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

101–110 of 278 posts

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#101

Post by jerf »

yarou wrote: post #95
harshreality wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about Steve Jobs's similar statement that taking LSD was "one of the two or three most important things [he did] in [his] life." http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2009/07/09/dr-lsd-to-steve-jobs-...

Well, you could extend your argument to state that one of the most important things in Van Gogh's life was to sever his own ear and hand it to a prostitute. Therefore, those who wish to become good painters ought to sever their ear. The fallacy in your argument is simply: "person x has done y, which led them to achievement z. therefore, if you do y, you will also achieve z, because person x had done so." I don't thin…

Unless you can produce evidence that Van Gogh attributed his artistic skill to cutting off his ear, that doesn't follow. You've compared two dissimilar things.

I'm not inclined to give full credence to what someone attributes their own success to, either. I'm not taking a position either way, just observing that your argument is unfounded.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#102

Post by tptacek »

[deleted] wrote: post #75
simonster wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

It's not reserved for trolls. There's also room there for people who complain about being downvoted.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#103

Post by Xcelerate »

dwc wrote: post #93
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…

So you have never had a cup of coffee or tea? I'm not aware of any adult I personally know who hasn't partaken of some substance that alters perception in some way. Though no doubt such individuals exist, such a state of absolute abstinence is not something I'd think of imposing on my children. Take into account the actual effects and remove social stigma and legal ramifications, and the substances I'd be ok with for…

> So you have never had a cup of coffee or tea?

No, actually. Both smell gross to me; I don't plan on trying either.

... but I do like Monsters.

I see what your point is, but the paragraph I am referring to in the article specifically mentions marijuana. He uses the more conventional use of the word "drug" in that paragraph, and so I am simply continuing that usage than the more general form he was using in the rest of the article. Surely so many HN readers aren't getting caught up on these semantic distinctions throughout the article?

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#105

Post by Nursie »

Xcelerate wrote: post #90
Nursie wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> That was part of the point of the article. Yes, it was. But that wasn't the point of the paragraph I was referring to. Shall I cite it?

Yet you still say "I never have" while using the term "drugs", when clearly you have used some drugs.

Just because you've never used recreational, illegal drugs does not mean you've never used drugs. This artificial separation that people make is a major part of the reason we can't have a sensible discussion on the topic.

Beyond this, it's not unreasonable to assume that someone with an inquisitive mind will want to try things. Hell, nearly everyone tries tea and coffee. Nearly everyone tries drink, and nearly everyone tries weed these days. MDMA is having a mass resurgence amongst people in their 30s and 40s at the moment.

Maybe not all people will, but many will, and I get the impression he doesn't want his daughter limited by taboos and social mores but well informed and able to make her own rational choices. And as someone who obviously feels psychedelics to be an important life experience (personally I think they're overrated) he may even encourage his daughter to try them safely, and I don't see a problem with that.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#106

Post by virtualwhys »

Nursie wrote: post #80
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.

While true, it's quite a stretch to equate powerful hallucinogens with coffee (alcohol is another matter).

I mean, man, LSD is no joke, that will take you places that an ocean of coffee won't help you reach. Of course, ideally we don't reach for anything.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#107

Post by tptacek »

ignostic wrote: post #64

> "Some are illegal; some are stigmatized; some are dangerous—though, perversely, these sets only partially intersect" I'd say stigmatization and legalization tend to correlate well, but sadly neither law nor cultural attitude have much to do with actual danger. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus... LSD remains a Schedule 1 drug, even though it's about as dangerous as caffeine. > "...if I kn…

Even the author of this article doesn't make the claim that LSD is "as dangerous as caffeine".

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#108

Post by Udo »

cristianpascu wrote: post #76
Udo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 explanatio…

> Notice that I said the first millenium, not the first century.

I would go even further and assert that delineation efforts continue to this day. But I might be wrong, since I don't really know a lot about Christianity beyond what's in the news.

> 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.

I still don't follow what the problem is. I suspect some of these words mean fundamentally different things to each of us, or that there might be a Christian catch phrase in there that I don't know and hence can't respond to. I don't mean this in a derogatory way, I just don't get what the issue is. What problem is not solved?

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#109

Post by Nursie »

[deleted] wrote: post #92
Nursie wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's how strongly people object to your dismissal of a couple of great scientists expressing an appreciation of LSD as somehow false, and your assertions that you obviously know better than them. A dismissal, I might add, with absolutely no argument behind it, simply an arrogant statement.

[deleted]

No, it wouldn't bother people so much if you made an argument instead of handing out judgement. You come across as extremely arrogant and you don't make arguments, you make statements.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#110

Post by tptacek »

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #98
StandardFuture wrote: post #58

I don't think people are fully reading this article looking at the top comment... >There is nothing that one can experience on a drug that is not, at some level, an expression of the brain’s potential. Hence, whatever one has experienced after ingesting a drug like LSD is likely to have been experienced, by someone, somewhere, without it. >I cannot account for why my adventures with psychedelics were uniformly pleasa…

> Wine and beer in moderation is actually perfectly healthy. The idea that moderate consumption of alcohol is "perfectly healthy" is actually quite debatable. Taking red wine as a an example because of the popular belief that it has notable health benefits when consumed in moderation, a few points: 1. Many of the studies on the supposed health benefits of red wine are inconclusive. For instance, we still can't explai…

3. Red wine contains known carcinogens.

So do potatoes.

I picked this one point out to rebut with a potato, but I think my potato wields equally devastating attacks against the rest of your points, too. Olive oil, oily fish, grapes, you name it: lots of things that currently do seem very healthy in moderation have a downside if abused.

One thing my potato is very unlikely to do: cause a psychically shattering experience that severs the last link between a troubled mind and the reality it inhabits. Not so much with the warning label requirements, with our trusty potato.

Post reply on HN