Live data from Hacker News

Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

phys.org

201–210 of 214 posts

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claim: "You'll find nausea and vomiting in just about every discussion about consuming psilocybin mushrooms . Challenge: "I know this statement is false, because I've read thousands of discussions. I challenge you to attempt to prove your assertion with evidence. If you make an attempt, you will quickly realize that you are objectively incorrect." Response (from the claimant, thus far): Reply (third party): "It would…

You're right, the "just about every" is unproveable. But you can't win the argument that nausea and vomiting isn't a concern by saying that the use of "just about every discussion" is wrong, and if you've decided to focus on that aspect you've now switched the topic. I doubt very much the original author intended that to be a scientific fact, and more of a expression of its prevalence. Where some see accuracy others…

> You're right, the "just about every" is unproveable.

(This looks like another assertion! But I digress.)

I don't recall saying that. In fact, my actual words convey the exact opposite meaning (at least to my interpretation):

>> I challenge you to attempt to [prove] your [assertion] with evidence. If you make an attempt, you will quickly realize that you are [objectively incorrect].

Perhaps something was lost in translation along the way? Having a very open mind, I am a big believer that such ambitious things (and many more!) are possible, but such optimistic ideas seem to not be very popular nowadays. Under certain scenarios at least.

But anyways....are you sure?

I can agree, at least not with the explicit specifications we currently have. But then again, it wasn't my assertion, so why is it I who must bear the burden of these shortcomings? Does that seems fair? Or, am I looking at it wrong?

Here is how I would approach this sort of a problem - I like to first put on my thinking cap, and think, much as one might do when writing code at work.

The assertion: "You'll [find] [nausea and vomiting] in [[just about] [every] [discussion]] [about consuming psilocybin mushrooms]."

I've added some highlights around words and phrases, in an attempt to facilitate more precise communication over this limited medium.

Let's try this:

  private bool isJustAboutEvery (int subjectHitCount, int totalDiscussionCount ) {
    return ( (subjectHitCount / totalDiscussionCount) > .8 );
  }
Of course, one would have to manually determine the values for [subjectHitCount] and [totalDiscussionCount], but I hope we can leave it at the pseudocode in my prior comment?

Wait a minute. I've arbitrarily decided what the interpretation of "just about every" is. Who do I think I am!!!

We can't look it up, because there's no commonly accepted meaning. What to do!

Well, how about this:

  private bool isJustAboutEvery (int subjectHitCount, int totalDiscussionCount, int percentageCutoff ) {     
      return ( (subjectHitCount / totalDiscussionCount) > ( percentageCutoff  / 100 );   
  }
That seems better (assuming it compiles!).

Now, you and @colechristensen can decide among yourselves what an acceptable value is for [percentageCutoff] - I'm not concerned about that aspect of it.

> But you can't win the argument [that nausea and vomiting isn't a concern] by saying that the use of "just about every discussion" is wrong...

100% correct, and I am in complete agreement.

> ...and if you've decided to focus on that aspect [you've now switched the topic].

Oh? Is it I who've switched the topic? (Also...is this yet another assertion? Oh, never mind.)

By my reading of this thread, it seems to me that that assertion was higher up in the thread. Specifically, here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22921923

...and I addressed it here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22923036

(You may also note that I received no response to my rebuttal. But I did receive a downvote, so that's something!)

The assertion we are actually dealing with in this sub-thread, is: "You'll find nausea and vomiting in just about every discussion about consuming psilocybin mushrooms."

Perhaps I should have explicitly quoted the assertion so as to minimize that possibility for misinterpretation. I will try to be more precise in the future. But then on the other hand, being precise seems (as far as I can tell, which is not very well judging by voting and responses) to be not terribly popular around here, despite it being a forum consisting of a high concentration of developers.

> I doubt very much the original author intended that to be a scientific fact, and more of a expression of its prevalence.

Is this my fault as well? If no meaning can be accurately derived from a statement, and reasonable inferences are not allowed, then what is the point of engaging in conversations at all using this language? Just for fun? (And I mean that question literally.)

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder if this type of thinking is a side effect of dmt et al. Based on extensive reading in the community, I would say overwhelmingly yes. To what degree this derives directly from the substance, versus an "unlocking" of thinking modalities that already exist but are dormant (or not normally consciously perrceivable) is interesting and worth study, but disciplined, logical thinking is not something you'll find m…

My educational background is in mathematics and physics. I think you'll find I can give disciplined, logical thinking a run for your money. Logic after all is only an adherence to predetermined axioms in a consistent fashion, not an algorithm for which axioms you should and shouldn't adopt to begin with. Just like science cannot claim to hold an opinion on a phenomenon it has not studied, logic should have no opinion…

> Logic after all is only an adherence to predetermined axioms in a consistent fashion, not an algorithm for which axioms you should and shouldn't adopt to begin with.

