this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
881 points (95.9% liked)

Science Memes

19830 readers
2955 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cotus@midwest.social 6 points 21 hours ago

ITT: people who have never taken psychs talking shit and people who have being like chill. Who do you think knows more? The folks swallowing D.A.R.E. propaganda like water, or the open minded people who actually experienced it??

[–] Psychodelic@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's wild how conservative and square the community is here.

Thanks for posting the comic! It's neat

[–] TwodogsFighting@lemdro.id 2 points 17 hours ago

Get off my lawn, you goddamn hippies!

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I really didn't like the personality changes I saw in others after taking LSD, that's why I have no interest in psychedelics.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Admittedly I haven't done a lot of deep diving on it, but what kinds of personality changes did you observe? I haven't heard a lot of testimony like this around psychedelics. Mostly just people praising them.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ekZepp@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Me neither. This is not about psychedelics.

[–] LogicalDrivel@sopuli.xyz 2 points 22 hours ago

IDC what y'all say. I like this comic. I liked doing psychedelics in college. I may do more eventually...

YAY DRUGS!

[–] Jaimesmith@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Plot twist: you’re already hallucinating, your brain just calls it reality 😂

[–] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 193 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (28 children)

All this brain hallucinating reality stuff pisses me off because people use it as a springboard to say that reality is subjective or something, as if a blood clot in my leg that I'm just not aware of can't REALLY kill me. There is a uniform and self-consistent reality which we all have only limited perceptual awareness of. The great value of science is to give us greater access to that reality, not to fabricate wishy-washy arguments for how that reality doesn't exist ~~or doesn't have meaning~~ (see comment below for clarification here)

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 59 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (16 children)

The data of reality is consistent. How that data is interpreted by the brain may not be. Like the color red might not look the same to you as it does to me despite it being the same wavelength for both of us. We'll never know since it's impossible to describe a color and we can't see the world with the other's brain.

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 32 points 2 days ago (14 children)

Given that color theory works the same for anyone that isn't some variety of colorblind, I'd argue we probably see colors the same way or very very close to the same.

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

colour theory works the same to everyone because it works entirely with how colours relate to each other

if you saw colours rotated on a colour wheel 180° - so that your green is my purple - we wouldn't know

the only difference would be in the hue (difference between green and purple), which isn't all that important. there are plenty of videos on youtube with artists drawing using random hues but with correct values (difference between black and white) and once they switch their work to colour it all just looks, good, a bit abstract for sure but still good

besides, colour theory picks colours that go together well based on their relative position on the colour wheel. teal works well with orange because they're complimentary, opposites on the spectrum. neutral colours are neutral because they're desaturated regardless of hue, neon colours are very saturated regardless of hue

maybe in objective reality we all like the same exact hue of colour, but in our brains we all call it a different word, we'll never know

[–] erev@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (3 children)

the logic might be the same, the perception may not

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (4 children)

The logic is based on perception, though. Colors either clash or go together because of how we percieve them and which colors go with which is pretty consistent between cultures and time periods.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago

But perception is for a large part embedded in memory, which differs individually. For me steel foundries smell amazing because I used to play on the beach near a steel foundry, to the point I need to put effort into understanding that it's actually kind of acrid. So am I still "having the same perception" as someone who doesn't have the lived experience?

This can happen at a society-wide level too. Liminal beige and seafoam green were not intended to create a feeling of disquiet, but of calm neutrality. Modern audiences perceive them as disquieting because they have been systematically used in our society to impose a sense of calm on un-calm situations, such as operating rooms or hallways in sketchy buildings.

