Philosophy and Drugs

Catsmokinpot

Son Goku wrote:

Do you know there is large room for expansion?
For all we know, we could be at our limit.

i think the fact that we dont even use half of our brains full capacity means that we havent reached our full potential

and as for that list of great thinkers that have used drugs,

http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/characters_drug_use.shtml

and those are the ones we do know about

Son Goku

Catsmokinpot wrote:

i think the fact that we dont even use half of our brains full capacity means that we havent reached our full potential

The "fact" that we haven't used half our brains.

Could you back that up?

Fysh

Interesting thread so far. I haven't got much to contribute directly tbh, but there was an article I read a while ago about the effects of drugs on science and in particular how drug experiences affect the views held by scientists. You can see a google cache of it here - it's originally a New Scientist article, which doesn't appear to be available online elsewhere.

"Overcoming dualism through hallucinogens. 19 11 2004
by Dr. Susan Blackmore

New Scientist, 13 November 2004 p 36
(box within cover story "The Intoxication Instinct" by Helen Phillips and Graham Lawton)

Note: This is the original version, and was slightly edited for publication.


Psychedelic drugs provide some of the best evidence we have that the mind is the brain; that our thoughts, beliefs, and perceptions are created by chemistry. Take a drug, particularly a hallucinogen, and any of these can change, and even our innermost selves can be quite transformed. This means these drugs can be scary, and need to be taken with great care and respect, for they can potentially reveal some of the deepest secrets about our minds and consciousness.

A century ago, long before prohibition, the groundwork of a science of intoxication was already being laid down, and the American psychologist, William James, experimented with the anaesthetic, nitrous oxide or “laughing gas”. Our normal rational consciousness, he said, is just one special type of consciousness, while all around it, “parted from it by the filmiest of screens” are other entirely different forms of consciousness, always available if only the requisite stimulus is applied.

Other experimenters meticulously described the effects of inhaling ether, chloroform or cannabis, and the strange distortions of time, perception, and sense of humour this induced. More curiously, they also described changes in belief, and even in philosophy. For example, nitrous oxide has the curious capacity to change materialist scientists into idealists. Its discoverer, Sir Humphrey Davy, bravely took the drug himself as an experiment in 1799 and ended up exclaiming that “Nothing exists but thoughts”. Others made similar observations and found their views profoundly shifted by even brief encounters with the other side of that filmy screen.

This raises the peculiar question of whether what James’s called “our normal rational consciousness” is necessarily the best for understanding the world. After all, if one’s view of the world can change so dramatically with the aid of a simple molecule like nitrous oxide, how can we be sure that our normal brain chemistry is the one most suited to doing science and philosophy? What if evolution had taken a slightly different turn and we had ended up with brain chemistry less inclined to make us believe in God or the afterlife. Or what if our actual brain chemistry evolved to help us survive and reproduce at the cost of giving us false beliefs about the world? If so, it is possible that mind-altering drugs might in fact give us a better, not worse, insight than we have in our so-called normal state.

Take the common experience of losing our separate self, or becoming one with the universe. This may seem, to some, like mystical nonsense, but in fact it fits far better with a scientific understanding of the world than our normal dualist view. Most of us feel, most of the time, that we are some kind of separate self who inhabits our body like a driver in a car or a pilot in a plane. We speak about “my body” and even “my brain” as though “I” were something separate from them both. Throughout history many people have believed in a soul or spirit that can leave the body and even survive after death. Yet science has long known that this cannot be so. There is no observer inside the brain who has our experiences, and no space in the brain from where an inner self can control it. There is just a brain that is made of exactly the same kind of stuff as the world around it. In other words, we really are one with the universe.

This means that the psychedelic sense of self may actually be truer than the common dualist view. So although our normal state is better for surviving and reproducing, it may not always be best for understanding who and what we are. Perhaps we could even have sciences carried out in some of these intoxicated states. This was just what psychologist, Charles Tart, suggested in 1972, in the prestigious journal Science. He likened different states of consciousness to different paradigms in science and proposed the creation of “state specific sciences”; new sciences which would be done by scientists working in altered states and communicating their findings to others in those states. These new sciences might only have limited application but this makes the point that our normal state, constrained as it is by the particular chemistry evolution has given us, may not be the only way to try to understand the universe.

