Talk:Psychedelic experience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of psychoactive and recreational drugs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Clean Up[edit]

This article did seem to project a biased view in its language, using esoteric and possibly inappropriate ways of describing such an experience... as someones else said "as if they've had one". I believe we should only cite that which is factual information based from credible sources with substantial knowledge of Psychology and/or Pharmaceutical/Psychoactive topics. This is why I'm subjecting it to a clean up, so that we may add to the amount of information on the subject without making it sound like an anecdotal recall of ones own experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MahJesus (talkcontribs) 04:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Statements like "Satori" etc need to be qualified and not just postulated as the theoretical end-point of potential "crazy experience." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


I also made a small edit to the "level 5" part of the psychedelic experience, im pretty new my self to the Wikipedian community. How ever I am not new to the study of and extreme experience with pychedelics. You could call me a Psychonaut if you will. Please let me know if anyting I edit isn't up to wikipedia's standards considering my lack of knowledge in the wikipedian ways.


Im a wiki beginner, so plz let me know what else is needed.


It was requested that I elaborate on the tags I placed on the page, and so I shall do so.

The language of the article is questionable at best. I wouldn't say it violates NPOV precisely, but it seems to be written from the perspective of one who has experienced such an...experience.

Much of the article seems anecdotal, and is written with an almost reverent tone. Could I describe to you the exact tone with which this article should be written? Certainly not. Something as abstract as a psychedelic experience may not be describable in an encyclopedic tone. However, it seemed worth bringing up if only to provoke discussion of the matter.

As for the other tag, it relates further to the anecdotal nature of the article. While much of what appears in the article may be accurate, it speaks solely in a subjective manner about such experiences. Perhaps the article could be expanded to include survey data, medical research, and the like. Objective facts about psychedelia that could be used to provide a broader picture, and make the article accessible to a broader audience. As I see this is part of a group project, I will leave it to your due consideration. Juansmith 05:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Citations coming[edit]

I have a few books which contain plenty of references and citations that can be used to bolster up this article, and remove the original research worry. BTW, much of what is on this page cames from Erowid, which is a respected resource in itself. --Thoric 21:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

William White[edit]

Among notable 'mind explorers' is listed William White; this link is to a disambiguation page and there is no contextual information to allow selection of which person is being referred to here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is rather amatuerish. Do we have any DSM discussion of psychedelic drugs, any citations on some of the alleged "mind explorers?" - 16:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


"dmt is one of the most powerful..." yeah, that bit. surely LSD is waaaaay more powerful cos the doses are much smaller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

LSD is more potent than DMT, not more powerful. --—MagnoliaFen (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been stated what are effects of high dosage of LSD but it we haven't been informed what high dosage DMT could capable of, its mid-level could achieve level5 5 so higher dosage, what does it do? kills? Death? Mind beath? That's the only thing we havent been informed about. Thanks (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Erdem

Someones Response[edit]

(moved from article page)

This is someones response after going through all these levels.
This must be the most detailed on how a drug works, this is exactly how I feel. Someone who has never did a drug before, need something to read for info on how it works? Better read this, this great info.

Quality of the Page[edit]

this page I've found to be the best on the subject of psychedelics in general. the bottom line is that it's still in its infancy.

an expert could talk about its relation to transpersonal psychology, to entheogenic use, to Huxley's mind at large, etc.

but still, it's the kind of page I'm likely to visit back years from now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twipley (talkcontribs) 03:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What about dissociatives and deliriants[edit]

Should the effects of dissociatives and deliriants be added to the page? DXM is mentioned but deliriants are not mentioned at all. I'm thinking we should mention some of the deliriants like DPH or datura given the strong hallucinations they cause YVNP (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and in addition, the trip levels should be differentiated. Dissociative hallucinogens like DXM, ketamine or PCP usually don't cause open eye hallucinations at any dose but disintegration of the ego already occurs at modest doses (since this is their primary effect, duh).
The present categorization is clearly written for serotonergic hallucinogens (except for level 5 which includes high dose effects of dissoc. haluc.s).

