The microscope was a tool for observing a new layer of objective, real, reproducible phenomenon within a previously inaccessible layer of our universe. Now, considering the conversation we're having, feel free to take "objective and real" with a grain of salt, but what I mean is that they are internally consistent, verifiable, reproducible, etc.
Psychedelics have so far proven to be capable of temporarily rewiring our already highly flawed, subjective consciousness computers, in ways that can be potentially useful, but mostly seem to produce epiphanies that are rooted entirely in subjectivity, entirely fabricated. I don't really care at all if you had an experience that told you that all life existed on a 4 dimensional tetrahedron rotating through time. I do care, though, if you saw some behavior in a bacteria through a microscope which other people can observe and similarly draw their own judgements from.
That doesn't mean that I don't think that already intelligent people can't benefit from an occasional new perspective, potentially brought about by psychedelics in the same way that it could be brought on by a move to a new country, or a walk outside, but that doesn't mean that I think that psychedelics are the gateway to an entire frontier on consciousness.
My point was not about the validity of psychedelic experiences.
It was about the fact that we have outright banned all avenues of research into these alterations in consciousness so we can't even find out if there are reproducible effects across individuals. If you did care about scientific inquiry and reproducibility then you would also be against these absurd restrictions.
Because of this self-imposed ignorance we're just now beginning to see that psychedelics and other psychoactives can be used to treat a variety of psychological afflictions. I don't think you grasp how important it is to have access to compounds that can produce fundamental alterations to our conscious perception that take effect immediately, have few to no side effects and are completely reversible. Only TDCS and TMS have come anywhere close to that and their effects are nowhere near as powerful or significant.
This isn't about taking a break from reality, doing some yoga, and instagramming your latest shower thought. It's being able to pry open the black box of your own consciousness and poking around inside to see what happens without the necessity of brain surgery and risk of permanent physical or mental disability.
By the way "subjective consciousness computers" sounds about as accurate as "4 dimensional tetrahedron rotating through time". Both are little better than word salad with only tenuous connection to the things they're attempting to describe.
How is describing our brains as "consciousness computers" inaccurate? Our brains have so many analogous components to computers. Both have working memory, long term memory, both have processors proficient in either linear or parallel processing, and the way our neurons interact formed the basis for neutral networks in software.
You also seem to think that I believe it's a good thing that psychedelics are illegal, when I have explicitly said otherwise. I think people should be able to do with their body as they wish, and research into the effects could produce some utility. But what you're talking about here, having psychedelics help "treat a variety of psychological afflictions," isn't what I would consider to be pushing frontiers forwards further and faster than space exploration, although that's ultimately a matter of preference.
Every era has attempted to explain the functions of the brain using metaphor, usually whatever technological apparatus most in vogue at the time. Hydraulic, mechanical, electrical, and now digital comparisons have all been made and they're all a very poor fit. You could just as easily make the same comparisons you gave to a piece of paper and a pencil. It has working memory where you write and erase lines, it has long term memory where you leave the written lines, and you can perform computations on it by writing them out long form. The comparison should seem absurd because the functions of memory and computation are not actually part of consciousness, they are things acted upon by consciousness.
This makes sense if you imaging 3 scenarios:
1) A person with no short term memory e.g. someone with acute dementia
2) No long term memory e.g. amnesia
3) No processing e.g. sensory deprivation
The third scenario is not perfect but depends entirely on how you define processing. Here I've defined it as operating on sensory input. If you want to define it as "thinking" then you will need to define what thinking is.
As for biological vs. artificial neural networks, yes it appears that a neural network is required for consciousness to exist given our single example of human consciousness. We don't know how this works so we can't even say for sure if the way we've implemented artificial neural networks would be capable of producing a form a consciousness. They can process and categorize data in ways that seem similar to what our brains do with sense perception but so far we haven't come anywhere close to simulating what we would call a conscious agent. Artificial NNs don't tie computers to the brain in a meaningful way because we are only using computers to simulate NNs. It would be better to just talk about the properties of NNs and leave computers out of it.
I apologize if I've made it seem like I'm accusing you of advocating for the illegality of psychedelics. I meant to criticize your opinion that they have little to no benefit since you were arguing that we could derive the same effects from going for a walk or moving to a different country.
"pushing frontiers forwards further and faster than space exploration" this wasn't from me and is not something I necessarily agree with
Psychedelics have so far proven to be capable of temporarily rewiring our already highly flawed, subjective consciousness computers, in ways that can be potentially useful, but mostly seem to produce epiphanies that are rooted entirely in subjectivity, entirely fabricated. I don't really care at all if you had an experience that told you that all life existed on a 4 dimensional tetrahedron rotating through time. I do care, though, if you saw some behavior in a bacteria through a microscope which other people can observe and similarly draw their own judgements from.
That doesn't mean that I don't think that already intelligent people can't benefit from an occasional new perspective, potentially brought about by psychedelics in the same way that it could be brought on by a move to a new country, or a walk outside, but that doesn't mean that I think that psychedelics are the gateway to an entire frontier on consciousness.