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

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#261

Post by easy_rider » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 6:51 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…

Those who are affected by LSD in that way will probably also be more susceptible to drug induced HPPD or Schizophernia from other controlled and non-controlled substances. It has to do with the structure of the brain. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/178/4/337.full Basically they are born with less ability to distinguish reality from fiction. A good indication for this would be the well known ink spot test.

Responsible self-admission of controlled substances would always advocate starting at the dose that might cause an adverse allergic reaction of some sort, and move up from there.

I've seen a Scanner Darkly, and I've tried hard drugs. In my experience and knowledge of stimulating drugs like amphetamines and esp. cocaine. The chance of psychosis from these line of drugs and the potential of abuse are of an order of magnitude worse, while we blindly prescribe our ADD and ADHD suffering kids to methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamine salts (Adderall). I would advice you to look them up.

The abuse potential for these kind of drugs are huge with ADD/ADHD patients since their disorder pretty much means they require more dopamine stimulation to be able to complete tasks, and these drugs are very much addictive in nature because of their actions on the dopamine system. Stimulating this area in the brain is way more "rewarding" than for example serotonergic drugs like LSD.

I understand that a lot of street drugs are adulterated or chemically inferior to the medical grade stuff, but it is still hypocritical and dangerous to make a Black/White area of what is supposedly not bad for you (i.e. prescriptions, OTC or legal substances ) and bad for you (controlled substances).

I understand that these drugs are prescribed under doctors supervision, but the reality learns that this is usually not a game stopper for abusers. Also they are being given to patients for a number of disorders without adequate research backing their perceived safety profile. Long-term effects on kids and teenagers who have been on these medications are not known at all.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#262

Post by 7Figures2Commas » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 6:57 PM UTC

conroe64 wrote: post #248

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. You're right: it isn't metabolized the same way as other foods. If you want to get really technical, you should look at the impact of alcohol on fat oxidation. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3280601 . The term "beer belly" is not a misnomer. 2. The study you cited looked at people above the age of 55. There was another similar study published in 2009 that also looked at alcohol consumption above the age o…

1. From your link "We conclude that ethanol was a preferred fuel preventing fat, and to lesser degrees, CHO and protein, from being oxidized." So for the few hours that alcohol is in your system, it is the preferred substance for oxidation. It's quite a leap to take that to development of a beer belly. From mine, "Alcohol contains calories, but drinking alcohol doesn't lead to weight gain, according to extensive medi…

"We conclude that ethanol was a preferred fuel preventing fat, and to lesser degrees, CHO and protein, from being oxidized."

How can you read that and write that alcohol is the "preferred substance for [promoting] oxidation"? The study says precisely the opposite, hence the title "Ethanol causes acute inhibition of carbohydrate, fat, and protein oxidation and insulin resistance."

Now that this is resolved, let's be clear: I am not suggesting that having a drink on occasion will on its own make you morbidly obese, but there is a very good reason athletes shun alcohol while training (if not altogether) and you're more likely to find a spare tire than six-pack abs on a guy who drinks a couple of six-packs every week (which falls under the category of "moderate" consumption). I know, I know: a ripped midsection does not equal health, but there is plenty of evidence that belly fat is insidious.

As for changing goal posts, you posted a study concluding that moderate alcohol consumption increases longevity, ostensibly in an effort to support the notion that moderate consumption of alcohol is beneficial to health. I simply responded to it with further details about a similar study in which the authors readily stated that other factors may explain the correlation. The implication that longevity equals health is your own.

Finally, the point that you seem to be overlooking here is this: even if alcohol has some components that may be beneficial on their own, there are almost always alternatives for attaining them through other food sources that come with fewer drawbacks. Again, as an example, the person consuming a couple of glasses of wine each night while saying "I'm getting my antioxidants!" (yes, I have heard this) is providing a poor excuse for drinking because it's easy to get antioxidants from less problematic sources.

So you can eat your fish and drink wine too, or you can just eat your fish, but let's not pretend that one isn't likely to be healthier than the other.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#263

Post by MichaelGG » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 7:28 PM UTC

andyhmltn wrote: post #223

MichaelGG wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd highly recommend not reading such nonsense that has no scientific backing. That book is just the author making up explanations, with no evidence. It doesn't "show" anything, at least not more than any other user making up stuff about their favourite drug.