Since Tart’s pioneering work on mapping altered states, most of the psychedelic drugs have become prohibited and research has largely been stifled. While the cultures that have used these drugs for millennia treat them with great respect, and control them with elaborate rituals and traditions, our culture gives over their control to criminals and tries to deny their amazing mind-revealing capacities. Perhaps one day, when prohibition is finally abandoned, scientists may once again take up the promise offered by those tiny little chemicals that can tell us who and what we are."

jman0

Surely it is ludicrious to suggest that our brains right now (while we may consider ourselves "sober") are not being influenced and changed by chemicals (drugs). I'm sipping coffee as i type for example.
People who advocate a "soberity" perspective are probably hypocrites anyway because they probably also consume alcohol (which kills brain cells).
I suspect that people's aversion to LSD has more to do with social pressures (FEAR) than anything else.

Playboy

Interesting article Fysh but I think the problem with using drugs when trying to 'do' science or philosophy is afterwards coherently relating your discoveries to people who are not in the mind altered state. Our science and philosophy works for us because it originates from our natural state of consciousness. While I think you can make profound personal discoveries under the influence of drugs, I don’t think these discoveries will be translatable to the rest of the world.

Son Goku

jman0 wrote:

Surely it is ludicrious to suggest that our brains right now (while we may consider ourselves "sober") are not being influenced and changed by chemicals (drugs). I'm sipping coffee as i type for example.
People who advocate a "soberity" perspective are probably hypocrites anyway because they probably also consume alcohol (which kills brain cells).
I suspect that people's aversion to LSD has more to do with social pressures (FEAR) than anything else.

It isn't out of fear to be honest. I don't take drugs mainly because I just don't feel like it.

Coffee isn't a comparable stimulant to LSD and heroin. It makes you more alert and might temporarily hasten your thoughts, but that is nowhere near the same effect as the drugs above.
It is a slight perturbation in the biochemistry, drugs are a complete system shift (or attractor shift to keep with chaotic terminology)

To the poster above, I'll mention that there are scientific hypothesis that the mind might be semi-separate from the brain or even completely separate.
I'll list the different ideas if people wish.

nesf

Playboy wrote:

Interesting article Fysh but I think the problem with using drugs when trying to 'do' science or philosophy is afterwards coherently relating your discoveries to people who are not in the mind altered state. Our science and philosophy works for us because it originates from our natural state of consciousness. While I think you can make profound personal discoveries under the influence of drugs, I don’t think these discoveries will be translatable to the rest of the world.

I fundamentally disagree with that.

Science, in particular, is a field where it has little to nothing to do with the person's mind at the time. All that matters is the product. IE the model or theory that they propose.

That theory or model is either an improvement on existing models describing the same phenomenae or it isn't.

This is where peer review comes in.

Catsmokinpot

Son Goku wrote:

The "fact" that we haven't used half our brains.

Could you back that up?

yes infact i can "back that up", their is a myth that we only use ten percent of our brain at any one time, this isnt exactly true im sure we use more than that, but i remember watching a documentary about a girl that had half of her brain removed and was still able to function normally and not only go to school but do well in school

as far as im concerned if she can do that with half a brain, then we haven't reached our full potential

girl with half a brain goes to college

Son Goku

I still wouldn't say that confirms it.
Yes, the brain has latent properties that we don't understand, but I don't think it can be quantified in terms of "we only use half our brains".

nesf

Catsmokinpot wrote:

yes infact i can "back that up", their is a myth that we only use ten percent of our brain at any one time, this isnt exactly true im sure we use more than that, but i remember watching a documentary about a girl that had half of her brain removed and was still able to function normally and not only go to school but do well in school

as far as im concerned if she can do that with half a brain, then we haven't reached our full potential

girl with half a brain goes to college

The brain doesn't work that way. We have different areas for different functions.Saying we only use "half our brains" really means nothing.

For instance, you use different areas of the brain for comprehending maths and comprehending languages. If one of these areas is damaged, the work is not done by another area of the brain because there is space. Certain head injuries (ie localised damage in a specific place) can result in a person retaining a high mathematical ability and yet retaining no ability to comprehend langauge, sentence structure etc. The rest of the brain might be undamaged, but because this one small area is, the person loses that ability.

The brain is a very complex and compartmentalised part of our bodies. There is a myth amoung people that the brain just deals with tasks and the harder we work, the more of our brain we use.

It doesn't work that way. You are talking complete crap tbh.

Playboy

nesf wrote:

I fundamentally disagree with that.

Science, in particular, is a field where it has little to nothing to do with the person's mind at the time. All that matters is the product. IE the model or theory that they propose.

That theory or model is either an improvement on existing models describing the same phenomenae or it isn't.

This is where peer review comes in.

The problem is communication .. it is very difficult to communicate an experience you had in an altered state of mind when sober. And when you are in that altered state of mind it usually is impossible to communicate what you are feeling or thinking to a sober person in a rational way.

Catsmokinpot

nesf wrote:

The brain doesn't work that way. We have different areas for different functions.Saying we only use "half our brains" really means nothing.

