My remarks about purpose, were simply a response to your suggestion that we might have one, and due to the fact that many other folks (including some I have recently come across) have the assumption that: if only they knew, their purpose, they would be better off. Hence examples calling that assumption into question.
If it's possible for someone to become disillusioned by one's assumed purpose then that suggest to me that what they believed to be their purpose was merely an illusion. That doesn't mean that there is no greater as-yet-unfathomable purpose, just that there's always a chance that our assumptions about what it might be are wrong.
I have no idea what the mushrooms are "talking" about, but it does seem their mycelial threads are confined to a purposeful search; never-the-less, it would seem searching implies exploring/wandering before knowing, I suppose?
What they talk about and what they do can be different, like when I'm talking to someone at work about quantum tunneling while we're hanging drywall.
It's hard to tell what most people are talking about most of the time, too. I'd argue that much of the time we only assume we know what someone else is talking about when they talk to us. We have our collection of stories in our head that we use to interpret the narrative someone else is telling us that is a function of the collection of stories in their head, and how much of such an engagement is projection and how much is an actual exchange of new information would be interesting to be able to answer definitively.
The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins is a fascinating book that goes into the concept of "searching" in the context of Evolution (which involves life "searching" for optimal forms for the selection pressures it faces). It offers some counter-intuitive insights (based on actual data and computer modeling) such as that the act of searching for something tends to create that which is searched for. I was initially very skeptical of this, but Dawkins made a very compelling case. I find that fascinating, and it has profound implications in areas beyond Evolution.
When mushrooms or other entheogens talk to us it's no different than when another person talks to us, at least in the sense that what we interpret as the message being conveyed is as much a function of what we tell ourselves it is as what's being "spoken."
Since we can only really know our own internal collection of stories we can't know if a psychedelic is conscious in some sense and has its own collection of stories.
So do mushrooms (etc.) somehow communicate new information to us, or are we giving ourselves new information/insights thanks to how they allow us to explore and change the stories in our head?
And is this substantially different than what happens when another person talks to us? If not then the notion that psychedelics "talk" to us is just as real as another person talking to us, and is often a lot more insightful (which is fascinating in its own right).
Edited by TVCasualty, 26 May 2022 - 12:06 PM.