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

Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 220 posts

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#161

Post by gerbilly »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #100
toomanybeersies wrote: post #63

Aldous Huxley, dying of terminal cancer, took LSD on his deathbed, and died while on his final trip (it was planned that way), although a relatively low dose of 100ug. It seems to me like it would be a good way to go, a good way to conquer the fear of the unknown after you die. In a related experience, once when I was on a bender, I took 3 tabs of lsd, along with a whole plethora of other substances. I actually thoug…

In short, you're not experiencing the universe. You're experiencing your own mind.

Yes but, during normal everyday experience, you can't experience the universe without going through your own mind either.

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#162

Post by bfuller »

lobster_johnson wrote: post #105
bfuller wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>as I know nobody has ever come out of a shroom trip with their brains scrambled. you would be wrong. if you are predisposed to psychosis shrooms can trigger that. I get it that you prefer mushrooms. But most people actually handle LSD better than mushrooms. So the fact you trashed LSD is a little silly.

"Brains scrambled" implies permanent negative effects. I have never encountered any evidence that psilocybin has contributed to psychological damage, unlike LSD and its famed/apparent tendency to provoke flashbacks years later. On the other hand, there are increasing numbers of recent studies that refute the idea that psilocybin is as dangerous as some people have claimed in the past [1] [2]: > We failed to find any…

You talk about evidence when it concerns your beloved shrooms, and then in the exact same sentence repeat an asinine wives tale like the lsd flashbacks bullshit,which has no evidence behind it at all. Your bias is clear.

And I've seen people have psychosis manifest on mushrooms that was life altering, lasted for months, and they were never the same.

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#163

Post by gerbilly »

fsloth wrote: post #101
oceanghost wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have used drugs extensively-- good ones and bad. I'd be happy to answer any questions, but you're on the right track here except for the ineffable. Drugs distort the pattern matching systems in your brain. You see patterns that are there, patterns that aren't, patterns of patterns, patterns of patterns of patterns. You make connections that you should and shouldn't. If I could describe my phsycelidc experinces--of…

"Any description of the religious experneices ive had would be, inadequate. You've either had one, or they're complete fucking nonsense." I've never used drugs, but based on my experience I totally understand the statement that the purely analytic mode of thought does not encompass the whole of human experience. I had a deeply profound sense of being one with the universe as a teenager after a regular session of medi…

>I've never used drugs, but based on my experience I totally understand the statement that the purely analytic mode of thought does not encompass the whole of human experience.

That's for sure.

It's impossible to explain to someone something as mundane how you know how to ride a bike using analytical thought.[1]

[1] Witness the endless counter-steering threads on HN.

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#164

Post by krageon »

cygx wrote: post #145
krageon wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Atheism says "god does not exist and I'm sure about this". This is exactly like saying "it's impossible for me to win the lottery" - that is the stupid position to take, because you know in this case it is untrue. Anything theological is impossible to prove one way or the other (or at least I've never heard of anything remotely approaching proof) and therefore a position of certainty one way or the other must be luna…

Depends on your definition. Hand out sheets of paper and ask people to write down all the gods they believe exist. What's your term for people who hand in empty sheets? For many of us, that's non-theist, aka atheist. Also note that it's not only theological propositions that are impossible to prove: The omphalos hypothesis could be true and the whole universe could have started existing a microsecond ago. I could be…

Yes, you should be. You should claim uncertainty about anything you cannot prove in any way, shape or form. It's fine to say you believe something is the case, but at that point you're talking about faith and you don't get to say what a "wrong" position is - it's faith after all.

In any case, we're drifting way off-topic here. It's fine if you don't agree with what I think atheism is, although I would be interested to see what kind of definition you base it on. Aside from the definition (this means an outside source, not just something you write down here) I'd also be curious what you see as the difference between agnosticism and atheism.

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#165

Post by gepi79 »

simplemts wrote: post #155
gepi79 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds to me like it put a crack in your ego rather than a crack in your sanity. This is what many so called psychonauts do not understand. A bad trip can be traumatic and can revive other traumatic experiences. https://www.verywellmind.com/ptsd-triggers-and-coping-strate... https://www.reddit.com/r/LSD/comments/630i1g/trauma_from_bad... Psychedelics can lead to decreased wellbeing, decreased psychological and emotio…

I have never, ever met a psychonaut that doesn't advocate "set and setting".

The main point was that bad reactions and bad trips should not be underestimated and down played as silly ego problems or rare personal weakness.

Set and setting is important. Do not try psychedelics to solve problems.

But set and setting is not everyting. A bad trip might happen anyway.

Who knows about its genetic, biological and psychological constitution and reaction before the trip ?

That is why a medical expert as trip sitter is so important.

