Hallucinating Facts: Psychedelic Science and the Epistemic Power of Data Emma Stamm Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Social, Political, Ethical, and Cultural Thought François Debrix, Chair Rebecca Hester Timothy W. Luke Ashley Heflin February 24, 2020 Blacksburg, VA Keywords: Data, Big Data, Technology, Digitality, Political Economy, Epistemology, Psychedelics, Hallucinogens, Deleuze, Foucault, Critical Data Studies, Critical Information Studies, Critical Theory, Continental Philosophy, Philosophy of Technology, Philosophy of Science, Media Studies, Critical Media Studies, Social Theory, Cultural Theory, History of Science, Digital Methods, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning Copyright 2020 Hallucinating Facts: Psychedelic Science and the Epistemic Power of Data Emma Stamm Academic Abstract This dissertation is a theoretical study of the relationship between digitality, knowledge, and power in the age of Big Data. My argument is that human medical research on psychedelic substances supports a critique of what I call “the data episteme.” I use “episteme” in the sense developed by philosopher Michel Foucault, where the term describes an apparatus for determining the properties associated with the epistemic condition of scientificity. I write that the data episteme suppresses bodies of knowledge which do not bear the epistemic virtues associated with digital data. These include but are not limited to the capacities for positivistic representation and translation into discrete digital media. Drawing from scientific reports, I demonstrate that certain forms of knowledge regarding the therapeutic mechanisms of psychedelics cannot withstand positivistic representation and digitization. Henceforth, psychedelic research demands frameworks for epistemic legitimation which differ from those predicated on the criteria associated with the data episteme. I additionally claim that psychedelic inebriation promotes a form of thinking which has been called, by various theorists, “negative,” “abstract,” or “idiosyncratic” thought. Whereas the data episteme denies the existence of negative thought, psychedelic research suggests that this mental function is essential to the successful deposition of psychedelic substances as adjuncts to psychotherapy. For the reasons listed above, psychedelic science provides a uniquely salient lens on the normative operations of the data episteme. As it suppresses non-digitizable knowledge, the data episteme also implements what Foucault conceptualizes as “knowledge-power,” a term which affirms the fact that there is no meaningful difference between knowledge and power. Here, “power” may be defined as the power to promote but also to retract conditions on which phenomena may exist across all sites of social, intellectual, and political construction. I write that the data episteme seeks to both nullify the preconditions for negative thought and to naturalize the possibility of an infinite expansion of human mental activity, which in turn figures mentality as an inexhaustible resource for the commodity of digital data. The data episteme therefore reifies the logic of ceaseless economic proliferation, and as such, abets technologized capitalism. In the event that the data episteme fulfills its teleological goal to become total, virtually all that is thinkable would yield to economic subordination. I present psychedelic science as a site where knowledge which challenges the data episteme is empirically necessary, and which, by extension, attests to the existence of that which cannot be economically subsumed. Hallucinating Facts: Psychedelic Science and the Epistemic Power of Data Emma Stamm General Audience Abstract In the age of Big Data, scientists draw upon the ever-expanding quantities of information which are produced, circulated, and analyzed by digital devices every day. As data grow in number, these tools gain in their ability to yield precise and faithful information about the objects they represent. It appears that all forms of knowledge may one day be perfectly replicated in the form of digital data. This dissertation claims that certain forms of knowledge cannot be digitized, and that the existence of non-digitizable knowledge has important implications for both science and politics. I begin by considering the fact that digital tools can only produce knowledge about phenomena which permit digitization. I claim that this limitation necessarily restricts the sorts of information which digital devices may generate. I also observe that the digital turn has inaugurated a novel mode of capitalist economic production based on the commodity of digital information. The increasing dependence of scientific authority on