Epistemology and psychedelics

Hey guys, this is something that I've been thinking about for a while ever since our discussions on epistemology. We seem to gain knowledge through observation, consistently using sense data to update our model of the world. However, there are certain substances around that are designed to deliberately screw with this model, which makes me wonder how they fit into all of this.

Here's a clip from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, where one of the characters (played by Johnny Depp) enters a hotel in Vegas while he's on LSD. A lot of absurd stuff happens, and the guy basically sees and senses a lot of things that aren't really there. In reality, none of this insanity actually exists, but to him these visuals are very real and manage to freak him out a bit.

So it makes you wonder about the epistemology involved in defining what we know as "reality." If a chemical alteration to your synapses can drastically alter your view of the world, then can you really define a "regular" world view?  On some level, even when we are sober, our brain just goes through physical/chemical interactions as well. It's maybe a more subdued version of what happens when your brain interacts with a hallucinogen. Dreams are a similar topic, where our mind's interactions form a distorted view of what we consider "reality." Regardless of our mental state, it seems like our minds clearly drive our perceptions of reality, as well as our "model" for how the world works. If our minds are perturbed in some manner, then that disturbance ripples out to our perception of reality as well. I guess I'm kind of rambling on here, but I guess I'm just trying to drive at the fact that there are things out there that can drastically alter our world view and sense of self, which definitely has interesting implications with about epistemological and ontological thought. 


If a magic mushroom trip gives you the illusion that you truly understand everything about the world, then do you really understand the world? Most would say no. But if everything's all in your head at the end of the day, does it really matter? You could well be the only person who really matters when it comes to matters of defining the sources of your knowledge and your identity. Goes back to that Kuhnian idea of being trapped in your own paradigms... it might be impossible to truly understand what true "reality" is when you've been biased by your mind's personal flavor. To what extent is it appropriate to consider others' perceptions in these aspects?