For instance, you use different areas of the brain for comprehending maths and comprehending languages. If one of these areas is damaged, the work is not done by another area of the brain because there is space. Certain head injuries (ie localised damage in a specific place) can result in a person retaining a high mathematical ability and yet retaining no ability to comprehend langauge, sentence structure etc. The rest of the brain might be undamaged, but because this one small area is, the person loses that ability.

The brain is a very complex and compartmentalised part of our bodies. There is a myth amoung people that the brain just deals with tasks and the harder we work, the more of our brain we use.

It doesn't work that way. You are talking complete crap tbh.

how am i talking a complete load of crap? here is a girl with half a brain..... the other half removed i know the brain isnt a 100 piece jigsaw puzzle and if you take a couple of pieces out the picture still looks the same, this person HAD HALF OF HER BRAIN REMOVED AND IS STILL ABLE TO FUNCTION normally WITH NO PROBLEMS, explain that to me? i think we just arent capable of using our brain to its full potential yet.

i know certain parts of the brain carry out certain thing, what about the areas of the brain where we dont know what happens? there are tonnes of em.... what are you doin sittin there and saying im talking a load of crap when you dont even know half of what ur talking about urself.

nesf

Catsmokinpot wrote:

i know certain parts of the brain carry out certain thing, what about the areas of the brain where we dont know what happens? there are tonnes of em.... what are you doin sittin there and saying im talking a load of crap when you dont even know half of what ur talking about urself.

I was referring to your earlier post where you said:

i think the fact that we dont even use half of our brains full capacity means that we havent reached our full potential

ie the part where you were talking complete crap.

What I did was, after i came back from work and was scanning through this thread, I noticed that you were spouting bull**** and dressing it up as fact when it could be barely considered to be backed up by anecdotal "evidence".

Catsmokinpot

nesf wrote:

I was referring to your earlier post where you said:



ie the part where you were talking complete crap.

What I did was, after i came back from work and was scanning through this thread, I noticed that you were spouting bull**** and dressing it up as fact when it could be barely considered to be backed up by anecdotal "evidence".

what part of "woman has half of brain removed" don't you understand? if someone has half of their brain removed and they can talk, walk, run, sing, jump, go to college with half a brain, proving with half a brain someone can do exactly the same as someone with a full brain. what are you on about dude ur full of it! :rolleyes:

Son Goku

Catsmokinpot wrote:

what part of "woman has half of brain removed" don't you understand? if someone has half of their brain removed and they can talk, walk, run, sing, jump, go to college with half a brain, proving with half a brain someone can do exactly the same as someone with a full brain. what are you on about dude ur full of it! :rolleyes:

Except that it is anecdotal, it's a single case, so it doesn't prove anything.
For all we know she could have an abnormal brain structure and the rest of us would just become vegetables if it happened to us.

It's equivilant to saying "This guy survived Aids, therefore we all have hidden super-antibodies".

SkepticOne

There's a lot of built in redundancy in the brain and quite a lot can be lost (and indeed is over time) while still retaining function. I don't know if a specific figure can be put on it though or whether such a figure means that we're only using that proportion of the brain normally.

The space shuttle contains five computers that duplicate function but it could function on just one. This doesn't mean that the shuttle is using a fifth of its computing power. The five computers are designed to work together for maximum safety.

nesf

Catsmokinpot wrote:

what part of "woman has half of brain removed" don't you understand? if someone has half of their brain removed and they can talk, walk, run, sing, jump, go to college with half a brain, proving with half a brain someone can do exactly the same as someone with a full brain. what are you on about dude ur full of it! :rolleyes:

Sure I am child

simu

Back on topic please!

(Go to the biology forum if you wish to discuss brain anecdotes).

Playboy

nesf wrote:

Sure I am child

You just turned 24 .. I would hardly be calling other people children :rolleyes:

simu

Back on topic or be banned - this is the last warning.

spahndirge

I'm a drug user. I am a believer in gaining further understanding and knowledge from using drugs.

When I took acid for the first time I watched some TV. I liked TV, I liked to sit down and stare at it for a while and just waste some time. While I was watching it on acid, I saw that I was wasting my time focusing on that box. I was gaining absolutley nothing in life from it and ruined some of my life already. I sold my TV within a week. I put this down to not only drug use, but a state of consciousness that I cannot reach when I am sober.

I fully believe that acid specifically is extremely benificial for me to understand myself, life and just about anything I can think of. Perhaps some of you are looking at drugs as something that will drive you around the bend, I'm not sure. But when I do think on acid, I understand that I am on acid and try and think with two frames of mind. This is impossible for me to do when sober.

