of medicine was Sister Kenny who had a purported cure-rate around ~87% of Polio using rehabilitation which was contrary to the stated guidelines at the time.

Do you even know what polio is? Even if your numbers are right, she wasn't "curing" people. She was treating one of the rare symptoms of the polio virus, which was muscle weakness and possible paralysis. I don't see how that possibly does anything to support your case.

Lately, consider the 'belief' in conspiracies and what effect it might have on the individual. There is a good argument against what state of being these narratives (without logical or existential frameworks) might be having on those who ingest them.

Again, you're implying causation with absolutely nothing to back it up. My undocumented counterargument would be that people who subscribe to conspiracy theories have a predisposition toward the type of behaviors that conspiracy theories reward.

So many absolutist claims with no logic behind them [all appeal to authority]. You are free to believe in whatever system suits you however.

I completely agree.

This is a perfect shill response to the post. A nice, emotional story demonstrating that OP must be wrong.

This is a perfect shill response to the post.

you're an asshole. what happened between me and my friend was one of the hardest things i've ever had to go through, and you just sit behind your computer and call it a shill response?

Removed. Rule 10

maybe that's just how it is perceived by "normal" people like us. maybe what they're seeing and experiencing is beyond coherent words and thoughts? maybe it makes perfect sense we just can't make sense of it ourselves

People of varying IQs can be prodromal/schizophrenic.

Read Deleuze and Guattari

I think the underlying factor between schizophrenics is that our reality isn't actually reality.

Even if they did have uniform beliefs in their delusions, it would make sense because they are all humans with (almost) identical brain structure and chemistry. If something in the brain causes a symptom for one person, it would make sense for it to be a universal trait for the human race. It doesn't mean that they are tapping into the "real" reality or whatever other nonsense anyone wants to put to it.

Try sending a telepathic thought to them, they respond immediately.

They have one foot in the astral, and one foot in our reality. However, some of them are truly fragmented meaning they're literally in another world (astral). Those are the ones you see pooping in the street or attacking people. Be careful to identify which one is which.

Try sending a telepathic thought to them, they respond immediately.

Find one you can do this with and do it under controlled conditions. You will literally get a Nobel Peace Prize, millions of dollars, and completely change the course of human history. The fact that you haven't already demonstrated this ability to the rest of humanity is an absolute tragedy

Think outside the 3D box.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/New_Education11.htm http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/Science%20blocks.htm http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/Objectiv.htm

From what I can see, the vast majority of his citations are to works he wrote himself and I can't even find where he got his supposed doctorate from. What on earth makes you trust what this guy has to say?

Hell, I don't consider myself a scientist and don't know much about physics beyond reading a few books here and there, but I can easily tell that most of his works about "science" are just riddled with inaccuracies.

From the second article:

The first of these major problems is how far the experimental method can be successful. Quantum physics exposed this many years ago.

Fine so far. I believe he is talking about either the Observer Effect) or the Uncertainty Principle. These two principles add logistical challenges to experimentation at the quantum level in addition to the already extremely high cost of building the proper instrumentation to perform the experiments. That doesn't mean that they put hard limits on what can be accomplished with experiments though.

The confusion was that radiation, such as light, was either made up of particles or waves, depending on how it was observed.

There really isn't confusion about that, it's a fundamental scientific fact. The confusion comes with trying to define the actual workings of quantum mechanics and trying to unify it with general relativity.

In other words, what was perceived, detected or evaluated was in the context of what was making the observation.

That's up for debate. There are as many objective interpretations of quantum theory as there are subjective ones. This field is generally still pretty wide open and likely will be for quite some time (until our ability to take measurements catches up to our theoretical abilities at least or until someone develops a novel experiment).

What concerns me here is that the author doesn't even bother to explain their interpretation of quantum theory. To me, it looks like he is picking and choosing whatever pop science buzzwords he can find to support his beliefs. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though and say he is going with QBism since that is the current hot topic in the field and uses subjective Bayesian probability.

The basis of knowledge and science, in particular, is that all energy and knowledge is contextual. This is fundamental to the proper evolution of knowledge and of life itself. Everything that is observed is in the context of who or what is doing the observing and from what viewpoint, station or perspective.

Where did he get this from? There's a reason you can't apply quantum theory to a relativistic scale. Otherwise, we wouldn't need the theory of relativity at all.

In the above quantum physics example it is the scientific set-up that is the 'what'. The 'who' also plays a secondary role in the form of physical senses (of the experimenter). The result of scientific method is thus based on the scientific instruments and physical senses.

