Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 220 posts

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

#191

Post by tgamba »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #69
maxander wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the reason that it’s done indoors is that, most places with a high enough density of humans for this practice to be available, the outside is a dangerous place for a tripping patient. Someone driving by blasting a rap album out their window could send a trip in some bad directions.

Also, it’s a clinical study. They need to control the conditions or it’s not science.

When I was at University of Waterloo in the 80s, I went for a couple of talk therapy sessions with a very nice, empathetic woman employed in the Psych department. After a session, she said, "would you like to see something?"

Just adjacent to her office was a "trip room", probably constructed when the building was build in the 70s (?). It was round, completely lined with acid orange fabric, upholstered like a pasha's tent and filled with cushions in every colour imaginable. No doubt it had a superlative quadraphonic sound system installed. It also had a large, smoked glass window, for "observers." Not ideal for mushrooms perhaps but for other things...

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

#192

Post by tgamba »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #63

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…

If you approach the psychedelic experience as Thompson did, with the macho attitude of getting as fucked up as possible on as much as you can stand, then of course you are going to come out of it with nothing.

Alan Watts put it best: "When you get the message, hang up the phone." Respect the experience, the power of the drug, and know when to stop.

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

#193

Post by tgamba »

gepi79 wrote: post #67
newnewpdro wrote: post #51

The world would be a better place if everyone ate magic mushrooms in the wilderness on a camping trip as part of outdoor ed. in school. If you've never experienced it, you probably won't understand.

I wish people would stop the unhealthy and irresponsible and dangerous life-destroying hype and promotion of psychedelics including cannabis. All medical experts warn against the use of drugs and psychedelics except as medical tools of medical experts. Drugs and psychedelics can trigger all kinds of long term mental disorders that even the best experts might not be able to heal. Medical science and psychology are sti…

This comment is naive, but not totally off-base. Psychedelics can cause real long-term problems for people even if used correctly. I liken it to skydiving, a potentially dangerous activity for which one must be completely prepared, with no absolute guarantee of safety.

That said, I would say that psychedelics definitely expanded my consciousness and changed my life. And that I stopped doing them in the nick of time. They do cause a turn inward, and what I learned is that turning inward can be an endless journey into the void. What I really wanted was to take my expanded consciousness and use it in the consensus world, and for that, I felt, you needed a clear head.

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

#194

Post by tgamba »

DMT trip reports point to a use of psychedelics beyond therapy. Since so many users describe the same thing -- points of contact with other beings-- we can hypothesize that DMT gives us access to other dimensions or aspects of space and time. But how we move from subjective reporting to a scientific theory on this, I have no idea. (I have never tried DMT, it sounds terrifying)

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

#195

Post by JackFr »

tgamba wrote: post #184
JackFr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Dogmatic materialism is the real mind-virus.

Yes. Sticking only to the realm of hard science, the frontiers keep expanding (e.g. dark matter and energy). When it comes to our subjective perceptions and how the the brain assembles them into consciousness, we've barely a clue. Scientific apparatuses have allowed us to "see" the complete elecromagnetic spectrum, the cell, the quasar... psychedelics may be an apparatus allowing us to see dimensions of reality heret…

There are frequencies we can't hear -- impossible with the physical equipment nature has provided in our ears. But science and engineering have a means for both proving to us they really exist, and mangling them (with a kind of fidelity) into some sort of analogous experience. Similarly there are frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum we cannot see. And microscopes, and telescopes and MRI's, and all the other wonders of our day take, which take a world that is impossible for use to sense directly and transform it into an analog we can sense.

So why do we cavalierly assume that our brains are physically capable of understanding all true things? What does a machine which transforms ideas which are literally inconceivable to our physical brains look like? What do the crude analogs of these inconceivable thoughts look like?

(I realize I've drifted far afield from the OP -- I don't mean to say that psychedelics are a window into true mysteries. But these discussions always seem to lead me down this path...)

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

#196

Post by axiom92 »

krageon wrote: post #119
axiom92 wrote: post #74

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. What we know is that there is absolutely no proof that God exists. With that being the case, I don't see why being an atheist is not the most rational position to take. Can I win a $100 million lottery someday? Sure. Should I be living my life believing that…

Atheism says "god does not exist and I'm sure about this". This is exactly like saying "it's impossible for me to win the lottery" - that is the stupid position to take, because you know in this case it is untrue. Anything theological is impossible to prove one way or the other (or at least I've never heard of anything remotely approaching proof) and therefore a position of certainty one way or the other must be luna…

No, I never said god cannot exist. I just said that I refuse to live my life assuming that the most unlikely event, the one for which we have no proof whatsoever, is true.

God can exist, I could be Superman.

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

#197

Post by tmaly »

Jedi72 wrote: 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…

Open up any nursing drug handbook, there are tons of prescription drugs in there where the method of action is unknown

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

#198

Post by axiom92 »

Pimpus wrote: post #79
axiom92 wrote: post #74

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. What we know is that there is absolutely no proof that God exists. With that being the case, I don't see why being an atheist is not the most rational position to take. Can I win a $100 million lottery someday? Sure. Should I be living my life believing that…

Yeah, I've people compare belief in God to wagers or lotteries or invisible unicorns. I find arguments like this to be intellectually lazy. The universe had to be formed somehow, right? It's a mystery how. God is a possibility.

We don't know what it is, must be God. Sure, that's meticulous.

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

#199

Post by dennisgorelik »

Jedi72 wrote: 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…

> I spoke to God, Satan and various other imaginary beings

Do you still vividly remember these "meetings"?

Would you be able to describe how these God/Satan/etc. look like?

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

#200

Post by reitanqild »

dahart wrote: post #56
ssvss wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it related to feeling your grandfather's presence, when he was about to die. I have heard 2 of my friends saying they experienced this.

Yes, that would be a way of describing it. I don’t know what I felt, and I can’t say there weren’t physical signs and just a rush of emotion being mistaken as something spiritual, but it seemed to happen out of the blue and my brother who was there later asked me tentatively if something weird had happened to me too. In my dogmatic past I’ve mentally dismissed other people’s stories like this as improbable or exagger…

I've probably not had that exact same experience but I've certainly had other experiences.

As someone who likes science and have an analytic approach I guess I would probably have ended up as an atheist if it wasn't for a number of events that would be really hard to fit into an atheist worldview.

Furthermore I've also come to realize that this position has been really good and useful for me, -and the rest of the world. It has helped me go from an angry boy from a poor family to a reasonable man who's not only able to feed my family but also actually able to help others.

So, for what I know free will and God might be an illusion (I don't think that), but in that case I'd say it's a really useful illusion.

Post reply on HN