Live data from Hacker News

Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

npr.org

121–130 of 220 posts

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#121
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok your comment is EXTREMELY misleading. Taking nitrous while on LSD is a COMPLETELY different ballgame than LSD on its own. And your comment is just railing against LSD. Ridiculous. You have no place to be telling people about psychedelics.

Ok, sure. Let my advice of "be careful" be stricken from the record. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There's nothing wrong with telling people to be careful, however it is important that you give them a full picture of what went wrong with you so they can avoid it. Otherwise you're just appropriating a past experience to further an agenda.

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#122
post #13

Im a stable, sane, not depressed or anything person. I once took LSD (mixed with other things aswell...) and had a trip during which I spoke to God, Satan and various other imaginary beings. It was not a fun experience - I'm a man of science, but the feeling/perception was so real, my entire world view was shattered. It stuck with me for months after. I've gone from someone who 100% believed in evolution and a materi…

Have you just called all the (millions) of religions people insane?

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you see it as a indication of the opposite of what we typically call God? That instead of there being an external entity outside our universe interacting with you, you talked to something God-like inside yourself. This might be what you share with every person in history that ever have received divine inspiration. That same experience motivated them. Just like we can share experience with other people when we a…

This person was unwilling or unable to assimilate their experience and now they are blaming LSD. Funny enough, if he kept taking LSD and exploring his spirituality he could deal with the feelings of believing in science but being shaken by the possibility of the supernatural. That's actually pretty straightforward. But he is choosing to close the book on it, and now is blaming the drug when really its himself. An act…

my first thought was about the same; "shouldn't have stopped there".

and really, their experience fundamentally sounds like a good thing. a new way of looking at, or experiencing the world was opened to them. yeah, it can be frightening, and that's why you need to put more work in, to accommodate it in your life.

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#124
post #13

Im a stable, sane, not depressed or anything person. I once took LSD (mixed with other things aswell...) and had a trip during which I spoke to God, Satan and various other imaginary beings. It was not a fun experience - I'm a man of science, but the feeling/perception was so real, my entire world view was shattered. It stuck with me for months after. I've gone from someone who 100% believed in evolution and a materi…

Have you just called all the (millions) of religions people insane?

well, technically the only thing stopping the medical world from calling a very religious person delusional, is the fact that religious people are specifically exempt from receiving that diagnosis, for no medical reason whatsoever.

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#125

Aldous Huxley, dying of terminal cancer, took LSD on his deathbed, and died while on his final trip (it was planned that way), although a relatively low dose of 100ug. It seems to me like it would be a good way to go, a good way to conquer the fear of the unknown after you die. In a related experience, once when I was on a bender, I took 3 tabs of lsd, along with a whole plethora of other substances. I actually thoug…

> I really think that Hunter S Thompson was right: it's all bullshit. You're not connecting to another plane of existence or getting in touch with your ancestors. You're just fucked on drugs.

I think it depends how you go into it.

20 years ago I did magic mushrooms for fun. I did some more recently to give up smoking.

With a more mature outlook you can gain some real insights into yourself and the nature of your consciousness during a trip. Or you can listen to some music and have some fun. I ended up starting to meditate as a side effect.

(You mention that you took a "plethora of other substances", that probably doesn't help you gain insights into yourself.)

Sam Harris has some very interesting stuff to say about non religious spirituality (and the overlaps between meditation and psychedelics).

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#126
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Well, it sounds like you went from being an atheist to an agnostic. That certainly is a more rational and less dogmatic position to take, based on what we know. I'm not sure why this argument shows so often (and it's not even limited to religion), but it's an incredibly bad one. The positions here are not a ternary matter. The options are not limited to 100% one way, 100% the other, or right in the middle. The 'most…

> There is no reason to believe intentionally screwing with it's functioning would somehow increase it's ability to perceive the world truthfully. Right, my point is that psychedelics are great for exposing falsehood in your thinking, but not necessarily uncovering truth. > The 'most rational' position lies somewhere in that continuum. When converting to the usual trinary labels, one extreme or the other may end up b…

just wanted to say that i don't understand why you are getting downvoted for this. i found your original comment, and especially the blog excerpt quite reasonable.