Anyway, I've tried Ketamine a few times. However, I haven't managed to fall into a K-Hole yet as I do believe that it does take a while control the trip and direct where it is going. I wrote a song on pc while I was taking Ketamine, it turned out similar but different to a lot of the music that I do.

I do believe that drugs can help you think "outside of the box" (I hate that saying), but the only way drugs can be used positively is by the person doing them. I've been using drugs around a lot of different people for the last few years and just about everyone takes drugs at a session so they can get ****ed up, I use them to gain insight. After 3 years of not having a TV I firmly believe that, through acid, I've gained a huge amount of knowledge about myself and this world. I'm nto saying if I never took acid that I'd be a couch potatoe, but that without acid I wouldn't have changed my opinion about TV as quickly.

Shellie13

Seems to me that if you rely on drugs (legal or illegal) to get yourself into some state of realisation, although you may well have gained a better understanding of the world/reality/yourself- i personally would find it difficult to believe in any knowlege I had obtained in this manner!
I personally have previously (very drunenly) thought I had discoveverd the entire meaning of life-thiough having the story recollected to me the following morning it did seem little more than drunken teenage rambelings... Very skeptical myself...

transperson

Playboy wrote:

Just wondering what people’s opinions were on the use of drugs (of any sort) to further their own personal development in a philosophical sense.

from my experience of consiousness [base line everyday consensus variety and variously altered variety] i am of the opinion that psychoactives substances can help an individual see the world in a new and different way and can help in personal development [if we grant that personal development as concieved as by the alternative community that use such language is something concrete].

Do you think that they have the potential to help someone understand the world in a better way

i think they have potential to help someone understand in a different way, better for who,better from what perspective, better how, is better relative etcetc. to introduce value judgements is to allow much confusion to enter the equation.

as i see it, our total consiousness is our reality, if a drug alters your consiousness then it alters your reality, nevertheless other non drugged peoples realities remain the same and as we are inherently social beings we must not lose touch with the consiousnesses of our fellow humans, ie we must have a solid grasp on consensus reality and its narrow yet refined range.

as i believe that at the core of our total individual consiousness[and hence reality] is God*, i am of the opinion that psychoactive substances can help us to understand the true nature of all things and ourselves by the exploration of our consiousness and the approach of our core being through artifical substances altering our neureochemistry.

*see consiousness models by the likes of Timothy Leary and John C. Lilly and others that have attempted to make a science of mental space as seen in new and more all emcompassing ways throught psychoactive substances

nesf

The problem is that without understanding the relationship between neurochemistry and conciousness we cannot explore the relationship fully or be sure of any of our findings.

At best, we're stabbing wildly in the dark hoping to hit a tiny target. It's not impossible for it to happen, but it's not guaranteed to happen either.

spahndirge

Shellie13 wrote:

Seems to me that if you rely on drugs (legal or illegal) to get yourself into some state of realisation, although you may well have gained a better understanding of the world/reality/yourself- i personally would find it difficult to believe in any knowlege I had obtained in this manner!
I personally have previously (very drunenly) thought I had discoveverd the entire meaning of life-thiough having the story recollected to me the following morning it did seem little more than drunken teenage rambelings... Very skeptical myself...

You see, your previous experience that you mentioned is based on the use of an intoxicant, I would never rely on any drug to get into a state of realisation, I believe you have to remember thoughts and ideas while on acid/k/mushrooms and then study those ideas while sober.

I find it interesting that most of the ideas here are leaning more towards getting completely messed up on a drug to find something. From my own experience, I have never once believed that everything I thought was true or that drug's are the answer. A lot of people just view tripping as something of a way to escape and completely get in to a different state of mind, I view that as drug abuse. I use drugs to experience different mindsets and get into different thought patterns, unfortunately most people don't believe that drugs can do this.

RedPlanet

I recently watched a documentary called "What the Bleep do we Know", it was about quantum qhysics, neurochemistry and philosophy. It was really interesting.
http://www.whatthebleep.com/
The parts that really stuck in my mind were about neurochemistry.
It was basically saying that as we age the brain starts getting more and more "hardwired", meaning long term relationships develope between (whatever brain thingies that fire electical impluses) and their receptors.
And what this means is that people experience things in a preordained sort of way. Meaning someone who always feels low, will develope circuitry in their brain to facilitate that, and thereby making it more difficult to get out of it.

