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

Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

samharris.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 278 posts

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#71

Post by mmariani »

[deleted] wrote: post #25
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #15

I recommend David Nutt's Drugs Without the Hot Air [1] on the subject. Nutt, a British psychiatrist and neuropsychopharmacologist, headed up the U.K.'s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (a British DEA/FDA hybrid). He was canned when he suggested that alcohol may be more damaging than many controlled substances. Amongst the goodies from the book are this chart [2], which plots dependence risk against toxicologis…

[deleted]

The same path you're following has destroyed uncountable lives. Just go ahead and watch this film [0]. May the truth set you free.

[0] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276962/?ref_=sr_1

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#72

Post by Nursie »

StandardFuture wrote: post #62
Nursie wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alcohol has a greater potential for harm than a variety of other recreational substances, legal or otherwise. That's basically it AFAICT. It has significant addiction potential, people do abuse, and there are long term harms associated with that abuse.

>greater potential for harm than ... other substances Uh ... this style of description would need more parameters for a proper classification of alcohol's 'abilities' in relation to other substances. >significant addiction potential This is PURELY on an individual basis i.e. that potential is relative per person. >long term harms associated with ... abuse Yep, very true. It's also true of almost ANY type of abuse. ED…

>>This style of description would need more parameters for a proper classification of alcohol's 'abilities' in relation to other substances

Yes, it does need that. Luckily researchers do these sorts of measurements. I recommend reading things like "Drugs without the hot air" mentioned a few times in this thread. I'm posting from my phone so not going to look up references right now.

>> This is PURELY on an individual basis...

Different substances have different addiction profiles. Some people don't get addicted to tobacco. Most users don't get addicted to cocaine. Many people do develop alcohol addiction, and the addiction profile turns out to be higher than for many (not all) illegal drugs.

>> It's also true of almost ANY type of abuse.

Sure, but the actual harms from alcohol can be pretty damn awful compared to other things.

I love my beer. But just because it's socially acceptable and not a problem in small amounts, we shouldn't make it immune to honest evaluation. And honest evaluation puts it higher up the scale of harm than a variety of other recreational drugs, many of which are illegal.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#73

Post by Xcelerate »

I find it odd that the author of the article assumes his daughter is going to try drugs one day. Personally, I never have, and never plan to (23 years old). In fact, there's plenty of people I know who don't even drink -- not because of any moral or legal reason, but simply because they aren't interested in it. To clarify, I don't care what things other people try (I encourage everyone to make their own decisions), but it strikes me as odd that he just assumes she's going to go ahead and try all sorts of things.

I get the impression that people who have tried drugs before are incredulous that there exist people who are simply apathetic about the whole experience.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#74

Post by Nursie »

Alex3917 wrote: post #66
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #15

I recommend David Nutt's Drugs Without the Hot Air [1] on the subject. Nutt, a British psychiatrist and neuropsychopharmacologist, headed up the U.K.'s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (a British DEA/FDA hybrid). He was canned when he suggested that alcohol may be more damaging than many controlled substances. Amongst the goodies from the book are this chart [2], which plots dependence risk against toxicologis…

>which means that there was effectively no relationship at all. This is in large part because Nutt's research is entirely fraudulent. C.f. my previous analysis here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4044431

Fraud you say?

Perhaps you should inform Imperial College, one of the UK's most prestigious science and engineering institutes, where he currently holds a chair in neuropsychopharmacology.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#75

Post by [deleted] »

simonster wrote: post #65
[deleted] wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

LSD probably did not assist Francis Crick in discovering the double helix. Although LSD was available in 1953, it wasn't widely known or used until the 60s, and there's no evidence Crick would have had access to it (see the excerpt from Matt Ridley's book at http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6835/was-francis... ). This story seems to have originated with a Mail article published after Crick's death ( http:/…

[deleted]

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#76

Post by cristianpascu »

Udo wrote: post #41
cristianpascu wrote: post #11

"Everything we do is for the purpose of altering consciousness." I very much respect Sam Harris for taking the consciousness problem seriously. It poses a real problem to (his) atheism, and he, obviously, rejects the substance dualism, which would logically lead to a religious view on us. However, without a conscious soul, meaning itself loses meaning. What's the ontological support for meaning to rise on? One thing…

> its fierce fight with illusions, hallucinations and misleading spiritual experiences Only for competitive reasons. To get a stable foothold, Christianity had to either do away with the rampant spiritualism of the largely shamanistic religions it replaced, or in some cases had to embrace and extend them. This is and was a purely strategic consideration. > It poses a real problem to (his) atheism, and he, obviously,…

Notice that I said the first millenium, not the first century. By the 5th century, Christianity had a stable foothold.

By ontological support I mean a substance. The mind is still an undefined substance. Is it the brain or is the soul? If you state it is the brain, as I take it to be the default naturalistic/atheist option, than the problem is still not solved. So it's still a problem, something that needs explanation.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#77

Post by JacksonGariety »

Xcelerate wrote: post #73

I find it odd that the author of the article assumes his daughter is going to try drugs one day. Personally, I never have, and never plan to (23 years old). In fact, there's plenty of people I know who don't even drink -- not because of any moral or legal reason, but simply because they aren't interested in it. To clarify, I don't care what things other people try (I encourage everyone to make their own decisions), b…

You should re-read the essay.

You may think you've never used drugs but you have, you just don't understand the meaning of the word.

I'd try and think of "drugs" less like substances and more like vices. If you've ever used a vice to help yourself emotionally or physically you've taken drugs.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#78

Post by cristianpascu »

mistercow wrote: post #21
cristianpascu wrote: post #11

"Everything we do is for the purpose of altering consciousness." I very much respect Sam Harris for taking the consciousness problem seriously. It poses a real problem to (his) atheism, and he, obviously, rejects the substance dualism, which would logically lead to a religious view on us. However, without a conscious soul, meaning itself loses meaning. What's the ontological support for meaning to rise on? One thing…

>It poses a real problem to (his) atheism Theism hardly solves the problem of consciousness. It shuffles the question onto a deity without actually answering it.

To a substance, the soul, not a deity. And that, actually, is an answer.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#79

Post by JacksonGariety »

Dove wrote: post #14
beachstartup wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

worst analogy ever, especially for a post that so thinly veils your misguided feelings of superiority. ferraris were meant to be tweaked, what do you think the entire field of motorsport exists for? from F1 all the way down to the local DE event at the local track, cars are tweaked endlessly, with passion. you won't find any shortage of tweaked exotics at your local autocross, either. if nobody "twaeked" cars, you wo…

it's incredible there are people on HN like you. i'm a little shocked to be honest. Yes, I was also sure this site was populated exclusively with ferrari-tweaking experts. I'm a little shocked, too, but there it is. ;)

That was a fantastic response.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#80

Post by Nursie »

Xcelerate wrote: post #73

I find it odd that the author of the article assumes his daughter is going to try drugs one day. Personally, I never have, and never plan to (23 years old). In fact, there's plenty of people I know who don't even drink -- not because of any moral or legal reason, but simply because they aren't interested in it. To clarify, I don't care what things other people try (I encourage everyone to make their own decisions), b…

If you've had a beer, or a cup of coffee, you've tried mind altering drugs.

That was part of the point of the article.

Post reply on HN