First of all, what example? Secondly, the scientific method doesn't rely on instruments or physical senses. It's just a method for describing reality. Not every scientific discovery has been observed or scientifically verified. All that is required is for you to be able to model it and make accurate predictions.

What was the conclusion of the wave/particle puzzle, regarding the contextual variable, the scientific instruments? It was that the observer (scientist and instruments) must be part of the experimental system and not truly objective---to that system. But objectivity is the very basis of scientific knowledge. Without objectivity the value of scientific measurement is in question.

First of all, again, the jury is still out on whether wave-field probability is best described as objective or subjective. Secondly, objectivity doesn't mean what you think it means. If we acknowledge that our experiments can be influenced subjectively then we can restore objectivity by modeling that behavior into our systems. That's the whole point of the scientific method. Most of our experiments are subject to bias and human fallability. That's why we do things like peer review.

This problem is scarcely recognised within science, and certainly not understood---it is thus not taught other than to give the subject a passing comment.

Huh, tell that to the fields of quantum logic and relational interpretation. Hell, has the author never heard of Shroedinger's Cat?

This is just the first few paragraphs. It just gets worse from there since he is starting from a faulty premise.

I'm sorry, but you can't debunk all of science without first understanding what you're talking about.

This is one of his hundreds of papers. By no means is this his entire thesis. This book describes it much better: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/NS%20ad%20page%20second%20edition.htm

For who he is, here is part of his bio: "With a background in physics from Leeds University and formerly employed at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston, he later acquired further doctorates externally in psychology and parapsychology and has developed the foundations for a higher-dimensional physics that embraces life, mind, the universe, and the spirit."

What I take from it is simple: we do not have the scientific instruments to measure paranormal activity. The instruments we do have and the scientific method we use is not suitable for the nature of the phenomena and due to the observer effect, thus we do not attain consistent results (and much of the results are positive, not all negative like skeptics want you to believe).

Some supporting videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFtsHf1lVI4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRHPHwfjwpk

I'm curious of what this "same, uniform belief underlying their delusions, despite quantity of communication" is. What is this shared belief all schizophrenics have? My wife's schizophrenic uncle believed he was a professional wrestler and the homeless schizophrenic lady who came to my restaraunt believed people were poisoning the coffee we gave her, so she had to put salt and pepper in it to counteract.

From what I know, schizophrenics are unfortunately mentally I'll and can be dangerous to themselves and others when not properly treated. Where'd you get your info from OP?

From what I know, schizophrenics are unfortunately mentally I'll and can be dangerous to themselves and others when not properly treated.

Statistically and historically speaking "sane" people are extremely more dangerous than schizophrenics. Not only to schizophrenics, but also to everyone else. That assumes a priori only diagnosed cases represent whatever schizophrenia is, since it's a biased-subjective label applied indiscriminately.

From inside of his anal sphincter

If everyone who is normal were compared to those with schizophrenia they would all be declared insane by comparison. Everything lies within the epistemological framework. In essence, society agrees to one form of insanity and the rest are not acceptable.

If everyone who is normal were compared to those with schizophrenia [as a baseline] normalcy would be declared insane by comparison

Everyone would be declared insane. Schizophrenics are insane not just by society's standards, but also each other's. They don't agree on things, their delusions are wholly separate from each other and usually mutually exclusive.

Schizophrenics are not asked for a consensus. If they formed an official body or authoritative framework they'd come up with a consensus no different than the psychiatric board did [and it's arguable if society agrees on anything besides pop trends]. That's the real kicker, society doesn't agree on much unless by force, coercion or illusion.

"Mentally ill" agree on many things yet its unintelligible to people outside of their cultural frame. Not only that, it's very adversarial (everything is wrong or evil and Im going to avoid everything to avoid it). One might argue that is the real problem underlying the condition - among the classically diagnosed.

Plenty of functional, undiagnosed schizo-personalities are excelling in life but they simply found peace with existence.

Society by the way or at least, the intellectual community has already agreed that there is no "real" except for the subjective experience. Epistemologically, schizophrenia as a definition is applicable to everyone outside their cultural or epistemological frame.

Shamanic Experience -- psychosis and transpersonal psychology

The colloquial expression for a Psychologist or Psychotherapist is Shrink and this is rather apt because this profession of the mindis preoccupied with dealing with Thought Forms (or Tulpa's) and shrinking Transcendent (Shamanic) Consciousness into tiny little boxes..

