In an illegal drug such as LSD, the chemical reaction with your brain causes you to see things, such as motion trails or lighting effects, that cannot be seen by someone who is not on the drug. Assuming that is true, would it be possible that LSD gives its user the ability to see something that actually exists but cannot be seen by the human eye without the chemical adjustment of the drug in the brain?
I consider myself a staunch skeptic, and it puzzles me that I had 3 paranormal instances in which I have no doubt that objects, after falling from my hands, have disappeared before my very eyes or reappeared later in absurd places; I like to think that this is a mystical mischief of a friendly "ghost", for there have not been any consequences; I also think there are layers of different unfathomable dimensions that we will never know in this existence.
I was reading Time magazine of August 15 of this year. I was curious about the fact about what would happen if natural selection is proved wrong? Then if it is proved wrong, is our understanding of the reality relative? And if it is relative, how are we sure that the way we understand our surroundings is the correct one? I really need you to answer this question because I am afraid of devoting my life to something that later will prove completely wrong. Thanks.
On any given question, is there a way of identifying the proper perspective to take in order to arrive at the correct answer? This is a question that is interesting to me primarily in the areas where philosophy overlaps politics and economics. Here are two extremes to illustrate the question. Those who adopt a Marxist perspective seem to draw conclusions about what "society" should do based on what they suppose are direct observations of "society", then extending that to the realm of the individual. Those who adopt an Objectivist perspective seem to draw conclusions based on properties of individuals, and how they aggregate into "society". In this case, one is taking a macro "top-down" view, and the other a micro "bottom-up" view. Aside from ferreting out fallacies and analyzing the form of one's argument, are there any tell-tale signs of a problem that lend themselves to analysis from a particular perspective?
I believe that I am the only thing that really exists. I think that my friends and people I meet are versions of myself if I had taken a different path in life. I could be anyone and I can understand even the most ridiculous of ideas. It seems like a negative view but I am convinced that everyone or everything I encounter is to benefit me in some way. I don't believe in good or bad. Nor emotions or science. Just nature. I was created and all I am here to do is survive as long as possible. Period. No silly questions about the meaning of life or what is my purpose or am I a good person. Life isn't a gift it was just something that was possible and eventually happened. I think people like to lie to themselves to forget the fact that they are basically useless. I apologize for making this sound negative and too long. I guess my question is how can anyone prove to me that they really exist?