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

Nick Sand, Orange Sunshine LSD chemist, has died

psymposia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: Nick Sand, Orange Sunshine LSD chemist, has died

#71

Post by soineuh »

mirimir wrote: post #70
soineuh wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do I need direct experience to know about something? Was this empirical standard impressed upon you by a particularly wicked LSD trip, or are you unaware of the means by which the vast majority of knowledge and understanding is acquired? Does this lack of awareness play any role in your use of psychedelics to 'learn things'?

Sure, you don't need direct experience to know about LSD trips. But you obviously do, in order to actually know LSD trips. Really. Trust me. You have no fucking clue. You're like Hellen Keller, before that insight at the well.

I honestly feel bad for you people. Your inner world must be so miserable and barren. I get high just thinking about things several times a day, without any drugs whatsoever. There's no fucking way I'd ever risk that for same lame visuals and a poor man's ego death. You're basically a farm animal telling an Olympian he should try the corn feed.

Re: Nick Sand, Orange Sunshine LSD chemist, has died

#72

Post by soineuh »

mythrwy wrote: post #61
soineuh wrote: post #24

Are the rest of you just too polite to knock a soul only looking for a saviour? Why are these comments exclusively basket-cases fawning over the 'world-changing' meditative power of an objectively useless and destructive drug? I'll preempt the obvious response. Yeah, it doesn't kill you, but it irreparably alters your personality in a completely senseless way, turns you into Tim Leary, or someotherway spits in the fa…

I don't agree with you at all but given that you do present an unpopular opinion (which we need, there is too much "on the bandwagon" thinking at HN sometimes) and given the way you phrase the point I'm up-voting.

God bless. I respect the sentiment.

Re: Nick Sand, Orange Sunshine LSD chemist, has died

#73

Post by mirimir »

soineuh wrote: post #71
mirimir wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you don't need direct experience to know about LSD trips. But you obviously do, in order to actually know LSD trips. Really. Trust me. You have no fucking clue. You're like Hellen Keller, before that insight at the well.

I honestly feel bad for you people. Your inner world must be so miserable and barren. I get high just thinking about things several times a day, without any drugs whatsoever. There's no fucking way I'd ever risk that for same lame visuals and a poor man's ego death. You're basically a farm animal telling an Olympian he should try the corn feed.

You're evading the point. Say what you will, you don't know what an LSD trip is like. If you look back up the thread, you'll see where you went off the rails. But hey, maybe you're just here for the lulz.

Re: Nick Sand, Orange Sunshine LSD chemist, has died

#74

Post by mirimir »

soineuh wrote: post #62
knowaveragejoe wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your responses smack of an angry, small person looking to pick a fight from what you think is a position of superiority(not engaging in drug use). If you could actually explain what is wrong with the above quote, that'd be magnitudes more useful than this and your other screed elsewhere in the thread.

I'm easily in the 99th percentile for physical strength, and anger is last in my repertoire of rich emotions. I'd say a peaceful, focused calm is probably number one.

"Small" doesn't have anything to do with physical stuff, bro.

Edit: English isn't even my first language, and I got that. If you're so bloody smart, how come you took the comment so literally?

Re: Nick Sand, Orange Sunshine LSD chemist, has died

#75

Post by mirimir »

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #50
soineuh wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a beautiful quote, it's incoherent nonsense. You're reading bones, mystic brute.

Your responses smack of an angry, small person looking to pick a fight from what you think is a position of superiority(not engaging in drug use). If you could actually explain what is wrong with the above quote, that'd be magnitudes more useful than this and your other screed elsewhere in the thread.

This is classic troll behavior.

Re: Nick Sand, Orange Sunshine LSD chemist, has died

#76

Post by soineuh »

mirimir wrote: post #75
knowaveragejoe wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your responses smack of an angry, small person looking to pick a fight from what you think is a position of superiority(not engaging in drug use). If you could actually explain what is wrong with the above quote, that'd be magnitudes more useful than this and your other screed elsewhere in the thread.