It's obvious that you haven't actually read the book and have some kind of prejudice against the substance. Try actually reading it before acting so irrational. If you're going to present a debate then at least have the decency to know what you're arguing about. The entire thing is about an approved scientific study into DMT. Much of the book actually goes into the legal troubles they faced setting up such an experim…

Actually, I'm extremely pro-psychedelics. I'm familiar with the book, and have had to deal with plenty of close friends and family that read it and then go spouting off nonsense. While I'm not against documenting "experiments" as subjective experiences (ala Erowid), drawing out any further conclusions is counter-productive.

Strassman, for instance, "documents" things like "Hey, the pineal gland is usually visible around 49-days into a fetus's development. And hey, the Tibetan Book of the Dead says 49 days is how long reincarnation takes!" This kind of mystical tripe is unscientific and reinforces the stereotype that psychedelic users are illogical, new-age hippies.

I feel this way about a lot of "drug" researchers. In their zeal, they lack rigour, and they do the community a disservice. A lot of the LSD proponents of decades passed also fall into this category. I get it, psychedelics are awesome, and can be very beneficial. But just cause you tripped really hard, no, you don't suddenly understand the universe.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#264

Post by trendoid » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 8:11 PM UTC

Xcelerate wrote: post #260

freshhawk wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

>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.

This is not apathy, this is being cautious or heedful to the possible damage to your body. I am quite sure there is enough evidence that trying psilocybin or marijuana ONCE is not going to damage your body in the long term. So considering that, if you dont go ahead and try even once, there has to be some element of fear in there.

Its a wonderfully complex organ sitting in my head and I dont want to die before experiencing(atleast once) what all "realities" it can offer.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#265

Post by Xcelerate » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 8:22 PM UTC

trendoid wrote: post #264

Xcelerate wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

>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. This is not apathy, this is being cautious or heedful to the possible damage to your body. I am quite sure there is enough evidence that trying psilocybin or marijuana ONCE is not going to damage your body in the long term.…

> I am quite sure there is enough evidence that trying psilocybin or marijuana ONCE is not going to damage your body in the long term

So... where is this evidence? Maybe that's the case (no one can say for sure yet), but it's not something I want to risk, even if the risk is low. That's fine that you want to experience all that reality offers, but I am simply disinterested in that particular experience. I'm sure there's many experiences you care little in being a part of even though many people find it enjoyable. (For instance, I like going on long runs by myself. And there's certainly a risk of getting hit by a car. Most people would like nothing to do with such an event.)

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#266

Post by chrischen » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 8:54 PM UTC

Amadou wrote: post #205

chrischen wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go ahead and try the experiment. Lock two people in two rooms and give one a choice of food or cocaine every day and the other just food. What do you think will happen? It's pretty clear the one with cocaine will be slightly less nourished than the one without cocaine. The cocaine doesn't offer any benefit except a surge of dopamine. Maybe you could argue the guy has ADHD, and the cocaine helps him function normally,…

I'm sorry but locking two people in a room really has nothing to do with the way the vast majority of people live their lives. You are again assuming the initial point and working backwards from that belief. It seems pretty clear this is a matter of faith for you, so not much point in continuing to debate it.

My initial point was reasoned. You've yet to counter any of the reasoning I've made.

You have, however, resorted to what is basically name calling ("matter of faith for me"). Please leave my motivations off the table and focus on my reasoning. If you want to stop debating, go ahead, but that doesn't mean that no conversation is possible. If it stops, it's because you don't want to continue discussing it.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#267

Post by chrischen » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 9:05 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #228

chrischen wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not at any cost. I talked about that in my original post. >> If you tweak it to give no increase in experience and happiness, and focus only on survivability, you'll have no incentive to survive (no reason to live, because we've defined the goal of life to increase experience and happiness). I explain that "surviving at any cost" is not an optimal solution either, because we as humans would no longer have an ince…

Which is the better existence? A civilization that survives in happiness and harmony for 5000 years, or one that survives in highly productive, regimented dullness for 20000 years? It's not at all obvious, at least to me. But evolution will pick the latter every time. For evolution it's optimal for us to be just miserable enough to not give up, and have just enough happiness as a dangled carrot to keep us going. What…

Productivity is a function of happiness. If our lives were really a "regimented dullness," we'd have little motivation to achieve more and greater things.

