Live data from Hacker News

Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

politics.salon.com

161–170 of 173 posts

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#161
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not particularly irrational or mystic. That experience he describes is quite common for people who use mushrooms a few times. What is the difference between you and a chair? What makes your brain so special, and why is it so important that it continue to exist? Why shouldn't a stick held in your hand be considered part of your body (in fact, one of the big differences between humans and most animals is that, unc…

I'm not against philosophical questions. I myself had them while on shrooms. Still, there is no reason whatsoever to refuse materialism due to a mushroom experience, that is why I called it mysticism. The fact that your brain state alters because you consumed a tiny amount of a certain chemical should be proof of materialism. The statement that "everything is connected" is meaningless without defining what you mean b…

Now this post is one that will definitely warrant down-votes.

Modern science, understandably, does not know that the human constitution is comprised of more than the physical body.

They don't know this because they don't have the instruments to detect the other bodies (such as the astral or etheric).

So, all of their efforts in research are pointed to determine the effects in the physical body. Actually, when taking psychedelics it is the astral and etheric body that is being stimulated (the cause) with effects seen in the physical body.

If you truly care to learn more about this I suggest Astral Dynamics by Robert Bruce. You can learn conscious separation of the astral body from the physical body. There's even an exercise that will allow you to determine if the whole experience is objective or subjective - you go into one room to project and in another room someone writes a number on a paper and tapes it against the wall. You quickly project into the room, read the number, come back to your body and go see if you were right.

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people want government-run health care in the US. Legalizing illegal drugs will add to the already large amount of addicts. Do we really want more addicts in our hospitals? I really don't see this as the most likely scenario. Why would it follow that legalization of a drug would lead to more addicts? Cigarettes are legal and addictive and I don't smoke them. Heroin and meth could be legal and I wouldn't do those…

"I really don't see this as the most likely scenario. Why would it follow that legalization of a drug would lead to more addicts? Cigarettes are legal and addictive and I don't smoke them" Many people do because they are easily available in pretty much any 7-11 and gas station. "Legal doesn't imply uncontrolled and unfettered access by all" Then there will still be a black market and it still won't solve the issue at…

Logical fallacies and red herrings....you've put them everywhere....my head hurts.

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the drug overlords have again down-modded me for not being a troll and merely stating my opinion on the matter. "Your welcome to believe that it is bad for you and that you don't want to do it, but I disagree that that should translate to you saying other people can't do something." I'm fine with it as long as users of these drugs have to pay higher medical fees (if we ever have government-run health care). The…

You don't get it, the MJ bill did not prevent employers from firing employees if they were not competent or able to keep up with their work or if they were impaired by their drug use. Again, you have the hand shaking, scary notion of marijuana, and it's frankly silly to the rest of us. People don't have higher associated medical costs because of marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, etc. It's a completely unfounded, fearful ass…

"People don't have higher associated medical costs because of marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, etc. It's a completely unfounded"

proof?

You can't honestly tell me that that nobody has higher associated medical costs as a result of MJ, LSD, and shrooms. Now who's being naive..

I actually might support MJ. However, my problem is that not only do you want it legalized, but you want to spread the false notion that it's actually ok (and actually has health benefits) to do these drugs.

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I really don't see this as the most likely scenario. Why would it follow that legalization of a drug would lead to more addicts? Cigarettes are legal and addictive and I don't smoke them" Many people do because they are easily available in pretty much any 7-11 and gas station. "Legal doesn't imply uncontrolled and unfettered access by all" Then there will still be a black market and it still won't solve the issue at…

Logical fallacies and red herrings....you've put them everywhere....my head hurts.

Not logical fallacies..logic (you should use it sometime). Just because I don't support your point doesn't mean i'm wrong.

Take a look here:

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-Po...

Drug use, addiction, and drug-related deaths have actually increased since they legalized drugs. This is exactly what I'm saying.

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Does Anheuser-Busch engage in lethal turf warfare in the manner of Al Capone? Yes, I agree that the cartels would move into legal territory but quite frankly, as someone who spends a lot of time in Mexico, the country would be happy to see the terror gone, jobs created and the tax benefits reaped." It won't happen. Mexico's entire system is completely corrupt. Legalizing drugs won't fix the problem.

There are plenty of places in the world that are as corrupt or more corrupt than Mexico which don't have the same levels of violence.

They also don't have huge drug cartels running the place.