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#127
"When I said we may be our programs, nothing more, nothing less, I meant the substrate, the basic substratum under all else, of our metaprograms is our programs. All we are as humans is what is builtin and what has been acquired, and what we make of both of these. So we are one more result of the program substrate-the selfmetaprogrammer.

As out of several hundreds of thousands of the substrate programs comes an adaptable changing set of thousands of metaprograms, so out of the metaprograms as substrate comes something else-the controller, the steersman, the programmer in the biocomputer, the selfmetaprogrammer. In a well organized biocomputer, there is at least one such critical control metaprogram labeled I for acting on other metaprograms and labeled me when acted upon by other metaprograms. I say at least one advisedly. Most of us have several controllers, selves, selfmetaprograms which divide control among them, either in time parallel or in time series in sequences of control. As I will give in detail later, one path for selfdevelopment is to centralize control of one's biocomputer in one selfmetaprogrammer, making the others into conscious executives subordinate to the single administrator, the single superconscient selfmetaprogrammer. With appropriate methods, this centralizing of control, the elementary unification operation, is a realizable state for many, if not all biocomputers."

--John C Lilly https://pictures.abebooks.com/isbn/9780015308735-es.jpg

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#128
post #116
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this very interesting because I had precisely the opposite reaction once when I tried psylocibin. Despite being pretty solidly materialist and agnostic, I'd always held a bit of a soft spot for Cartesian duelism and a bit of a "but it'd be cool if..." What I didn't expect was that the effects wouldn't just "feel real" or "be convincing", they were real. Subjectively, it wasn't inside my head, it was the actual…

LSD made me go from your run of the mill nihilist to being convinced that even consciousness is a complete illusion and all philosophy is built on this ridiculous lie. It's like solipsism taken one step further, no I'm not the only thing that exists because -I- don't really exist in any meaningful way either. We're all just P-zombies. Qualia is nonsense If you thought relating to normal people as a nihilist was hard.…

Post-solopsism? Fck me dude, I mean say want you will about nihilism, at least it doesn't attempt to invalidate the experience of qualia.

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you just called all the (millions) of religions people insane?

well, technically the only thing stopping the medical world from calling a very religious person delusional, is the fact that religious people are specifically exempt from receiving that diagnosis, for no medical reason whatsoever.

I very highly doubt that is the only thing.

Belief in religion is a normal part of the human experience, even though the beliefs differ and some folks don't have them. These beliefs are generally harmless at best and for some, they help folks have community, a purpose, and all of these other positive things. Sure, some negatives, but that's life.

Normalcy plus lack of the belief causing life problems. Doesn't sound like general sickness to me.

Naturally there are grey areas and exceptions and cults and all this sort of thing, but it doesn't take religion to produce them.

I should at this point mention that I'm atheist.

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#130
post #83
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laying around on a couch sounds like a waste of a good shroom buzz. Shrooms are much more fun if you're with a medium-to-large sized group of people who all know and are comfortable around each other, all of whom are on around the same dose. They're so much more of a body buzz and less of a mindfuck than LSD/DMT. Then there's PCP... which is less of a mindfuck and more of a fuckyou.

I wonder how wise it is to be with other people when you're on psychedelics. It's possible that on psychedelics you're much more susceptible and vulnerable to all sorts of visible and invisible outside influence that you may not be aware of.

This really depends on dosage, reaction, and timing.

I'd always advise folks to be with someone more experience their first time. Just in case. And be knowledgeable about the range of experiences before taking. Once one has a bit of experience, being in public isn't so bad if it is timed right.

I went to see Weird Al coming down from LSD. It was nice.

I had a wonderful talk with a homeless Romanian dude in Amsterdam coming down from truffles sold there. Between the lights of the building at night, being on a vacation without my spouse, and everything combined it was pretty neat. But I'm pretty relaxed and didn't have much to really worry about as most of this was planned (minus the discussion). It isn't really much different than keeping yourself safe while cooking on psychedelics (yes, I've done this stuff).

Note, this mentions coming down - things get increasingly safer after you've peaked and are coming down. Dosage also plays a part in this: You don't have to completely lose touch with reality completely to loosen up your mind or have fun with the drug.

Post reply on HN