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

171–180 of 278 posts

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#171

Post by cristianpascu »

Udo wrote: post #108
cristianpascu wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nee…

This article contains some bits on this topic.

http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/4203/thinking-machine-an-...

Search for this passage: "The idealists, following philosopher of mind David Chalmers (who also comes in for some rough treatment from Dennett), say there is a “hard problem” with consciousness. While accepting that much about consciousness is amenable to explanation by an evolutionary perspective and neuroscience, experience itself will always somehow evade a materialist explanation."

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#172

Post by cristianpascu »

lfuller wrote: post #166
cristianpascu wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The soul is an immaterial substance - the supernatural, unexplainable. It is, by its very nature, am unknowable question. How can that be an answer by any reasonable definition?

You should make a distinction between what exists, and can be named, and what can be known and explained. These are two distinct categories. There are things the exist and can be explained, but nothing allows us the say that there aren't things that can't be explained.

If what we known to exist and understand can't explain all observed data (our thoughts and inner experiences) than we are forced to infer the existence of something outside our understanding.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#173

Post by cristianpascu »

derefr wrote: post #168
cristianpascu wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

http://lesswrong.com/lw/iu/mysterious_answers_to_mysterious_...

Right now "the mind is the brain" theory still uses the magic of brain to explain what we observe. Everytime you hear someone saying "the brain does this or that", they act like it's a known thing and the mind is the brain and the brain has some yet unknown and unexplained properties that give rise to "this or that".

So, yeah, magic.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#174

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Alex3917 wrote: post #170
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The methodology effectively reflected the divide between experts' and policy makers' views on the relative harms of various substances. Given the nuances involved and our limited understanding I agree with the decision to use a committee of experts versus a more precise mathematical specification. Not only do I think it is meaningful to compare the harm done by drugs as they are actually used, it is necessary. Nutt's…

"Not only do I think it is meaningful to compare the harm done by drugs as they are actually used, it is necessary. Nutt's research is from society's perspective - that's why it spends more time on how people actually use drugs than how much harm would be done if they used them appropriately." The problem is that how drugs are used is almost entirely dependent on the public policy surrounding them. E.g. when coffee w…

"The problem is that how drugs are used is almost entirely dependent on the public policy surrounding them"

Policy seeks to move from where we are forward. Nutt advocates "forward" be measured in minimising aggregate, actual harm. The logic is that since we do not know precisely how biology, psychology, sociology, economics, and policy interact we can start by observing the entire system and seeing where problems are bubbling up.

"It's only the opinions of a bunch of random people about these things. How is this supposed to be more accurate than getting actual data?"

Experts who have looked at the data are coming to a different consensus than our policy makers. That is powerful. I don't know how to integrate data including bioavailability, legal availability, neurotoxicity, safety ratio, etc. But having toxicologists' opinions juxtaposed with policy makers' signals that I should start looking deeper.

Characterising the 2010 paper as "the opinions of a bunch of random people" is disingenuous - a panel of experts weights factors including safety ratio and probability of physical dependence in producing their conclusion. We should not fault the use of estimates with appropriate error margins in lieu of perfect data.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#175

Post by [deleted] »

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]

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#176

Post by 7Figures2Commas »

tptacek wrote: post #153
7Figures2Commas wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume you're referring to potato-based processed foods (like potato chips) that been have cooked at high temperature. If not, and you're seriously trying to argue that eating a small amount of potatoes exposes one to cancer risk, it would be more enlightening if you posted an actual comparison between the levels of carcinogens in a sack of lowly potatoes and a bottle of red wine. Hint: there's a reason the b…

I'm referring to acrylamide.

Acrylamide is found in foods, like potato chips, that have been produced by certain high-temperature cooking techniques such as frying.

To suggest that a potato (or three) carries with it the same cancer risk as alcohol, which is considered a Group 1 carcinogen by the World Health Organization, is disingenuous.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#177

Post by philthesong »

I don't find that taking a drug is any different than eating food or drinking water. You get hungry, so you eat and gain energy and feel fullness on your stomach, which leads you to drowsiness. Of course, conventionally, taking drugs(like smoking weed or taking MDMA) is done for different reasons than just survival.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#178

Post by philthesong »

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 may say you've never done any 'drugs'. But you've certainly gone through changes of consciousness. That's the author's point.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#179

Post by 7Figures2Commas »

conroe64 wrote: post #148
7Figures2Commas wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Regarding point 4, most of the calories that come from red wine is alcohol. Alcohol isn't metabolized the same way as other foods, so comparing calories from alcohol to other foods is misleading. http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/AlcoholCaloriesAndWeight.ht... The rest of what you write doesn't really validate your conclusion. Actually, there has been a study indicating the reverse. People who drink live longer. http:…

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 of 55. It too found a correlation between moderate alcohol consumption and longevity, but after factoring for disability and socioeconomic status, the correlation dropped substantially. It was still significant, but the researchers noted that other factors not considered could fully explain the correlation. So to suggest that drinking a glass or two of wine a day is a "perfectly healthy" activity that will lengthen your life is quite premature. On the other hand, the evidence showing that regular consumption of fruits, vegetables, fish, etc. is beneficial to health is pretty conclusive.

Post reply on HN