I couldn't agree more, particularly the highlighted part. When one gets into these realms, logic is not only not very useful, it is often extremely harmful, because it too will provide answers that are (to my way of thinking anyways), objectively incorrect. To a person using strictly logic (or so they think, unaware of their hidden axioms, or even what an axiom is), their beliefs appear to be facts, and perfectly logical ones at that. Examples are things like the "right" political system, the "right" economic system, the "right" way to raise a child, the "right" way to distribute income, and so on.

And it's hard to blame people if you spend some time seriously thinking about it - almost from the day a child is born, it is subjected to massive amounts of psychological influence (training their mental model): beliefs forced upon them by their parents, their culture, their religion, their teachers, their friends, etc. As they grow older, eventually they enter the adult world where there are also career pressures, relationship pressures, consumption of massive amounts of propaganda ("facts" to non-crazy people) via multiple different (but coordinated) channels, typically repeating and reinforcing all these prior beliefs, driving the "hooks" deeper and deeper into their mind. It's no wonder the world seems like a madhouse right now, and how it is so difficult to get someone to break through the walls that have been built around their mind. It can be done, but logic is not the tool for the job. As the saying goes, you can't change someone's beliefs using logic, if logic was not used to form those beliefs.

As far as axioms (and likely even logic) go, I bet you and I are quite highly aligned. And where we're not, I doubt we'd have much trouble seeing each other's point of view. But that's just my intuition!

How do misunderstandings such as this one arise? In this case, my guess would be:

- in this community, I speak almost exclusively using logic, and "extremist" logic at that (I believe there is a time and place for it) - assuming this is my only mode is perfectly natural (logical).

- my above comments regarding "I wonder if this type of thinking[1] is a side effect of dmt et al" could very easily be misinterpreted negatively. And I guess, parts of them are. In my experience in various plant medicine and spiritualist communities, there seems to be an excess of conformist, woo woo, excessively optimistic thinking (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil). When a rationalist is exposed to this the first time, it can be quite a shock. But as I spent more time and got to know several people closely, you start to find out what the real deal is (again, in my experiences). Much of it can be posing, conformity, hypocritical, and various other negative behaviors, which are completely counter to anything I've ever heard from the true gurus, who advise having an open and free mind, etc. So this would be one negative opinion I hold on the community as it practices, as opposed to what the "proper" principles are.

I believe that if we are ever to sort out the mess we've created on this planet, a way must be found for these people to communicate with each other. Sure, many people can do this already, but not very many, and certainly not enough to do the trick. I see this as the problem of the 21st, before all others, because it is a root cause of all the other problems that get attention on TV. Whether this ongoing and growing disharmony is completely accidental is a very controversial question, something only a "conspiracy theorist" would believe so they say, but I am a proud, card carrying member of the camp that believes no, this amount of consistent disharmony is not accidental, not at all. How would one ever learn that answer to a question such as that? Any ideas?

[1] Examples from the grandparent comment: "Spiritual journeys heal and cleanse the mind, heal and cleanse the soul", "If something heals you, is it not sacred? And likewise, if something is sacred, it heals you. By definition."

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course it’s better to have the latter All other things being equal .

Has OpenStreetMaps made Google Maps disappear?

I think we've had an unintended misunderstanding.

>> As a software analogy, this is like the debate whether it’s better to have Google Maps vs mapping software and all the underlying data. Of course it’s better to have the latter even if some romanticize the former.

> All other things being equal.

More explicitly, my point is that this is only true if all(!) other variables were equal. A variable from TFA that has significant variance is cost. If you're in a hypothetical scenario of choosing between Google Maps (free, or nominal) vs mapping software and all the underlying data ($420 zillion), even though the latter product is preferable, the difference in that one variable could be a deal breaker.

I have no idea what the actual numbers or other particulars are in the real world between OpenStreetMaps and Google Maps, but that they both exist suggests different customers have different requirements (and budgets), and choose the most appropriate technology accordingly.