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#166

Post by SanityIsRare »

oceanghost wrote: post #44
empath75 wrote: post #10

When he talks about the default mode network that sort of matches with my intuitive understanding of what the experience of taking psychedelics is like. People do things in loops— they go to work every day, come back home every day, hang out with the same people, engage in the same hobbies, think the same thoughts. It’s just our natural mode of being to repeat ourselves, and psychedelics seem to just shut all of that…

I have used drugs extensively-- good ones and bad. I'd be happy to answer any questions, but you're on the right track here except for the ineffable. Drugs distort the pattern matching systems in your brain. You see patterns that are there, patterns that aren't, patterns of patterns, patterns of patterns of patterns. You make connections that you should and shouldn't. If I could describe my phsycelidc experinces--of…

Most HNer are actually dumb enough (or "scientific" as they like to call it) to believe that material universe exists in some vacuum with all its unbreakable laws, that it came into existence from nothingness, and believe that their lack of ability to explain what consciousness is is just a mere case of not-enough-science-yet.

I'm not saying be religious but being staunch atheist and materialist is really no better than being bigoted God-worshipper. Don't block yourself from playing with your own hypothesis-space just because it's full of "unscientific" things.

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#167

Post by igravious »

ozzmotik wrote: post #42
stryk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried ketamine? Not just for recreation, but as a possible treatment. It definitely is not going to last 60+ hours, more like .75-1.25hr, but it may be useful for acute symptoms. But if you approach an anesthetic dose it is quite enjoyable and calming, especially if you're already accustomed to psychedelic/narcotic experiences and the like.

i have tried it intranasally and it was certainly not the worst experience I ever had but I believe what I had to be of not the best quality as I went through 500mg in about 3-4 hours and didn't feel much other than a minor alteration. i think if it were still possible to find the original formulation of it, methoxetamine would be highly preferable, that was a very powerful experience when I got to try that out.

Translation: I snorted a very large amount over a very short space of time but didn't get much of a buzz out of it.

https://erowid.org/chemicals/ketamine/ketamine_dose.shtml says that 100-250mg produces "the K hole" (depends on body weight) so 500mg over a fairly short period sounds like quite the dosage. That you felt only a mild alteration suggests that either you have quite the tolerance for substances or that what you tried was not in fact ketamine. Also, it appears to me that you're deploying clinical language to mask recreational drug use which could be for our benefit or yours, I can't tell which.

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#168

Post by cygx »

akvadrako wrote: post #158
cygx wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on your definition. Hand out sheets of paper and ask people to write down all the gods they believe exist. What's your term for people who hand in empty sheets? For many of us, that's non-theist, aka atheist. Also note that it's not only theological propositions that are impossible to prove: The omphalos hypothesis could be true and the whole universe could have started existing a microsecond ago. I could be…

Agnostics don't believe in any gods but they aren't atheists.

According to one definition among several possible definitions. Which definition is more useful will depend on the question you're asking.

For example, agnostics are not theists, therefore they are a-theists - according to one possible definition of the term. Similarly, ignostics do not take a position on the existence of gods, therefore they are agnostics - according to one possible defintion of the term. In both case, you could argue that agnostics are not atheists, or that ignostics are different from agnostics. That does not mean that the binary classification theists/atheists or the tripartite classification theists/agnostic/atheist is wrong - it just means that you're asking a more nuanced question that requires a more nuanced terminology.

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#169

Post by ericb »

SanityIsRare wrote: post #166
oceanghost wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have used drugs extensively-- good ones and bad. I'd be happy to answer any questions, but you're on the right track here except for the ineffable. Drugs distort the pattern matching systems in your brain. You see patterns that are there, patterns that aren't, patterns of patterns, patterns of patterns of patterns. You make connections that you should and shouldn't. If I could describe my phsycelidc experinces--of…

Most HNer are actually dumb enough (or "scientific" as they like to call it) to believe that material universe exists in some vacuum with all its unbreakable laws, that it came into existence from nothingness, and believe that their lack of ability to explain what consciousness is is just a mere case of not-enough-science-yet. I'm not saying be religious but being staunch atheist and materialist is really no better t…

> that it came into existence from nothingness

You assume the default is "nothingness" but what if the default is "everythingness?"

Re: Michael Pollan reluctantly embraces the 'new science' of psychedelics

#170

Post by taneq »

alexmat wrote: post #128
Lewton wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LSD made me go from your run of the mill nihilist to being convinced that even consciousness is a complete illusion and all philosophy is built on this ridiculous lie. It's like solipsism taken one step further, no I'm not the only thing that exists because -I- don't really exist in any meaningful way either. We're all just P-zombies. Qualia is nonsense If you thought relating to normal people as a nihilist was hard.…

Post-solopsism? Fck me dude, I mean say want you will about nihilism, at least it doesn't attempt to invalidate the experience of qualia.

I can't help feeling we're begging the question a bit with qualia. Yes, I have experiences. Yes, there's "something it feels like" for me to see red, or stub my toe, or whatever. But there's no reason to believe that that feeling is in any way portable to anywhere outside my own head. I don't see why "I perceive a thing and I perceive myself perceiving the thing" is so universally accepted to be something special or surprising.

As best I understand it, our "consciousness" that "feels" things is basically an overblown condition monitoring system bolted onto the top of a highly effective correlation/prediction engine attached to a whole lot of sensory nerves. Sure, a signal goes from the senses into the middle bit and the result feeds into the consciousness bit which cross-checks everything including its own responses, but that's a control system, not a 'soul'. Or conversely, you could say the spectrum of "error term is saturated negative" through to "error term is saturated positive" is a range of qualia "felt" by a PID loop.

Post reply on HN