An external link[edit]

On 24th of January 2010 JamesBWatson deleted my link Publicly expressed thoughts and ideas about the effects of psychedelic drugs on bases of WP:ELNO. Probably meaning the point 12. that deals about open wikis. If you check this wiki you will see there is source for every claim and the ones that are not sourced are stated as rumours. Do you think I could edit the link back to this article?--Custoo (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support the addition of the link, it being decently sourced. --Aukikco (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I've been wating a week and a half here so maybe I'll just edit the link back in. If you JamesBWatson or someone else see that the link needs to be deleted then please participate in this discussion! --Custoo (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Neurological information[edit]

Is there any information out there on how these drugs affect the brain physiologically and cause the described effects? User: 01:39, 15 June 2012

I found this article that may be of interest re. your question...maybe add a section on endogenously triggered psychedelic experiences? Paul G. Joseph (2012), Serotonergic and tryptaminergic overstimulation on refeeding implicated in “enlightenment” experiences
Octavious88 (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This article has been discussed extensively at Talk:Enlightenment (spiritual)#Scientific Considerations and Talk:Enlightenment (spiritual)#''Scientific Consideration'' and been rejected, as being unreliable. Main partcicipant in this discussion was User:Raul7213 and his puppetshow (user:Lotus sutra81 and User:Enterodoc9. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
And it's also been discussed (and critisized) at other places: [1] Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

tripping through meditation[edit]

can meditation trigger psychedelic experience up to level 5? Artiomjar (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Are there any credible sources who actually claim that you can have psychedelic experiences (up to level 5) reliably and repeatably via some non-drug method? (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Mystical/religious experience and psychedelics[edit]

The section on mystical/religious experience is well-sourced and reliably attested to, and a crucial aspect of 'psychedelic experience'.-- (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it upward, as a separate section/topic. Additional info & sources would be welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The section 'Aldous Huxley' under 'Effects' should be deleted[edit]

This section is completely mis-sourced (it's source is a link to a website unrelated to Huxley) and by modern standards it isnt particularly relevant to psychedelic experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Also Huxley is far better known for his characterisation of psychedelic experience as 'cleansing the doors of perception' which is already partially mentioned in the other section on Huxley-- (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Fine with me. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


There's been quite some bck- and forth editing on the levels described by "Erowid." Apart from question s about WP:RS, the verbatim copying of such a large amount of text looks like a copy-vio. @Diannaa: am I correct here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the massive block in the section above is a WP:COPYVIO as well. Sizeofint (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I've been removing that section for a while now. Is it cool? Yes. Is it relevant? Yes. Is it a good source? Not at all, it is awful. It is a thing a guy wrote. Probably a smart and experienced guy, but still just something he wrote based solely on his own personal experiences. He is not a scientist, it is not a scientific study, it is not peer reviewed, it is just an opinion. It fails WP:RS by a mile. It might be possible to include some of this information if it was taken from Learys book, or any published book, or taken (appropriately) in parts or wholes from actual reliable sources. That would take a bit of work but I think it could be done. I cannot at all see how we should copy and paste someones opinions from an Erowid FAQ however. Beach drifter (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
It's what we call a "foundational copy vio"; the copyright violation appears in the very first revision of the article in 2004 and has been there ever since. In the original addition, the material was identical to the source paper, which was written in 1996. The material needs to stay out. — Diannaa (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I wrote to the presumed authors of the source version whose copyright this section allegedly violates.
FYI, somebody (not me) had repeatedly archived (http:// archive. is/scnAi) the useful removed "Levels" version hereof for posterity. Zezen (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
If they agree to a compatible license that would eliminate the copyright problem. I think some editors are still going to have problems with the "reliable source" issue. The content seems to be WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Sizeofint (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You are right Sizeofint about the WP:SELFPUBLISHED problem, and thank you for your civility, by the way. Also, my email to the original content holders bounced, alas. Zezen (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

There was also another problem: the source contained only part of the info which was deleted from Wikipedia. The rest seemed to eb WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
This book may be usefull here: Dan Merkur, The Ecstatic Imagination, SUNY. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
That looks like a good source! Sizeofint (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is but a husk of its former self due to this revision. I hope it can be put back together with adequate sources. In my mind the system has failed this article.Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
And we could have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those dang copyright laws :) Sizeofint (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)