I think LSD might well be ideal re-wiring your circuitry, maybe just terminating some of these long-term relationships hardwired in your brian.
It's a fairly harmless drug and is really interesting the way it affects the brain.
For instance, unlike alcohol and other chemicals, only a tiny, tiny amount of LSD enters the brain. It is entirely out of your system within an hour.
Yet in terms of the drugs effects, after an hour you are only just beginning to come-up on it. They describe it as producing a "cascading effect" on the brain. It is also unique among drugs in that it doesn't impede your ability to put things to memory. Therefore, you can later recall in detail your experience.

transperson

"I think LSD might well be ideal re-wiring your circuitry" Quote from RedPlanet*


this is true. the hugely positive affects of LSD therapy on chronic alcoholics and those with clinical psychological problems are undisputed. LSD was subject to a phenomenal amount of research with the scientific and academic worlds and was originally used with US Government authorisation for therapy before being Banned in a wake of hysteria against the counterculture that was emerging in the mid to late 60's



"The problem is that without understanding the relationship between neurochemistry and conciousness we cannot explore the relationship fully or be sure of any of our findings.

At best, we're stabbing wildly in the dark hoping to hit a tiny target. It's not impossible for it to happen, but it's not guaranteed to happen either." Quote from Nesf


can you perhaps explain the reasoning behind this statement and what in fact you take the tiny target to be?

In any case our lack of scientific understanding as to the emergence of consiousness, or within the Cartesian Cathederal its cause, does not have any effect upon the experience of our own consiousness, nor the [subjective]experience of trancending ones own consiousness into the inner core or true self [atman in the sanscrit] and here encountering a fusion of the self with the Greater force of All [or God, Brahman in the sancsrit, whatever name one chooses for the ineffable].
this internal process in made possible for some people through the use of psychoactive drugs, most notably LSD.


*apologies, quote function causing an error

cornbb

Psychoactive drugs can help you gain a fresh and profound perspective in different philosophical areas. However the problem lies in the fact that these perspectives wear off when your trip is over.

I took mushrooms once. Had a very intense emotional inner experience, faced my demons, came to new conclusions etc. At the time I was convinced the experience was going to change my life but the following day everything was back to normal.

Same with smoking dope. It can enable deep thought and a fresh outlook on things but these new ideas are generally fleeting and just drop out of your head. I wouldn't say doing psychoactive drugs leads to enlightenment.

simu

Muppety posts have been moved to the recycle bin.

nesf

transperson wrote:

this is true. the hugely positive affects of LSD therapy on chronic alcoholics and those with clinical psychological problems are undisputed. LSD was subject to a phenomenal amount of research with the scientific and academic worlds and was originally used with US Government authorisation for therapy before being Banned in a wake of hysteria against the counterculture that was emerging in the mid to late 60's

That is, to an extent, true. The benifits are not universally accepted. Not enough research was done.

Also, bear in mind that LSD was sucessfully used to "create" psychotic states in mentally healthy subjects. Believe me when I tell you that psychotic states are not nice, true or in any way deep and meaningful.

It was indeed banned due to psychodelic use and it is a shame since great strides were being made in research on it and it's effect on mood disorders. However nothing definitive was reached. Progress was shown but it did not get the testing needed to confirm it. And very importantly, the drug used in those tests was very different to LSD as found on the street today. They are not the same and shouldn't be thought of as so. I would stress though that taking them as a form of self medication is really not a good idea. Seriously, it's as wise as using alcohol for that purpose tbh.

transperson wrote:

can you perhaps explain the reasoning behind this statement and what in fact you take the tiny target to be?

It was a metaphor, not figurative. The target could be taken to represent the goal of such drug use, ie the achievement of perception states that offer strong benifits to the user's view on reality and his personal philosophy.

I use the words "tiny target" because, as any drug user should know, the vast majority of what we sense and come up with under the influence is not worth the air spent speaking it wrt to philosophy.

transperson wrote:

In any case our lack of scientific understanding as to the emergence of consiousness, or within the Cartesian Cathederal its cause, does not have any effect upon the experience of our own consiousness, nor the [subjective]experience of trancending ones own consiousness into the inner core or true self [atman in the sanscrit] and here encountering a fusion of the self with the Greater force of All [or God, Brahman in the sancsrit, whatever name one chooses for the ineffable].
this internal process in made possible for some people through the use of psychoactive drugs, most notably LSD.

No it doesn't have a direct experience on what happens. It does however seriously limit our understanding of what exactly is happening.

I'd be curious as to your explanation of the final part of your post.

RedPlanet

nesf wrote:

Also, bear in mind that LSD was sucessfully used to "create" psychotic states in mentally healthy subjects. Believe me when I tell you that psychotic states are not nice, true or in any way deep and meaningful.

What is a "psychotic state"?
I wonder if we examined someone heavily under the influence of alcohol (maybe even a "mean drunk") could we make a similar observation? Or do you think we'd just excuse their behavior for being under the influence of a socially accepted drug.

nesf

RedPlanet wrote:

What is a "psychotic state"?
I wonder if we examined someone heavily under the influence of alcohol (maybe even a "mean drunk") could we make a similar observation? Or do you think we'd just excuse their behavior for being under the influence of a socially accepted drug.

