Yikes. I really should stop writing posts whilst I am dead tired. Re-reading what I wrote, a few things were distinctly silly.
I'm glad you know what goes in a monkey's head. I for one have no clue.
I was just guessing. With no information to go off of (you've got to give me more info the the drug, studies on it, etc.) I just guessed that which made the most sense to me.
If I may rephrase your last sentence, it should read as "I tend to be a bit suspicious of things that you can only understand through chemical reactions that you have no control over". Can you see the problem now?
Absolutely, yes. But you need to level the playing field and give me more information on the chemical, its physical effects on the brain, etc.
What's wrong with artificial? Do you believe your brain has been optimized to know what's true, or do you think it has been optimized to find food?
Of course, having a rough idea of what's true tends to help facilitate the finding of said food. Regardless, if you want me to tell you "what's wrong with artifical?" in the case of hallucinogenics (which I would guess is the category this drug falls under) would you see anything wrong about someone believing in pink elephants after frying their brain on LSD? Moreover, if someone told you they had seen a pink elephant, would you tend to believe them more if you knew they weren't into drugs? Why is that?
if your thought is controlled by chemical reactions beyond your conscious control, you have no way to know that what you're thinking right now is more or less "true" than what you might be thinking under the influence of narcotics.
That's absolutely true. I do understand your point. And there is no answer, not now, or if I took the drug myself. Experience is subjective. That's why I try to limit my "beliefs" to as few as possible. That is, the drug would force me into having faith apart from a reason to. I am naturally adverse to that. Although I am intrigued.