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

271–278 of 278 posts

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#271

Post by freshhawk »

Xcelerate wrote: post #265
trendoid wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 the…

That's quite a high evidence bar to set. Most of the food you eat doesn't meet those criteria.

I think a large amount of the incredulity in responses is a combination of being surprised someone would be disinterested in a entire class of relatively safe experiences (I share that feeling) combined with an understanding that your risk analysis is off.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#272

Post by andyhmltn »

MichaelGG wrote: post #263
andyhmltn wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aro…

That passage you referenced does exist, sure I'll give you that but it's a lot more than that. He actually says something along the lines of 'Its probably a coincidence.' I'm almost certain he doesn't believe there is any correlation. The rest of the book has a lot of useful information

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#273

Post by lmm »

chrischen wrote: post #267
lmm wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, happines…

>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.

You're begging the question. Why do you think survival is what we should optimize for? If you were a genetically engineered assassin species who gained happiness only from killing, would you say killing is what we should optimize for? If not, why treat evolution any differently from our hypothetical genetic engineer?

>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.

Again - why should we care about being "relevant"?

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#274

Post by Luc »

Xcelerate wrote: post #85
makeset wrote: post #2

I'd never mess with mind-altering drugs. You don't tweak a Ferrari. EDIT: Guys, relax. It was a joke. You think anyone goes and calls their own mind a Ferrari seriously? Jeez.

Upvoted you because I find it humorous that so many go off the defensive deep end with regard to your little joke. My own opinion regarding the matter is that there are plenty of mind and body altering effects that we encounter every day. I'm a chemical engineer, and anyone who is involved with chemistry or biology can tell you that all but the simplest mechanisms are difficult to understand. There can be repercussio…

> My own opinion regarding the matter is that there are plenty of mind and body altering effects that we encounter every day. I'm a chemical engineer, and anyone who is involved with chemistry or biology can tell you that all but the simplest mechanisms are difficult to understand.

Yeah, some people even have experiences without drugs that they interpret as revelations from God.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#275

Post by Xcelerate »

freshhawk wrote: post #271
Xcelerate wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 the…

That's quite a high evidence bar to set. Most of the food you eat doesn't meet those criteria. I think a large amount of the incredulity in responses is a combination of being surprised someone would be disinterested in a entire class of relatively safe experiences (I share that feeling) combined with an understanding that your risk analysis is off.

> being surprised someone would be disinterested in a entire class of relatively safe experiences (I share that feeling) combined with an understanding that your risk analysis is off.

Why is my risk analysis off? I'm not really sure how with a topic that doesn't have a hard scientific backing, your risk assessment gets more "priority" over mine. You can't weigh different people's probabilities (guesses) with your own probabilities and assume them to be any more correct. We'd have all kinds of nonsensical disagreements if that was the case.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#276

Post by Xcelerate »

sneak wrote: post #233
Xcelerate wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you have never had a cup of coffee or tea? No, actually. Both smell gross to me; I don't plan on trying either. ... but I do like Monsters. I see what your point is, but the paragraph I am referring to in the article specifically mentions marijuana. He uses the more conventional use of the word "drug" in that paragraph, and so I am simply continuing that usage than the more general form he was using in the rest…

He's right. Your "I don't take drugs" is just arbitrary goalpost-moving. Knock that off.

> Knock that off.

Seriously? Your profile suggests you're friendlier than your comments do.

What is the point of this comment? I already clarified what I meant to say plenty of times. I don't know what "goalpost-moving" is. I'm sure you know I was referring specifically to marijuana... since I said as much.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#277

Post by freshhawk »

Xcelerate wrote: post #275
freshhawk wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's quite a high evidence bar to set. Most of the food you eat doesn't meet those criteria. I think a large amount of the incredulity in responses is a combination of being surprised someone would be disinterested in a entire class of relatively safe experiences (I share that feeling) combined with an understanding that your risk analysis is off.

> being surprised someone would be disinterested in a entire class of relatively safe experiences (I share that feeling) combined with an understanding that your risk analysis is off. Why is my risk analysis off? I'm not really sure how with a topic that doesn't have a hard scientific backing, your risk assessment gets more "priority" over mine. You can't weigh different people's probabilities (guesses) with your own…

I'm comparing your risk assessment to the general consensus opinion among scientists in related fields, since my risk assessment, as someone in a completely different field, carries no weight at all.

Re: Drugs and the Meaning of Life (2011)

#278

Post by jessriedel »

flyinRyan wrote: post #242
jessriedel wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you follow Alex3917's link, you'll see he argues that Nutt is intellectually dishonest. That's of course different than being regular dishonest (i.e. fraudulent).

We don't need to follow the link. This comment said the research was "entirely fraudulent". Amusing that his actual argument said something rather different.

Poor choice of words, but I don't think that's enough to justify ignoring his criticism.
Post reply on HN