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#204
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never once heard a bit of insight from a psychonaut that was particularly game-changing. We're all connected, consciousness is an illusion, societal structures are somewhat arbitrarily defined, etc. These are the existential thoughts of teenagers. Life is just energy, energy is just vibrations, everything is a fractal, etc, these are just the existential speculations of people making baseless claims. Consciousne…

> Consciousness as a useful frontier, in my opinion, will only have utility as it intersects with neuroscience and artificial intelligence. So by neuroscience and artificial intelligence I'm guessing we can assume you're just referring to western science. How about the Buddhists? Or the shamans in tribal societies around the world? Was there no utility in their understanding and manipulation of consciousness (which w…

This is the thread I was pulling on.

Have you ever stopped to really ponder the literal awesome nature of dreaming? A relatively simple function we all practice, even our dogs.

When you're in a lucid dream, you have the ability to construct your reality with nothing more than intention. It's a higher fidelity experience for every sense than any virtual reality gear known to Silicon Valley could provide. The nature of lucid dreaming combined with a deeply introspective nature have certainly led me to believe there is a deep well of discovery when it comes to studying consciousness. Is it an emergent phenomenon? Is it something else entirely? Are we all just deterministic robotic meat-sacks? Are we truly just in a simulation?

> Western science is not the only valid way to understand reality.

"Dreams represent just one type of illusion. The whole universe arises and dissolves like a mirage. Everything about us, even the most enlightened qualities, are also dreamlike phenomena. There's nothing that is not encompassed within the dream of illusory being; so in going to sleep, you're just passing from one dream state to another."

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#205

Consciousness studies will be the next frontier and may bring our race further, faster, than space exploration. In my opinion.

I've never once heard a bit of insight from a psychonaut that was particularly game-changing. We're all connected, consciousness is an illusion, societal structures are somewhat arbitrarily defined, etc. These are the existential thoughts of teenagers. Life is just energy, energy is just vibrations, everything is a fractal, etc, these are just the existential speculations of people making baseless claims. Consciousne…

Psychedelics maybe a useful instrument with which to prod at our psyches, though not what I was implying, by any means.

> useful frontier

I think it's useful if one is to gain deeper self-awareness and emotional discipline by exploring one's perception.

Remove mental obfuscations and negative emotions, let go of all perceived realities of samsara and you may approach self-enlightenment.

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#206
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never once heard a bit of insight from a psychonaut that was particularly game-changing. We're all connected, consciousness is an illusion, societal structures are somewhat arbitrarily defined, etc. These are the existential thoughts of teenagers. Life is just energy, energy is just vibrations, everything is a fractal, etc, these are just the existential speculations of people making baseless claims. Consciousne…

> I've never once heard a bit of insight from a psychonaut that was particularly game-changing. What is game changing is the experience - not reading or hearing about it.

[deleted]

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#207
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People with psychiatric disorders need spiritual journeys. Spiritual journeys heal and cleanse the mind, heal and cleanse the soul. Do not try to strip that away. No opinion on the article or yours but where are you getting this opinion? Why or how, do psychiatric disorders need spiritual journeys. Not all people believe in spiritual journeys or are capable of it. There is noting scientific about what you're sugges…

"Spiritual awakening" is a keystone of 12-Step programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous, whether effective or not, it is the de facto official treatment for substance use disorders. "Religious delusions" are a frequent component of schizophrenia. Clearly more research is needed in this space if we are ever to reason about it in a scientific context.

Drug in question used to be a treatment for alcoholism before the drug war began.

Quick Qwant search should turn up loads.

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#208
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, absolutely. LSD shows mostly a higher binding affinity to the various 5HT-receptors. https://psychedelicreview.com/the-serotonin-receptors-compar...

Dude thanks for sharing, I was always wondering why there is stomach discomfort.

Anecdotally, I find that consuming the mushrooms in fresh ginger tea help with stomach discomfort.

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#209
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which western country is that? AFAIK even most islamist states allow alcohol for non-muslims.

In Norway you can get up to 6 months in prison for selling alcohol that is over 60% ethanol by volume. Up to 2 years if the offense is "particularly serious".

Selling is a different story from possession. I think most countries require a license to sell alcohol.

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#210
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin. Dosage is important. There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose. Argument fallacies: * your anecdotal positive experiences * suggesting superiority because something is "from nature" * referring to "mistakes from the past" without naming any * suggesting superiority that "has been (…

Couldn’t dosage be averaged out by simply drying, “powdering”, and mixing the mushrooms as batches? I think similar is used in winemaking.

That would ensure the amount of psilocybin is more evenly distributed across the material, but you still wouldn’t know exactly how much psilocybin you’re getting per dose.
Post reply on HN