"Creating complexity" in the sense of more measurable neural events is not a measure of "higher conscience". You can get the same effect with a pair of electrodes, or even getting patterns of neural events in seizures. The destruction of existing structures, and the inability to retain those "new insights" long enough to explain or use them either during or after the influence of psychedelic "events" is evidence that disruption is possible, not evidence of a "higher" consceience.
It's very *exciting* to get blitzed, and it can be *fun* to taste the color red. But it's hardly insightful. You can get more "insight" by simply paying attention.
You could not be more wrong. External electrical influences or seizures absolutely do not create more "complexity," in the same sense as psychedelics; they create dysfunction through disruption, which is very different. And using a ridiculous blanket term like "getting blitzed" shows that you have no understanding whatsoever of the difference between mere intoxication and other types of altered states, such as those produced by psychedelics. This study, while not groundbreaking, is interesting because it has produced more data supporting the notion that psychedelic states are not simply a form of random intoxication, as you suggest, but are indeed indicative of stimulation of certain brain functions.
You are interpreting the summary completely backwards, and you sound like someone who calls all drugs "narcotics," or thinks that any drug use simply amounts to "getting high," regardless of the intentions, results, or method of action in the body. Nancy Reagan and Richard Nixon would be proud.
you will get modded to hell by apple fanbois for that, how dare you question a contrived scenario to make an IPhone look best. heaven forbid they actually compare real world scenarios.
The iphone 7 runs iOS apps way, way waaayy faster than any Android phone, which is a fact you can't deny, so it must be better!
This gets to the heart of the problem around post-truth. Just who defines "truth"?
How does that fit in to the checks and balances in a democratic society? Does everything have to go through the courts?
Apparently real world data and scientifically proven facts are not considered "truth" any more.
We are now free to define our own alternative truth, like when you say someone wiretapped you, your subordinates who you say would have been responsible for doing so refute your claim, the people who you say will back you up also refuse to do so and say there's no evidence to support you, yet you keep repeating the same thing as your official spokesperson says you misspoke and/or didn't mean it the first time.
I thought truth was universal and limited to what has actually occurred, in a factual sense, rather than a matter of opinion, but a lot of people seem not to agree any more. Pretty scary.
they told you they were rebooting the Matrix and
I'll probably skip it, and just take some pills I got from some creepy strangers who ran from the Feds, or something.
There was a little-known version of the original that featured an alternative ending. Neo took the blue pill, and the movie was only 20 minutes long. Bad movie, but it would have had an upside: no Matrix 2 or 3.
Look the first one was kind of a twist. But to save it they need to go 'down the rabbit hole'.
The first one was great. Lame acting and dialogue, but an interesting movie that was pretty well done overall. The best thing they can do with the reboot is already a given - cast a better actor than Keanu as the lead.
If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.