Psychosis

However, the Shamanic Experience IS the experience of Reality - happening in the time and space of NOW - this moment. It is the Transpersonal experience of Spirituality. Psychosis, for so many, is the experience of the Transpersonal, Transcendent or ShamanicExperience (as opposed to the illusion of therealm of the Logical Linear Mind). It cannot be rationalized, labelled or put into nice little boxes - even by Transpersonal Psychology..

Intrinsically, to the rational mind, the Shamanic Experience is labelled as madness, because it transcends what we (in the illusion ofnormal Personality Consciousness which we call "awake") see as reality.

Symptoms of Spiritual Emergence

A doorway has opened and, rather than taking 500 milliseconds for the Tulpic Thought Process of what some call their minds toanalyseand discern and respond to what is going on, one enters a space of pure awareness of the moment - and of what is happening in that moment .. all of it.

For some, it can be likened to being "awake" and yet having the experience of a "lucid dream" .. perhaps with many eventstumbling over one another in the space of "no-time".

The Shamanic or Transpersonal Experience is one of Transcendent Consciousness. For others, it can be like being aware of every thought of everyone around you. Maybe you might stun someone by speaking out loud (withoutthinking about it) exactly what they were thinking in that moment.

Boundaries dissolve. It is only the personality that has boundaries.It can be confusing for the rational mind to suddenly become aware that sounds have colours, tastes and smells. It can be a little scary to seewhat some call ghosts - which are nothing more than disembodied Tulpa's.

Some may hear voices and others may have visions. (at least, this is what they may call them)

Transcendent Reality

The Shamanic Experience cause revelations from the past, because, in reality, past is present now. Everything exists in consciousness. The Shamanic Experience - because it is Transcendental of any boundary - is the experience of everything that may be goingon in your Reality in this moment .. and it will continually change, not is logical steps and stages, but as the flow of many layers, dimensions of a continuum.

Transcendent Reality is what happens when the mind no longer stops, processes and thinks. It is this Linear Function of Mind which is Transcended :no thought. Only with the experience of this space can one truly understand the difference between Reality and Illusion.

Reality and Illusion

What the mind does with these experiences is the conditioned response of the brain - the product of some Tulpa which has beencreated in a deluded attempt to keep these experiences away.

If you have one single attachment, it will be exposed in Transpersonal Consciousness.

If you have one single unresolved personality, Imprint or thought product or form in your psyche or physical body, it will come to your Shamanic Awareness.

Again, what the mind does with these experiences depends on its conditioning but, remember, the minds reaction will be basedon the conditioning to the reality it has had imprinted into it.

The mind conditioned to seeking understanding through rationality will break down in the face of the Transpersonal or Shamanic Experience.Reality is still present and will not go away in the minds vain attempt at holding onto its illusion.

Transpersonal Psychology

Consider the question: who is the "I" that is the observer, who is the "I" that seeks understanding.Then I might add: "Who is the I that is addicted to the pain and suffering that you are submitting yourself to" ... All of these add up to your ego.

In the Shamanic Experience, you become the Expression of what is passing through you. You are awareness aware of your awareness. Awake.

You can hold on to the experience or, you can allow the awareness of the moment to give way to an experience of a new moment.If you hold onto the experience, you will never experience the next moment - only your reaction to it.

If you choose Transpersonal as a Psychology for your mind or your education, then, once again, having been shrunk, you have gone back to sleep.

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/topmindsofreddit] "Schizophrenics are geniuses, government wants us to think their crazy"

 ^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

Arrogance, group think, and bullying at its finest. Thanks topminds!

This thread's premise is pretty arrogant too.

Ignorant perhaps, but idk about arrogant

The arrogance of thinking your untrained, uneducated, unresearched opinion has as much validity as an entire field of science

i can deal with the arrogance and group think. that's common for most "insider" groups of that nature (groups that foster an "us vs them" mentality)

but it's the bullying that really rubs me the wrong way. i mean, if you want to sit around with your buddies acting smug and making fun of people, that makes you petty. but the bullying? that makes them bad people.

Some good books on similar topics are R.D. Laing's The Politics of Experience and The Divided Self.

This is also a good read if you keep in mind that it's not limited to the USSR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union.

Interesting I was just called a Schizophrenic by someone called not_original_op or somesuch.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

But all that originates from the same reasoning, which is beyond visible material science.

can you explain this 'reasoning'?

kinda like trying to explain tripping to someone who's never had any kind of drugs?