So a regimented dullness is not optimal. Pure happiness for no work is not optimal. Evolution has chosen the perfect solution: happiness is dependent on productivity. This means the happier we are, the longer we will survive. And keep in mind, objectively, happiness is just the release of dopamine, so to the universe happiness is not a thing, but survival is.

If you disrupt that, then the function is disrupted. Happiness (aka, dope), can be obtained without working. Happiness is no longer dependent on productivity and advancement, and we could die off, depending on the whims of the universe. In exchange we'd get all the "happiness" we want, however short lived. We'd become irrelevant though, since we die off.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#268

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 9:05 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #228

chrischen wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not at any cost. I talked about that in my original post. >> If you tweak it to give no increase in experience and happiness, and focus only on survivability, you'll have no incentive to survive (no reason to live, because we've defined the goal of life to increase experience and happiness). I explain that "surviving at any cost" is not an optimal solution either, because we as humans would no longer have an ince…

Which is the better existence? A civilization that survives in happiness and harmony for 5000 years, or one that survives in highly productive, regimented dullness for 20000 years? It's not at all obvious, at least to me. But evolution will pick the latter every time. For evolution it's optimal for us to be just miserable enough to not give up, and have just enough happiness as a dangled carrot to keep us going. What…

[deleted]

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#269

Post by Amadou » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 10:29 PM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #266

Amadou wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but locking two people in a room really has nothing to do with the way the vast majority of people live their lives. You are again assuming the initial point and working backwards from that belief. It seems pretty clear this is a matter of faith for you, so not much point in continuing to debate it.

My initial point was reasoned. You've yet to counter any of the reasoning I've made. You have, however, resorted to what is basically name calling ("matter of faith for me"). Please leave my motivations off the table and focus on my reasoning. If you want to stop debating, go ahead, but that doesn't mean that no conversation is possible. If it stops, it's because you don't want to continue discussing it.

You keep assuming the initial point as a given, that is pretty much the definition of faith - belief that can't be or isn't proven.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#270

Post by conroe64 » Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 11:49 PM UTC

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #262

conroe64 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. From your link "We conclude that ethanol was a preferred fuel preventing fat, and to lesser degrees, CHO and protein, from being oxidized." So for the few hours that alcohol is in your system, it is the preferred substance for oxidation. It's quite a leap to take that to development of a beer belly. From mine, "Alcohol contains calories, but drinking alcohol doesn't lead to weight gain, according to extensive medi…

"We conclude that ethanol was a preferred fuel preventing fat, and to lesser degrees, CHO and protein, from being oxidized." How can you read that and write that alcohol is the "preferred substance for [ promoting ] oxidation"? The study says precisely the opposite, hence the title "Ethanol causes acute inhibition of carbohydrate, fat, and protein oxidation and insulin resistance." Now that this is resolved, let's be…

"How can you read that and write that alcohol is the "preferred substance for [promoting] oxidation"? The study says precisely the opposite, hence the title "Ethanol causes acute inhibition of carbohydrate, fat, and protein oxidation and insulin resistance.""

How can you tread what I wrote and add "promoting" in there. That completely changes the meaning of what I said! I meant that alcohol is burned in preference to other carbohydrates first. I'm not clear on the details, but lets face it, the known details of how alcohol is processed isn't enough to indicate that it makes you fat. Which is the very center of my argument, shown to be true by the study I have cited, and which you seem to dance around with anecdotal evidence, and comparisons of joe six pack vs a well trained athlete. Well there are other differences between Joe six pack and an athlete, too. In other words, correlation does not imply causation. Fat people drinking alcohol does not necessarily mean alcohol makes you fat.

The point I was trying to make if there is a correlation between drinking alcohol and living longer, then being suspicious that consumption of alcohol is less healthy then anything else is unwarranted. I was simply refuting your conclusion, that's all, not going for the hook shot of defeating your arguments and asserting another argument at the same time.

How are you sure that the reason that alcohol lengthens life is because of the antioxidants that come along in the beverage that contains it? How do you know which components are promoting health, when it certainly isn't settled scientifically?

Finally, I am not "pretending" when I say that there is no solid evidence one way or another whether eating fish is healthier than drinking alcohol, or vice versa, and there isn't any rational reason to be worried about eating either, or both, in moderation.