Your question is loaded in a different way than you might have anticipated, it presupposes that truth DOES come from psychedelics as well as from reason.

It's true that many people feel a deep connection to and understanding of consciousness during a psychedelics trip. Did they actually gain any knowledge about how their own brains work in the same way that a neuroscientist or ML expert might understand it? I contend that they did not, even if they feel that they did.

In a similar way a drunk might suddenly feel that he has the ability to dance. That's hardly a replacement for salsa classes.

Of course there are exceptions. Many brilliant people take psychedelics and credit them with breakthroughs in their fields, that can't be ignored. But you'll notice that its always _in their field_, ie they were already thinking about a problem and psychedelics offered them a new perspective.

I have no problems with psychedelics or their use. I took issue with the implication that they are needed in order to think in the way Hofstadter does - it's kind of like asking what flippers Michael Phelps uses when he swims in the olympics.

I didn't mean to imply that and certainly don't think it is required. My question had little to do with the content and much more to do with the style, and the author's intended effects upon the reader.

Thanks for clarifying!

thanks for responding!

i might feel a bit differently, but I think I hear where you're coming from: that it does a disservice to great people when we flippantly imply their greatness originates from simplistic things outside themselves (if I'm still way off, feel free to correct, but pls don't feel obligated to engage :) )

That might be a good way of putting it. I think also that the question to me implied a cynicism about how people can be curious and creative while also being scientific, but the original commenter has already clarified they did not intend this interpretation at all

i like you. that is all