These experiences might reveal something about consciousness and the human mind, but they do not tell you about the rest of the cosmos. The only way we can learn about that is through observation (astronomy) and experimentation (particle accelerators), not introspection. Heck, introspection can't even reveal to us that our minds are made of neurons.
What basis do you have for saying that? I'm willing to bet that more than a few scientific discoveries were made on, or inspired by, these "introspections". Thinking and perceiving reality differently seems like an excellent way to discover new observations about the world.
That's not what I or yahyaheee are talking about. Giving scientists ideas is not the same as figuring out how the cosmos works. Scientists are inspired from sources as varied as drugs, fever dreams, and even strokes. But they don't actually discover whether things are true until experiments are performed and observations are made. In other words: A scientist may have first conceived of benzene's correct structure in a dream, but other scientists conceived of many other likely structures. The answer wasn't known until x-ray diffraction was performed on the molecule.
Yahyaheee is saying that the last step isn't necessary for some facts. That is, he thinks some drugs, when combined with introspection, can reveal true facts about things outside of the mind. I disagree.