A psychotic state is a term for what a person with schizophrenia goes through: Delusions, Hallucinations, Thought Disruption etc. For long periods of time, read: months for someone with the illness. Permenantly for some.

Linkage with info...
Wikified

RedPlanet

nesf wrote:

A psychotic state is a term for what a person with schizophrenia goes through: Delusions, Hallucinations, Thought Disruption etc. For long periods of time, read: months for someone with the illness. Permenantly for some.

Linkage with info...
Wikified

Had a look. I see that alcohol can also produce a phychotic state, which doesn't really surprise me.

Nevertheless i just can't help but imagine some white coat observing someone on LSD in a controlled experiment and when they are peaking the white coat determines that the subject is in a "psychotic state".
I didn't read any time period criteria for defining a "phychotic state".

nesf

RedPlanet wrote:

Had a look. I see that alcohol can also produce a phychotic state, which doesn't really surprise me.

Nevertheless i just can't help but imagine some white coat observing someone on LSD in a controlled experiment and when they are peaking the white coat determines that the subject is in a "psychotic state".
I didn't read any time period criteria for defining a "phychotic state".

Apologies, I didn't mean it in that only long term symptoms are defined as psychotic. I just meant that the state can last for quite a long time, and in most cases it lasts longer than a month (in the case of mental illnesses).

It's not very clear cut, but psychotic symptoms are generally present for longer than a month in what are considered mental illnesses. Symptoms lasting from 1 day to 1 month fall under the "Brief Psychotic Disorder" term which accounts for only 8% of diagnoses (according to one study) source.

But this isn't really a forum for the discussion of mental illness. Sorry for digressing.


Of interest, from that wiki article, is the note that not all psychotic symptoms are described as a problem by people exhibiting them. They have also been quite shown to be similar by brain scan studys to intense religious experiences and high levels of creativity. (This does not mean that they are interchangeable descriptions, only that the brain activity observed was similar).

Psychosis can be loosely defined as a "break from reality" or a "substansial change in the perception of reality". In general, psychosis infers that it is a longer term change not a brief change during a "drug trip". A person with a psychotic condition is not in that state under the influence of drugs but all the time even when they are not on any kind of drugs or perception altering chemicals. There is a world of a difference between the states brought about by drugs and psychosis. One ends when the trip ends, the other will, generally, last a substansial lenght of time.

An interesting article here:A Biochemical Bridge to the Embodied Psyche: LSD Research 1945-1965

A much longer but, in my opinion, very thorough article here: A Critical Review of Theories and Research Concerning Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) and Mental Health. Again from maps.org. Good reading, for anyone interested in the topic. It also discusses the use of LSD in a theraputic sense and discusses it briefly.

Oh and the wiki discussion on it's LSD article is very relevant here. Plenty of interesting stuff there to peruse Linkage

I hope the above provide some interesting reading for somebody

McFiddler

nesf wrote:

Also, bear in mind that LSD was sucessfully used to "create" psychotic states in mentally healthy subjects. Believe me when I tell you that psychotic states are not nice, true or in any way deep and meaningful.

I may be wrong, and realise that this may be a personal issue, but I am getting the impression that you have had some sort of bad trip or disturbing experience using LSD or some other substance. If this is the case I would really appreciate if you could share it with me as I am considering experimenting with Mushrooms but I am a bit apprehensive in case I experience a bad trip and might be disturbed by it later.

I find it interesting that drugs might be used for reasons other than recreation and obviously medicinal. What worries me is the possibility that one might reach some conclusion or gain some insight in an altered state which would have an overall destructive effect in reality or in their everyday lives. The fact that this insight is true or not is not what's important the thing that concerns me is that the subject might be left in a disturbed or paranoid state. I have suffered from anxiety and panic attacks in the past and this had a profound effect on my life afterwards. Has anyone ever had any revelations resulting from the use of drugs which have had a negative impact on them?

Playboy

McFiddler wrote:

I have suffered from anxiety and panic attacks in the past and this had a profound effect on my life afterwards. Has anyone ever had any revelations resulting from the use of drugs which have had a negative impact on them?