I've known quite a few people considered (usually 'paranoid') 'schizo'

I knew them becoz they were cool people ... alas they all had their seriously 'crazy' moments which could be a worry, and half are dead now from some consequence of their 'crazy thinking'

It's quite sad at times

although I hear schizo people in other countries like Africa have different delusions i.e. 'happy delusions' and do no harm, which while maybe 'delusional' don't hurt anyone, unlike the common western 'voices' that suggest the person self harm and/or "go kill yourself" or others even .. now that's crazy imo

What is the shared concept?

Ahh I love this conspiracy. If you are interested in learning more please watch demons are Real By Robert Stanley. https://youtu.be/WbhF4UhEeF8 He interviews Dr J-Jerry Marzinsky.

Here is another interview on the subject. thecosmicswitchboard.com/2017/08/18/jerry-marzinsky-interview/

He's been a Mental Health Practitioner and Counselor for 35 year and has worked with a wide range of schizophrenic patients. He found that the "voices" are actual voices giving detailed instructions to harm themselves or others. He began to believe these voices were connected to the same entity. He got in trouble for asking patients questions that "fueled their illness". He eventually quit once he realized they didn't want him to actually help people.

they didn't want him to actually help people.

Or they decided that what he was doing was, in fact, not helping people.

Look for yourself and make form your own opinion, not to be rude.

Sounds like you’ve never met a schizophrenic. Their delusions are often nothing like experiences people have while on mushrooms and such.

their

There is an alternative view of "schizophrenia"... that it is a western equivalent to a shamanic initiation, and that the problem in our society is that we lack the knowledge or support systems necessary to navigate it properly.

There was an article about this on huffpost or the guardian some years back... a psychologist who had suffered from schizophrenia and overcame it by making allies with her voices (see: shamanic initiation).

I think it's worth considering that "normal" may in fact be the "abnormal." Humans after all do occupy a space between the physical and the symbolic. Anybody who's mildly aware of themselves can tell you that. For all the others, hoed the water? (What water???)

two fish are swimming along one day, and they go by an older fish.

the old fish says "hows the water boys?"

the young fishes say "haha it's good" and keep swimming.

sometime later, one of the young fish turns to the other and says, "what the hell is water, anyways?"

I was going to just pass by your comment because it's mostly mildly offensive gibberish, but then I saw this:

I think it's worth considering that "normal" may in fact be the "abnormal." Humans after all do occupy a space between the physical and the symbolic. Anybody who's mildly aware of themselves can tell you that.

We created the symbolic. There is no symbolism without humanity. Symbols only have the power that we give them. There is nothing supernatural about symbolism because without humans, symbolism wouldn't exist.

I didn't say there was anything supernatural about it, just that we exist at the threshold of the symbolic (mind, perception) and physical (perhaps I should have said "objective") world. Basically the idea that humans don't see a hair for what it is, but instead see the symbolic object, "chair," which they can then understand because this symbolic object has meaning within their mental (or "psychic," just to annoy you) structures. The object "chair" is a complete mystery. The symbol (abstraction) "chair" is what we can understand and sit on.

As for symbols not existing without us and only having the power we give them, I would encourage you to read Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell as they show how the same archetypes (symbols) appear again and again in, and exerting enormous influence over, human societies throughout history, separated by thousands of miles and thousands of years. Then see if you find yourself questioning your opinion.

And an interesting side note... have you ever seen a dog dreaming? One of the places that human archetypes pop up most frequently are our dreams. Could there be dog archetypes in the dream of a dog? Without knowing, can we be sure the symbolic is exclusive to humans?

The object "chair" is a complete mystery. The symbol (abstraction) "chair" is what we can understand and sit on.

In what way is a physical chair a mystery? Do you not know where chairs come from?

As for symbols not existing without us and only having the power we give them, I would encourage you to read Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell as they show how the same archetypes (symbols) appear again and again in, and exerting enormous influence over, human societies throughout history, separated by thousands of miles and thousands of years. Then see if you find yourself questioning your opinion.

Ah yes, Carl Jung. Take a very simple, easily explained phenomenon and throw a bunch of metaphysical gibberish on top of it. Humans are all pretty much the same. We all have the same needs. We have fairly easily categorized fears and desires. We all live on the same planet and came from a set of common ancestors. Why is it surprising that the basis for where our intuition comes from would be the same? What is magical about that?

And an interesting side note... have you ever seen a dog dreaming? One of the places that human archetypes pop up most frequently are our dreams. Could there be dog archetypes in the dream of a dog? Without knowing, can we be sure the symbolic is exclusive to humans?

Yes, there are almost certainly archetypes and abstractions in the thoughts of lesser animals. That's not the same thing as symbolism. Dogs are incapable of engaging in symbolism because symbolism is an advanced form of communication that requires certain mental faculties to use.