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#166
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not against philosophical questions. I myself had them while on shrooms. Still, there is no reason whatsoever to refuse materialism due to a mushroom experience, that is why I called it mysticism. The fact that your brain state alters because you consumed a tiny amount of a certain chemical should be proof of materialism. The statement that "everything is connected" is meaningless without defining what you mean b…

Now this post is one that will definitely warrant down-votes. Modern science, understandably, does not know that the human constitution is comprised of more than the physical body. They don't know this because they don't have the instruments to detect the other bodies (such as the astral or etheric). So, all of their efforts in research are pointed to determine the effects in the physical body. Actually, when taking…

> They don't know this because they don't have the instruments to detect the other bodies (such as the astral or etheric).

If there is no way to demonstrate the objective reality of those things, they are by definition in the realm of mysticism.

> You go into one room to project and in another room someone writes a number on a paper and tapes it against the wall. You quickly project into the room, read the number, come back to your body and go see if you were right.

If anybody on earth could do that, they'd qualify for James Randi's million dollar prize: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

Why don't take the challenge?

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#167
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now this post is one that will definitely warrant down-votes. Modern science, understandably, does not know that the human constitution is comprised of more than the physical body. They don't know this because they don't have the instruments to detect the other bodies (such as the astral or etheric). So, all of their efforts in research are pointed to determine the effects in the physical body. Actually, when taking…

> They don't know this because they don't have the instruments to detect the other bodies (such as the astral or etheric). If there is no way to demonstrate the objective reality of those things, they are by definition in the realm of mysticism. > You go into one room to project and in another room someone writes a number on a paper and tapes it against the wall. You quickly project into the room, read the number, co…

"If there is no way to demonstrate the objective reality of those things, they are by definition in the realm of mysticism."

Sure, that is your classification of concepts. However, know that your classification using semantics does not negate whether or not the actual reality exists. Furthermore, they cannot be demonstrated with current tools. Electrons were not able to be detected thousands of years ago, but now we have the tools to prove their existence. This does not mean electrons did not exist prior to our development of tools to detect them.

The Randi challenge is a great point and I have already thought of reaching out to Robert Bruce on his forum to ask him why he himself does not submit a proposal to the institution, seeing as how he is an advanced projector.

Personally, I am in the beginning states of consciously projecting and controlling the astral body, my fear usually gets in the way of completely separating, though I have floated out of my body and into the ceiling, numerous times.

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#168
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They don't know this because they don't have the instruments to detect the other bodies (such as the astral or etheric). If there is no way to demonstrate the objective reality of those things, they are by definition in the realm of mysticism. > You go into one room to project and in another room someone writes a number on a paper and tapes it against the wall. You quickly project into the room, read the number, co…

"If there is no way to demonstrate the objective reality of those things, they are by definition in the realm of mysticism." Sure, that is your classification of concepts. However, know that your classification using semantics does not negate whether or not the actual reality exists. Furthermore, they cannot be demonstrated with current tools . Electrons were not able to be detected thousands of years ago, but now we…

> Furthermore, they cannot be demonstrated with current tools.

I don't know what you mean by they? It is you who fails to objectively demonstrate the phenomena and claims knowledge. This is called mysticism, plain and simple.

> The Randi challenge is a great point and I have already thought of reaching out to Robert Bruce on his forum to ask him why he himself does not submit a proposal to the institution, seeing as how he is an advanced projector.

I can answer this for you: because there is no such thing as an advanced projector.

He of course will respond with special pleading: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4075

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Logical fallacies and red herrings....you've put them everywhere....my head hurts.

Not logical fallacies..logic (you should use it sometime). Just because I don't support your point doesn't mean i'm wrong. Take a look here: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-Po... Drug use, addiction, and drug-related deaths have actually increased since they legalized drugs. This is exactly what I'm saying.

Not logical fallacies..logic (you should use it sometime)

This way of talking to people probably explains the typical type of response you receive. Grow up.

Re: Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom

#170
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If there is no way to demonstrate the objective reality of those things, they are by definition in the realm of mysticism." Sure, that is your classification of concepts. However, know that your classification using semantics does not negate whether or not the actual reality exists. Furthermore, they cannot be demonstrated with current tools . Electrons were not able to be detected thousands of years ago, but now we…

> Furthermore, they cannot be demonstrated with current tools. I don't know what you mean by they ? It is you who fails to objectively demonstrate the phenomena and claims knowledge. This is called mysticism, plain and simple. > The Randi challenge is a great point and I have already thought of reaching out to Robert Bruce on his forum to ask him why he himself does not submit a proposal to the institution, seeing as…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN