It is weird how people react when you say you don't drink - it makes them oddly uncomfortable.
I rarely drink, and only once or twice would I say I got close to drunk but I promptly fell asleep anyway.
I doubt I'll ever do psychedelics, but I guess I wonder what exactly makes one a professional philosopher of mind, assumed to have a certain expertise, if not collecting an array of varied states of consciousness? (This doesn't have to involve drugs of course, given there's currently no safe legal way to do psychedelics outside of limited studies.)
It seems to me, perhaps unfairly given Western philosophy seems to defer to Science, that anyone can philosophize on consciousness if reading some stuff is all it takes.
I know that feeling as well, I pretty much never drink and only a handful of times did until I was actually drunk.
I think where the article sort of runs away from me is where it sort of goes to "prove" panpsychism through experience. The issue here, I guess, for me, is something like: "normative" experience doesn't include a panpsychic component and psychedelic experience seems to. Under what auspices are we to discount one for the other. In other words, how are we to be sure that psychedelic experience isn't just a hallucination?
I'm not apt to discount psychedelic experience, of course, because as something of a phenomenologist, it's plain to see that it is
something. Although that leaves the question of "what is it?" wide open, still.