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

211–220 of 220 posts

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

#211

Post by state_less »

Rzor wrote: post #171
state_less wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the stories we tell ourselves. Be they scientific or otherwise. The science is nice, it helps us get around in the world. But when stories become overwhelming, maybe it’s time for a change (of mind). “Our revels now are ended. These our actors, As I foretold you, were all spirits and Are melted into air, into thin air: And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, The cloud-capp’d towers, the gorgeous palac…

Odd, I just read that a few hours ago in Alan Watts' Wisdom of Insecurity.

Alan's buried next to a large boulder on the Pacific coast north of San Francisco. There is a nice tree there that you can sit in the crook of and spend some time with him.

You can get there by walking through the Marin headlands. Give the Green Gulch folks a smile as you pass through. Have a good one :)

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

#212

Post by ozzmotik »

fapjacks wrote: post #111
ozzmotik wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i highly agree that more people should know about ibogaine but at the same time it is important to note that unless you really know what you're doing or you have an experienced professional administering it, you really shouldn't mess around with it. stuff is serious business and not unknown to be fatal. also, i really wouldn't classify it as a psychedelic, as to my understanding it's more of a dissociative, which whi…

Your post is great and I agree with everything in it, except for suggesting ayahuasca to regular people. Over perhaps the last ten or twelve years I have made ayahuasca for people and sat with them during their trip. I strongly recommend people have experience with another psychedelic before trying DMT (or a brew in which DMT is a component, like ayahuasca). I actually generally won't let someone drink ayahuasca unle…

just to clarify, I was more trying to say that I would be inclined to suggest ayahuasca and dmt for individuals in contrast specifically to ibogaine. i wouldn't recommend either really but if I absolutely had to, for the lay person I'd go with ayahuasca

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

#213

Post by ozzmotik »

igravious wrote: post #167
ozzmotik wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wha…

i wouldn't be inclined to say that my choice of verbiage is to have any intent of masking the action or the nature of it. that's just how I generally talk about things. i feel like it leaves less up to interpretation and sort of solidifies the message I'm trying to communicate. which it did as your summary of what I had to say confirms.

also: i can't confirm if it was or wasn't actually ketamine. but i know that I experienced something, just nothing significant. I believe many dissociatives present a cross tolerance with each other and I was heavily tolerant to dxm at the time from heavy usage, so that may possibly have contributed to my tolerance, along with a certain level of inherent tolerance that my mind and physiology express when it comes to mind altering substances. which, and forgive me for sort of changing the topic, but that just sucks

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

#214

Post by fsloth »

oceanghost wrote: post #203
fsloth wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

For sure. I think there's a lot of evidence that certain meditative states overlap with some psychedelic states. But, have you ever had a fully immersive meditative state? Is that possible?

I have no idea. I've never had anything 'mystical' happen to me after that.

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

#215

Post by sireat »

Lewton wrote: post #132
alexmat wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's just materialism taken to its logical conclusion. We're just a bunch of atoms bumping into each other in a way that fools ourselves into believing that we're a cohesive entity. Ever been tired and run on autopilot? Our experience of ourselves vary in strength all the time. If I'm really really honest with myself, I don't actually have the experience of qualia all the time

What's your solution to finding medium term (5-10 years) motivation?

The more I read on cognitive science (Strange Loop was the first and then you understand what was behind GEB) the more I concur with your view. It is depressing though.

For short term daily tasks, one can depend on routines.

For longer planning the implications are horrifying if there is no qualia in the sense that we think of it.

It's just like with nihilism, it might be "true" but it is not very productive.

At best it leads to Vito Corleone type of ethics, ie tribalism, I'll take care of my family/village, but woe to the outside world.

At worst it leads to Michael Corleone actions, ie screw everyone besides yourself.

Where do you get joy in life if Dennett turns out to be right?

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

#216

Post by alexmat »

sireat wrote: post #215
Lewton wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just materialism taken to its logical conclusion. We're just a bunch of atoms bumping into each other in a way that fools ourselves into believing that we're a cohesive entity. Ever been tired and run on autopilot? Our experience of ourselves vary in strength all the time. If I'm really really honest with myself, I don't actually have the experience of qualia all the time

What's your solution to finding medium term (5-10 years) motivation? The more I read on cognitive science (Strange Loop was the first and then you understand what was behind GEB) the more I concur with your view. It is depressing though. For short term daily tasks, one can depend on routines. For longer planning the implications are horrifying if there is no qualia in the sense that we think of it. It's just like wit…

I can only speak for myself, but I find joy in living vicariously through others who don't contemplate existential issues. Sometimes I can spend a day just hanging out with my cat watching him do random things with sincerity. Sometimes I envy him.

As far as medium term motivation, guilt, fear and debt seems to work for most people regardless of philosophical disposition.

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

#217

Post by Pimpus »

axiom92 wrote: post #198
Pimpus wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I've people compare belief in God to wagers or lotteries or invisible unicorns. I find arguments like this to be intellectually lazy. The universe had to be formed somehow, right? It's a mystery how. God is a possibility.

We don't know what it is, must be God. Sure, that's meticulous.

That's a strawman. It's not what I said.

I'm saying that there being a creator is a serious possibility. It's certainly not the only one, but it doesn't deserve the flippant attitude or ridicule. And sure, God doesn't really "explain anything" (who created God? what is He like?). Doesn't mean it's not a possibility.

Part of the atheistic position is an inability to admit that there are things we don't know. What's beyond the universe? We have no idea. I think many atheists are just reactionaries frustrated by the irrationality of religion and throw out all spiritual or religious concepts without thinking it through.

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

#218

Post by Pimpus »

axiom92 wrote: post #196
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…

No, I never said god cannot exist. I just said that I refuse to live my life assuming that the most unlikely event, the one for which we have no proof whatsoever, is true. God can exist, I could be Superman.

Why is it the most unlikely event? We have no proof for any possible explanation of the universe... otherwise we'd have a proven explanation.

> God can exist, I could be Superman.

That doesn't sound like a rational argument to me.

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

#219

Post by Pimpus »

Numberwang wrote: post #85
Pimpus wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no reason to believe intentionally screwing with it's functioning would somehow increase it's ability to perceive the world truthfully. Right, my point is that psychedelics are great for exposing falsehood in your thinking, but not necessarily uncovering truth. > The 'most rational' position lies somewhere in that continuum. When converting to the usual trinary labels, one extreme or the other may end up b…

“Either the moon is made of cheese or it isn’t” is not a personal belief that should impress anyone.

Agreed. What's your point?

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

#220

Post by axiom92 »

Pimpus wrote: post #218
axiom92 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I never said god cannot exist. I just said that I refuse to live my life assuming that the most unlikely event, the one for which we have no proof whatsoever, is true. God can exist, I could be Superman.

Why is it the most unlikely event? We have no proof for any possible explanation of the universe... otherwise we'd have a proven explanation. > God can exist, I could be Superman. That doesn't sound like a rational argument to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLaRXYai19A
Post reply on HN