This is classic troll behavior.

Sure I'm classic, but a troll? Sorry, I don't think so.

Re: Nick Sand, Orange Sunshine LSD chemist, has died

#77

Post by soineuh »

mirimir wrote: post #73
soineuh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly feel bad for you people. Your inner world must be so miserable and barren. I get high just thinking about things several times a day, without any drugs whatsoever. There's no fucking way I'd ever risk that for same lame visuals and a poor man's ego death. You're basically a farm animal telling an Olympian he should try the corn feed.

You're evading the point. Say what you will, you don't know what an LSD trip is like. If you look back up the thread, you'll see where you went off the rails. But hey, maybe you're just here for the lulz.

I know everything anybody needs to know about it and more. All you people have is "you need to try it to understand," and you're talking to someone who knows better than you.

Re: Nick Sand, Orange Sunshine LSD chemist, has died

#79

Post by soundwave106 »

soineuh wrote: post #69
soundwave106 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All recreational chemicals have people waxing evangelical notions of them. Heck, even that humble cup of coffee was originally associated with Sufi mystics ( http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22190802 ). LSD is nothing more than a serotonin receptor agonist (although LSD has a bit more dopaminergic response than other serotonergic psychedelics). It produces certain effects in the body. That's it. The evidence of long-…

Yeah, and a bullet through the brain is just a little bit of metal, right?

Although there are a lot of unknowns (and I'd fully respect that sort of opinion), comparing a primarily-5HT2A agonist to a bullet in the brain seems wildly exaggerated given the current evidence I know. If you have scientific oriented links that say otherwise, feel free to share them. From what I know, I find this route of thinking rather hyperbolic.

To give another example, ketamine's another recreational hallucinogen; if it also was thought of as akin to a "bullet in the brain" and nothing more, scientists might not have recognized the potential anti-depressive nature of glutamatergic chemicals (as has happened in the last decade or so).

Re: Nick Sand, Orange Sunshine LSD chemist, has died

#80

Post by mirimir »

soineuh wrote: post #77
mirimir wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're evading the point. Say what you will, you don't know what an LSD trip is like. If you look back up the thread, you'll see where you went off the rails. But hey, maybe you're just here for the lulz.

I know everything anybody needs to know about it and more. All you people have is "you need to try it to understand," and you're talking to someone who knows better than you.

No, I didn't say that "you need to try it to understand". You don't need to do anything. Except to maybe learn a little humility, be less of a know-it-all, and observe the norms of the community that you've joined. Or not.

Anyway, I simply asserted that the claim to know an experience, before having that experience, is absurd. I'm pointing to the distinction between knowing something, subjectively, as opposed to knowing about it, objectively. That's just a fact.

Consider a less contentious example. Let's say that you've never eaten dry-aged beef. Would you claim to know the taste? Sure, you could understand the chemistry of the curing process. You could have loads of GC/MS data. People could tell you about it. You could have all sorts of brain scan data. You could have formulated all manner of suppositions. But even with all that, until you took a bite, you wouldn't know the taste.

In case this is a new concept for you:

> There are, however, other uses of the terminology related to objectivity. Many philosophers use the term “subjective knowledge” to refer only to knowledge of one’s own subjective states. Such knowledge is distinguished from one’s knowledge of another individual’s subjective states and from knowledge of objective reality, which would both be objective knowledge under the present definitions. Your knowledge of another person’s subjective states can be called objective knowledge since it is presumably part of the world that is “object” for you, just as you and your subjective states are part of the world that is “object” for the other person.

> This is a prominent distinction in epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) because many philosophers have maintained that subjective knowledge in this sense has a special status. They assert, roughly, that knowledge of one’s own subjective states is direct, or immediate, in a way that knowledge of anything else is not. It is convenient to refer to knowledge of one’s own subjective states simply as subjective knowledge. Following this definition, objective knowledge would be knowledge of anything other than one’s own subjective states.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

Post reply on HN