Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011) • Hacker News Board

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#251

Post by samatman » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 4:10 PM UTC

simonster wrote: post #56

lolcraft wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, if you think rejecting dualism is "not taking the consciousness problem seriously", you should read more. And well, one thing that Christianism seems to be still struggling to learn is that, beyond reproductible and well defined experiments, and falsifiable hypotheses, nothing can really be more than logical inference from some axioms. Maybe some dudes up in the Vatican implicitly defined some axioms about what…

If you Google "taking consciousness seriously," the first link is to an excerpt from David Chalmers' book. That book as a whole is essentially a long argument that understanding consciousness requires a dualist position (although not a substance or interactionist form). I don't agree with it, but it's compelling. If you believe the position that "rejecting dualism is 'not taking the consciousness problem seriously'"…

Ok, but first you should read some Samkya and Kashmir Shaivite non-dualism. Since the texts are about 1500 years older, you go first.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#252

Post by pnathan » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 4:13 PM UTC

freshhawk wrote: post #221

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…

I might be one of those people who strikes you as "incredulous" and, to be fair, I'm sure there are people who are actually "apathetic about the whole experience". I personally have met a fair number of people who claim to have the same or similar beliefs about this as you. But every single one who I've had a friendly conversation with about it has turned out to not be apathetic or even close. It has always been some…

I've had multiple opportunities to get high (MJ + others) and chose not to. I don't care to alter my mental state that far. I don't drink much alcohol (& don't usually care for what it does for my mind). When I had laughing gas at the dentist, it turned my head into mush for a bit under a day afterwards. I just moved to WA, one of the "approximately legal MJ" states and I had a hard think about this. I don't really want to toke up.

Too much coffee doesn't do good stuff either.

I'm told there's a medically used drug? electrical tool? that is used in certain high-pain situations where it literally wipes your memory of high-spike pain (It erases the last few seconds or something). I don't want that either. I'd rather take the pain...

Generally, these things do things to my mind that I really don't like. I can only presume (based upon a decent amount of reading on the matter) LSD & other 'hardcore' hallucinogens will do similar things, but more in depth.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#253

Post by MacsHeadroom » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 4:21 PM UTC

shin_lao wrote: post #231

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.

You're argument is like saying "you'll go over the speed limit some day, therefore you will be a criminal". A book can alter your mind more than any drugs. So what's your point?

>A book can alter your mind more than any drugs.

, he argued from ignorance.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#254

Post by cnp » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 4:52 PM UTC

eightyone wrote: post #215

cnp wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Number 1 rule: If you're having a bad LSD trip head straight for the liquor; that'll kill your trip good and fast. What's your point? Dont mean to be rude, but I'm calling out your schizophrenia association as wild-eyed bullshit, too.

I think you've misunderstood my comment. The angle bracket part was me quoting the parent comment. I'm telling him that it's bullshit to try and draw some sort of conclusion between LSD and schizophrenia simply because schizophrenia medication dampers the effects of LSD because all sorts of medications damper the effects of LSD. I probably should have used quotes, my bad. I'm just so used to using the angle bracket t…

Hah, no, I was agreeing with you! I hit reply under the wrong thread.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#255

Post by corford » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 4:56 PM UTC

andrewcooke wrote: post #91

i would like to try lsd, but i don't know of a safe, reliable, legal way of doing so. it just occurred to me that perhaps someone here might?

Lol, no, there isn't a safe, reliable, legal way to do it :)

You'll have to find a good dealer since it's a lot less common than weed, ecstasy, coke, ket etc.

And if you haven't taken psychedelics before I'd _seriously_ suggest first figuring out how good your head is on them with something a little less nuts (e.g. shrooms).

LSD has its reputation for a reason. It's not a toy and you'll be tripping for ~14 hours. So if you do decide to do it, make sure you're in a happy, safe environment (physically _and_ mentally) with at least one person with you who you trust.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#256

Post by pbhjpbhj » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 5:05 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #137

andrewcooke wrote: post #91

i would like to try lsd, but i don't know of a safe, reliable, legal way of doing so. it just occurred to me that perhaps someone here might?

Legal is going to be nearly impossible. In the interest of having a continuum of badness for every class of drugs, and also in the interest of condemning the 1960s, LSD has been classified as the Worst Psychedelic, usually punished with harsher penalties than heroin, for example. LSD was at least common and cheap until the 90s (when William Pickard[1] was busted), but now it's not even that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.…

>Legal is going to be nearly impossible. //

There are probably several countries in which it's not illegal to produce or consume LSD?

Or maybe on a boat in international waters? Perhaps that could be a new line for P&O.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#257

Post by herbig » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 5:09 PM UTC

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…

Yeah I think you're missing the point, that everyone takes drugs in some form and he'd like to guide her into doing so intelligently.

He doesn't assume she's going to try all sorts of things at all. At least I didn't read that into anything he said.

I'm 29, and I've never tried alcohol or drugs aside from caffeine, and I have not had the same feelings of incredulity from anyone.

Also, I'd bet that our apathy comes from our never having experienced drugs, rather than some innate apathy to the idea.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#258

Post by Oxxide » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 5:18 PM UTC

hristov wrote: post #124

It is really annoying that drugs proponents ignore the obvious negative effects of drugs. Pretending that LSD is harmless is utter utter bulshit. There are so many cases of serious mental problems including permanent insanity caused by psychadelics. And of course there are also the thousands of people that are not exactly insane but have their brains pretty much fried and are just not very good for anything useful an…

You are literally spouting bullshit out of your ass. Insanity? Are you fucking kidding me?

Blow it out your ass pops, you're making shit up.

This kind of flatout lying is even worse than people who pretend drugs have no risks. Making risks up to scare people into agreeing with you is no better.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#259

Post by Oxxide » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 5:21 PM UTC

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…

Did you also read the part where it said "If she doesn't, I'm afraid she'll miss out on one of the most important rites of passage."

Psychedelics are a tool to be used for self discovery, not some seedy thing only losers use. Maybe you are the one who is blinded by preconceptions here, not him.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#260

Post by Xcelerate » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 5:38 PM UTC

freshhawk wrote: post #221

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…

I might be one of those people who strikes you as "incredulous" and, to be fair, I'm sure there are people who are actually "apathetic about the whole experience". I personally have met a fair number of people who claim to have the same or similar beliefs about this as you. But every single one who I've had a friendly conversation with about it has turned out to not be apathetic or even close. It has always been some…

You may like the other post I wrote about this elsewhere on this page.

Basically, the reason I don't try drugs (I hope the sense I am using that word can be inferred), is because of my chemical engineering and research background. Every chemical (e.g. anything) you ingest has a certain effect on your body. I feel that with some drugs (marijuana, cocaine, etc.), there is a higher probability of a long-term negative effect. Is this actually the case? I don't know. But I know that science is at no position right now to answer the question as we only know with certainty the effects and mechanisms of the most basic chemical reactions. All of the subtle interactions with something as complex as the human body are nearly impossible to ascertain. What study could one possibly devise that would rule out so many confounding factors?

So, for something like marijuana, there may in fact be no long term effects. But when it's easy (at least for me) to not try it, I just don't see there being any benefit for myself. Others, obviously, see the risk/reward ratio as being more favorable.

Does that fit the use of the word "apathetic"? I think so. Maybe you think another word is more suitable. I am as apathetic to drug use as I am about skydiving, or tightrope walking, or running in a lightning storm. I'm simply indifferent to these activities because I don't see any reward they would provide me.