Sounds a lot like taking mushrooms or acid. And there is the reason OP is missing, it all comes from our minds and our minds are all very similar. Sorry about your friend.

"your vs. you're" and "then vs than"

I, too, have close personal relationships with schizophrenics, including a sister in law. I have seen the very dark side, including a physical fight she started with my father (this was many many years aftet her diagnoses). I also saw the dissent. What started out as hearing voices, things got much much worse when she was told over and over again how this was a problem and she ultimately broke after being on and off so many harsh medications.

I was told by a quack psychiatrist many years ago that I was showing signs of schizophrenia (I wasn't, I was showing symptoms of bipolar) and was prescribed a drug cocktail that treats schizophrenics. The outcome was horrible. The medication itself manifested voices in my head and hallucinations that were never there before. They also completely fucked with my short term memory, which still effects me many years later. I'm very happy I went to my GP who was absolutely mortified and helped me ween off the medications. I know that I would have gone crazy if I had stayed on that medication and stayed with that doctors misdiagnoses.

My sister in law is very "loopy" without meds, but she's safe, just much different than your average joe. She would have her violent episodes when starting or stopping a medication.

I know everyone is different, but I just wanted to share my story as well. I believe there is a lot we misunderstand about schizophrenics, and also when you're told over and over again that you're crazy, you will eventually become it. Just my 2 cents, and thank you for sharing your story.

welcome to /r/conspiracy where facts don't matter and nobody has actually experienced anything they talk about which makes it easy for them to convince other people of their made up bullshit

my best friend had a complete psychotic breakdown.

Also known as psychosis.

schizophrenic episode.

"Schizophrenia" is a state of mind, as is psychosis or 'psychotic breaks' (all heavily saturated with bias) but independent from the each other.

To someone outside of a reality perspective, who objectively criticizes nearly any polarized foundational beliefs of that perspective, those inside appear 'schizophrenic.'

Doctors administer chemotherapy in cases where only 1-2 /100 are going to recover.

In another example, a treatment may offer a chance for a cure, but only for 1or 2 people out of every 100.

Mayoclinic. 'Scitzofrenia' is defined as having false beliefs, or not being able to determine what is 'real'. Are the doctors who administered a cocktail of debilitating drugs to 98 people so 2 could survive schitzo? They took an oath to do no harm. What about those who prescribed new analogue pain killers for reasons - yet witnessed all their patients suffer addiction.

The world is schizophrenic. The difference is that some types are socially acceptable while other forms are not.

From what I know, schizophrenics are unfortunately mentally I'll and can be dangerous to themselves and others when not properly treated.

Statistically and historically speaking "sane" people are extremely more dangerous than schizophrenics. Not only to schizophrenics, but also to everyone else. That assumes a priori only diagnosed cases represent whatever schizophrenia is, since it's a biased-subjective label applied indiscriminately.

I completely agree.

Damn sorry. You are prolly talked by about my comments ;)

I see what you done there.

This is a perfect shill response to the post. A nice, emotional story demonstrating that OP must be wrong.

That's just shorthand. Loosen up.

maybe that's just how it is perceived by "normal" people like us. maybe what they're seeing and experiencing is beyond coherent words and thoughts? maybe it makes perfect sense we just can't make sense of it ourselves

From inside of his anal sphincter

The object "chair" is a complete mystery. The symbol (abstraction) "chair" is what we can understand and sit on.

In what way is a physical chair a mystery? Do you not know where chairs come from?

As for symbols not existing without us and only having the power we give them, I would encourage you to read Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell as they show how the same archetypes (symbols) appear again and again in, and exerting enormous influence over, human societies throughout history, separated by thousands of miles and thousands of years. Then see if you find yourself questioning your opinion.

Ah yes, Carl Jung. Take a very simple, easily explained phenomenon and throw a bunch of metaphysical gibberish on top of it. Humans are all pretty much the same. We all have the same needs. We have fairly easily categorized fears and desires. We all live on the same planet and came from a set of common ancestors. Why is it surprising that the basis for where our intuition comes from would be the same? What is magical about that?

And an interesting side note... have you ever seen a dog dreaming? One of the places that human archetypes pop up most frequently are our dreams. Could there be dog archetypes in the dream of a dog? Without knowing, can we be sure the symbolic is exclusive to humans?

Yes, there are almost certainly archetypes and abstractions in the thoughts of lesser animals. That's not the same thing as symbolism. Dogs are incapable of engaging in symbolism because symbolism is an advanced form of communication that requires certain mental faculties to use.