Psychedelics can trigger psychosis too.
Nothing is risk-free.
11–20 of 135 posts
Psychedelics can trigger psychosis too.
Nothing is risk-free.
They can trigger a paradigm shift in many other areas, not just mental health care. Except it's so hard to explain this to a 'normal' person, who's never taken any. "If God were to permit you a brief voyage into the divine process, let you whirl for a second into the atomic nucleus or spin you out on a light-year trip through the galaxies, how on earth would you describe what you saw when you got back, breathless, to…
So... have you known people who've undergone this chemical love carpet-bombing who are tremendously peaceful, between themselves or with people who were not similarly treated? Because I've known a lot of people who used a variety of drugs and many who swore by LSD, mushrooms, ecstasy or a combination, and they weren't a teeny bit less likely to start petty fights over pretty much nothing than the rest of us, nor were…
Psychedelics can trigger psychosis too.
There is evidence that does not agree with (edit: support) this statement: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130819185302.ht...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the "spiritual effect" of cancer? And just how do you believe that psychedelics "could bring remission to [cancer's] physical manifestation"?
A spiritual effect of cancer is it reminds the organism of its impermanence. We walk on earth without acknowledging the true significance of impermanence, but of course, it does not necessarily need to take to something as earth shattering as cancer to remind oneself of impermanence. As far as remission, OP could be alluding to 'mind over matter', etc. I could say more, but skeptics gonna skeptic. In these matters th…
I don't think anyone disputes the fact that (summed up and oversimplified) attitude matters; but it's not as if attitude matters to the extent that it is more important than the cancer processes themselves.
I don't think it's quite as you describe though; the side demanding proofs do emphasize experience (which is what empiricism is built upon), but it demands a certain standard (which is what skepticism is about).
Not being so generous towards the other "side", I would suggest that it has a problem with regards to bothering with metacognition, as its sympathizers are often more occupied with speculation and imagination - running their mouths, rather than ensuring that what they say makes any sense.
While the adventurous streak in the "experience side" is somewhat admirable, it simply isn't up to par with regards to (standards for) credible claims of truth and knowledge - not to mention that the approach of mindlessly plunging into every unknown might lead to certain death in some cases.
At the very least psychedelics should be a legitimate subject of serious inquiry in the fields of neuroscience and psychiatry.
They can trigger a paradigm shift in many other areas, not just mental health care. Except it's so hard to explain this to a 'normal' person, who's never taken any. "If God were to permit you a brief voyage into the divine process, let you whirl for a second into the atomic nucleus or spin you out on a light-year trip through the galaxies, how on earth would you describe what you saw when you got back, breathless, to…
What is the "spiritual effect" of cancer? And just how do you believe that psychedelics "could bring remission to [cancer's] physical manifestation"?
Taking psychedelics might help it suck less.
TA: "The fact that the effects last beyond the time that you take the medication -- that's really a new paradigm in psychiatry." I have no doubt that psychedelics are capable of producing lasting changes in behaviors, habits, or outlooks. Actually, I'd be surprised if that particular point is at all controversial. However, prespcribing a psychedlic that could have lasting impacts on a person for "reasons we don't und…
Sure SSRIs might have lots more study than LSD and they might know how it affects certain neurotransmitters. But it seems a far cry from really understanding it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is evidence that does not agree with (edit: support) this statement: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130819185302.ht...
Triggering psychosis != causing longterm mental illness. I think parties on both sides of the debate over the safety of psychedelics would agree that they can and often do trigger psychosis. And both parties probably agree, at this point, that they do not cause mental illness.