digital methods is therefore also a concern for political economy. I argue that the reliance of scientific authority on digital data restricts the scope of scientific inquiry and makes ceaseless economic expansion appear both necessary and inevitable. It is thus critical to indicate sites of research and practice where non-digitizable knowledge plays an essential role in informing scientific processes. Such an indication is not only pertinent to scientific research, but also points up the ways in which data facilitate unregulated economic growth. Psychedelic drug research serves as my lens on digitality and political economy. Specifically, I explore the ways in which quantitative and computational methodologies have been used and critiqued by scientists who study the psychiatric benefit of psychedelics on human consciousness. Taking a historical approach, I demonstrate that psychedelic scientists have always faced the paradoxical task of translating the unusual and ineffable effects of psychedelics into discrete, measurable variables. This quandary has become more pronounced in the age of digital tool use, as such tools rest on the logic of metrical and discrete analysis. I suggest that the therapeutic mechanisms of psychedelics can only be fully revealed by methodological techniques which explicitly address the epistemic limitations of digital data. Noting that the ascendance of Big Data is contemporaneous with a rise of interest in psychedelics as adjuncts to psychotherapy, I assert that psychedelic science provides abundant materials for a critique of the ostensive epistemic authority of digital data, which operates as an alibi for technologized capitalism. For Eric iv Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank my indefatigable advisor, François Debrix. My dissertation owes much to his perceptive reading and editing of my work, and to his commitment to my success. Thank you also to each member of my committee: Rebecca Hester, Timothy Luke, and Ashley Shew. My project benefited significantly from their contributions, and from the confidence that they instilled in me from the earliest days of the writing process. Deep gratitude to my parents, Barbara and David Stamm, for their love and lifelong support of my academic pursuits. Thank you also to my twin brother, Eric; my sister, Arielle; and my nephew, Benjamin. My partner, Mario Khreiche, is in a category all his own. His love, intelligence, wisdom and humor have been crucial to my well-being throughout the entirety of the project. I look forward to our life together. I am enormously grateful for my friends, colleagues and mentors at Virginia Tech and in the Blacksburg community. In no particular order: Tamara Sutphin, Mauro Caraccioli, Brett Shadle, Tom Ewing, Emily Bianchi, Faith Skiles, Sascha Engel, Damien Williams, Maddie Tepper, Anthony Szczurek, Jack Leff, Kirsten Brown, Kristen Koopman, Alex Stubberfield, Trevor Jamerson, Komal Dillon-Jamerson, Joshua Earle, Matthew Brisendine, Janet Convery, Patrick Salmons, Judson Abraham, Ryan Artrip, Jordan Laney, Molly Todd, Leigh McKagen, Mary Ryan, Nada Berrada, Robert Flahive, Shaun Respess, Sarah Plummer, Samantha Fried, Jennifer Lawrence, Sengul Yildiz Alanbay, Claire Constantikes, Caleb Flood, and Tim Filbert. Thank you also to family and friends further afield, including Rollie Stamm, Ronna Stamm, Paul Lehman, Angus McPhee, Elizabeth McPhee, Nikki McPhee, Neil McPhee, Claire McPhee, Ingrid Khreiche, Patricia Khreiche, Matthias Winter, Andre Khreiche, Abdallah Khreiche, Gabi Kuhlgert, Rosa Khreiche, Nassif Khreiche, Philip Mazzullo, Nina Bar-Giora, Nicholas Rake, Yonatan Miller, Brad Gorfein, Richard Schwab, Henry Kramer, Heather Ording, Joseph Contento, Heather Duke, Marc Greene, Jonathan Frost, Tove Innis, Randy Walker, and Melissa Patel. Special thanks to my online community of interlocutors, and to my students at Virginia Tech. The work is just beginning. v Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction: Data, Knowledge and Power: 2 The Data Episteme: 2 Positivism and Digital Knowledge Problems: 9 Data and the “End of Theory:” 14 Psychedelic Science As/And Methodology: 15 Defining Data for Theoretical Critique: 20 Datafication, Discretization, and Grammatization: 27 Critical Data Studies and Epistemic Limits: 32 Epistemic Limits as Political Effects: 36 Outline of Chapters: 38 Chapter 2: Resemblance and the Digital Construction of Knowledge: 41 Introduction: On the Imperceptibility of Data: 41 Data and the Image of Thought: 43 Data and the Sign Value Form: 47 Romano Alquati, Guy Debord, and the Limits of Marxist Orthodoxy: 51 Data Surfaces and Network Properties: The Case of Biotechnology: 53 Iridescent and Hermeneutic Mediation: 56 Digital