If I was to offer some advice it would be to stay away from drugs such as LSD, Ketamine, Magic Mushrooms, PCP etc. These drugs can induce extremely anxious and agitated states and if you already suffer from panic attacks then you would be highly likely to experience one. The problem is that if you are already aware of the possibility of a bad trip then in some part of your mind you will be expecting one. If you are expecting a bad trip and you take some of these drugs then it will more than likely happen. Also be aware that time is not the same on these drugs. A minute can last what seems like an hour so a bad trip can go on for what seems like forever with the only way of stopping it probably being hospitalised.

simu

McFiddler wrote:

I may be wrong, and realise that this may be a personal issue, but I am getting the impression that you have had some sort of bad trip or disturbing experience using LSD or some other substance. If this is the case I would really appreciate if you could share it with me as I am considering experimenting with Mushrooms but I am a bit apprehensive in case I experience a bad trip and might be disturbed by it later.

Advice on taking drugs is not on-topic for this thread. You'll have to wait for the creation of the "legal highs" forum!

RedPlanet

McFiddler wrote:

I may be wrong, and realise that this may be a personal issue, but I am getting the impression that you have had some sort of bad trip or disturbing experience using LSD or some other substance. If this is the case I would really appreciate if you could share it with me as I am considering experimenting with Mushrooms but I am a bit apprehensive in case I experience a bad trip and might be disturbed by it later.

I find it interesting that drugs might be used for reasons other than recreation and obviously medicinal. What worries me is the possibility that one might reach some conclusion or gain some insight in an altered state which would have an overall destructive effect in reality or in their everyday lives. The fact that this insight is true or not is not what's important the thing that concerns me is that the subject might be left in a disturbed or paranoid state. I have suffered from anxiety and panic attacks in the past and this had a profound effect on my life afterwards. Has anyone ever had any revelations resulting from the use of drugs which have had a negative impact on them?

Hi, i replied to your post and moved the discussion to the After Hours forum:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3281285&postcount=1

transperson

nesf wrote:

The benifits are not universally accepted. Not enough research was done.
QUOTE]
true, but we are not suggesting that Lsd is a cure all, merely pointing to the firm fact that it is not a substance which causes harm to all who partake in it and can have very real and demonstrated positive effects. Lsd merely unleashes what is already in the stored in the brain/mind of the person, it can have widely varying positive and negative effects, depending of course on what we define as positive or negative.

And very importantly, the drug used in those tests was very different to LSD as found on the street today. They are not the same and shouldn't be thought of as so

of course the purity of the average hit is not the same as the original LSD produced by Sandoz labs, but we cannot say that LSD today is not the same. the fact is that the chemical is the same and always willl be.

The target could be taken to represent the goal of such drug use, ie the achievement of perception states that offer strong benifits to the user's view on reality and his personal philosophy

the achievement of whatever "target" the person has in mind [broad as it is] depends completely on the psychology of the individual. the reality is that most peoples psychological lives are full of confusion and pain, intersperced with moments of pleasure and fulfillment, especially the average casual drug user. they simply are not capable of grasping, understanding or even experiencing states that could enhance their realities. in order to understand the trip as it is happening one must be clear minded and grounded in the everyday consensus reality to be able to achieve any perspective about the consensus reality from consiousness altering substances. one must possess an understanding of the structure of the human consiousness and be able to observe the states that you go through as you delve deeper into your own mind. you must control you thought patterns and direct them into an area that is beneficial for you. with a little training and control this is possible when taking LSD. the experience of LSD is not about the Drug it is about the user.

It does however seriously limit our understanding of what exactly is happening.

do you need to understand what is happening when you are in love?
no
you feel it and you know it.

to experience something we need not have any understanding of it. understanding comes with symbols, an experience with LSD that is of any real note will transend the symbolic mind and its feeble wonderings and wanderings. it is afterwards that the symbolic mind can translate an experience into communicatable form and in that lose virtually all the impact.

I'd be curious as to your explanation of the final part of your post

it really depends on what your conception of the structure of human consiousness is. and since most people dont even have a conception they simply cannot talk about such things or understand why for instance i say what i say.here is not a place to discuss the large and complex issue on my own and others conception of human consiousness.

but simply put if your mind and body is in good order LSD could start the chain reaction that could you lead to you experiencing what has been written about, culitivated and experienced since the dawn of human consiousness, that which transends our own small (or large) egos and becomes one with what it is that is the source and truth of all, supreme empytness for Buddha, Brahman for Sankara and the Vedanta strand of Hinduism, God for the Muslims,all societies have a name for it, even our own that is in constant rebellion, anyway the taoists said it best, read Chung Tzu and friends.

apologies for slight rant.

muesli_offire

i think your onto something when you focus on the 'truth' question, but I'm not too clear on what your notion of the 'structure of human consciousness' is.