I honestly don't know how much of the commonality of associations across cultures comes from instinct and how much comes from the fact that all children learn to live on the same planet with the same physical laws. I would bet that for 99.9% of children, their first experience with a strong sulphur smell is going to be from rotten eggs (or similar rotten goods) that others act disgusted by. So the fact that sulphur smells disgusting to the vast majority of adults is not evidence for instinct over memory. The same goes for green plants, red blood, blue skies, etc.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 day ago

As a great scientist once said:

"There's no scientific consensus that life is important" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth

load more comments (26 replies)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago (4 children)

It's more "I want to continue to hallucinate in the super useful way that all humans normally do, and not fuck up my brain so that useful hallucination of reality gets knocked out of whack."

A series of still images, if the frame rate is fast enough, appears to us as smooth motion. Our eye can only focus on a tiny spot at any given time, but our brain fills in the rest of the visual field as if it's high res based on the last time we glanced somewhere, some extrapolation and interpolation, etc. We're somehow able to pull the sound of someone's voice out of a crowd of noises and ignore all the irrelevant sounds to hear what someone's saying. And then these sounds get somehow directly translated to words and concepts in our head. And if you're looking at someone in the face as they're talking, you can read emotions there, instead of just seeing a wrinkly slab of meat with some wet spheres near the top and some disgusting wet holes below. That's all "hallucination" in some way. But, it's all incredibly useful.

I know that 99% of the time if someone takes hallucinogens they come back to reality just fine. Sometimes the trip even makes them feel better. But, is it really worth messing with your brain's delicate and super useful hallucination of the world around you?

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago

Over time, psychedelics tend to clean off the lenses, so to speak, making the "useful hallucination" more accurate and reliable.

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

not really 99%, more 99.9%

the only time when you as a person should never take psychadelics is when you have a pychoaffective disorder (or a history of it in your family) as it can trigger psychosis

other dangers come from heavy abuse of the substances, nothing you can do accidentally (psychadelics are non-addictive chemically speaking, but we humans can abuse anything so there's been cases of it) or taking the substances when you're depressed or anxious (can turn into a bad trip, cure you of those in a day, or just be a normal trip, it's a gamble)

99.9% of the time people who take psychadelics come back to normal after the effects wear off. even bad trips can be beneficial. the normal becomes broader, and many lessons are learnt, the useful hallucinations gain more meaning. i often compare psychadelic trips to having a mirror put in front of yourself and being forced to look at it for hours, now - do you like what you see?

[–] yistdaj@pawb.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I thought such disorders were much more frequent in the human population than 0.1%

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

i also narrowed down my guesstimation to only include those interested in taking psychadelics

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago

I dunno if I'd call this hallucination, although I get what you're saying and I agree with you! But wouldn't "interpretation" be a more apt description?

If someone is seeing a message out of this very text, rather than the strict "material reality" of each individual letter just being an arbitrary glyhph, or each pixel, or each little diode or electron forming those pixels...

...to call this miraculous level of ascribing meaning "hallucinating" seems a disservice right?

Your comment just brought me a lot of wonder and awe, because you're right, our brains' wiring to tell stories and weave concepts and interpret the world around us in a way that's useful, and beautiful, is a wonderful part of being alive and setting us apart from mere machines, rather than simply a feed of raw unfiltered data input from the world around us "as it is."

Truly marvelous. :D

[–] gnufuu@infosec.pub 2 points 1 day ago

Duuude, totally

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 95 points 2 days ago (4 children)

It's just more efficient for my brain to only render what I'm looking at.

[–] chortle_tortle@mander.xyz 48 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Dismissing: lacks object permanence.

Embracing: optimizes render load.

Have we considered I don't have ADHD, just triple A blockbuster brain engine??

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

This is why when I want to cross a busy road I just pretend reality isn’t real, close my eyes, and cross the road. Can’t get hit by cars if I don’t accept that they are there.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ascend@lemmy.radio 61 points 2 days ago (12 children)

The one time I tried shrooms I died, then I saw everything I needed for what I was going through and woke up the next day after all the nightmares feeling at peace with life and had a new perspective. Kind of like a speed run midlife crisis. I wouldn't do it again but I'm glad I did

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 61 points 2 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›