Also, your (seemingly rationalistic) insistence on 'target' and clarity of mind are confusing given your alternative perspectives of 'love' and (the dialectical bent of) taoism (a la Lao Tzu) which might resist the adequatory tendency of rationalism and the exigencies of formal logic.

i think the drugs' relation to truth and the experience thereof has a bearing on the bigger question of the status of experience per se.
Might it not be the case that drugs provide a release from a life in which the marrow of all experience is dismally identical, their truth being nothing more than the truth of the commodity/phallus/will/human/illusory/false/etc...

maybe we ought to revise our neglect of the physical and psychopathological as sites of truth.
Yes drug use tends to render things unpleasant, but maybe this suffering is an escape (masochism) from a reality/society in which the structure of 'human consciousness' has been beaten into a funny shape, and truth is dead and so are we and our souls and we live in a desert of the real and we're doomed ahhh jump ship.

i think the realm of cultural metaphysics (Baudrillard) may be the place to look for answers, dunno.

Did anyone mention Walter benjamin as a drug user? Hash I think...

transperson

but I'm not too clear on what your notion of the 'structure of human consciousness' is.

imagine a bare tree,

this wood is your brain structure,


twigs are the ideas

branches are the feelings

trunk is the instinctual drives


the leaves are what you are consious of,

notice how most of the leaves are on the twigs, which stem from the branches which all come from the instinctual drives.

got loadsa metaphors and a good bit of scientific jargon for my understanding of human consiousness but that one is simple enough.

and by the way LSD lets you grow leaves anywhere.

Also, your (seemingly rationalistic) insistence on 'target' and clarity of mind are confusing given your alternative perspectives of 'love' and (the dialectical bent of) taoism (a la Lao Tzu) which might resist the adequatory tendency of rationalism and the exigencies of formal logic

i am merely saying that to gain rational insight from drugs [which people seem to want] we must be able to think rationally about our drug experience while and after its occurence. the "alternative perspectives" [ ie Lao Tzu etc] are an valid perspective too and that is why i make reference to them. in order to fully understand anything we must take advantage of all perspectives. unfortunately many people are stuck in the rational frame of mind and unaware capacity of the human mind to manipulate concepts in a way that is not rational but intuitive, drugs i maintain can wake people from their rational slumber to the experience of their sences, their intuition and their whole consiousness.

SkepticOne

I think the only way to settle this is to give some trained philosophers a dose and see what they come up with.

I suspect that with many drugs their ability to think clearly might be impaired but I could be wrong. After their trip they might need a bit of time to get back into their work.

Adblock

There is so much wisdom thrown around in this thread and so much stupidity it's kinda sad, I wish it was sorted a little better. Anyway

Here is my view. On a personal level I do accept that many of the Great scientists, philosophers, poets and not so great have taken drugs. But why and dose it make you a better philosopher?

A philosopher is simply a man/woman who has a desire to understand our world and the nature of existence and time. You cannot be selective! If drugs exist, as a philosopher its your duty to understand how they fit in. so yes I do accept they took drugs.

Dose it make you a better philosopher? It can, in the sense that it allows you to explore a powerful arena of our existence but it can also lead to brain damage and death.

[Do you feel a chance to get to the meaning, is worth you life?] –Some do

There is no happy answer its like this, some drugs are safe, most are not, drugs will do what they say on the tin "expand your mind" that's it..

A final note someone said back the way - that if you do find a truth on drugs its going to be false, this is really really stupid for reasons that are just painfully obvious. Stop it with the stupid comments....thank you

A final word of warning, science cannot tell us what drugs do to us "as of yet" but all signs point to badness [side note in reference to our GREAT ancestors who didn't know or care]. So if you do go taking them make a solid decision to do this.


Or have we eaten on the insane root that takes the reason prisoner? –Shakespeare's Macbeth

Dave!

...OR, just do your research on drugs you take, and only take safe ones.

ferdi

all i can say is, if you have smoked Salvia Divinorum and you have tripped properly on it, it will allow you to see posibilities the sober mind could never really comprehend. it completely bends your preseption of the physical world, i can not give a proper description of the effects of a full-blown Salvia trip here. it can be such an extremely intense experience that no written report can do it justice.

while you are 'tripping' it will not aid any philosophical persuits. it is only after have 'returned' that you can use your trip to any kind of philosophical end.

[edit]

Too much info - you're going to have to wait for the creation of a legal highs forum, if that ever happens.

-simu[/edit]

nobodythere

Think this would be a nice time to throw in a quote:

This isn't exact, i'm just recalling it.

"Most people don't understand hallucinogenics. Hallucinogenics are the kind of thing you do once and then spend the next ten years of your life trying to get back to that place without drugs."
-- Maynard James Keenan

Red Soup

that's strange, coming from Maynard James Keenan. hasn't he been experimenting with all kinds of drugs for years now, trying to reach a "third conciousness" mentioned so often in Tool's songs? maybe he wasn't referring to himself, there