-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
DMT the soul molecule
- Thread starter Leonardo
- Start date
Here's another example of our societies warped sense of prioritizing safety:
http://sports.yahoo.com/photos/skyd...829-slideshow%2Fskydiver-photo-1343235519.htm
Navigate to photo 10 and Red Bulls name is clearly seen on his rig. Red Bull is promoting base jumping! Its illegal in all countries and it is very dangerous, since there is no chance of opening the reserve chute if the main chute fails.
http://sports.yahoo.com/photos/skyd...829-slideshow%2Fskydiver-photo-1343235519.htm
Navigate to photo 10 and Red Bulls name is clearly seen on his rig. Red Bull is promoting base jumping! Its illegal in all countries and it is very dangerous, since there is no chance of opening the reserve chute if the main chute fails.
Last edited:
That's not the point and one can say the same about sky diving, which is legal...
And here's another example where our society is finding entertainment in the risk to bodily injury and life:
Talladega delivers another vicious wreck, pitting driver safety vs. fans' wants - Yahoo! Sports
Talladega delivers another vicious wreck, pitting driver safety vs. fans' wants - Yahoo! Sports
horizon_mj1
Well-Known Member
Funny fact about Alcohol; if addiction occurs it has a high rate of death if improper steps are taken during the intoxication period
Funnier yet is our Government knows this quite well:yes: My question is why is it that naturally occurring substances are deemed illegal? Isn't this like telling Mother Nature :sorry1: you were wrong for allowing this to exist
I wouldn't say "no doubt", but as some of the legal pschotropic medications are frequently used illegally (namely methamphetamines and benzodiazepines) and for the same reasons (i.e., whether you are prescribed adderall or not, it typically does the same thing), there's no reason to suppose that the effects of various "street" drugs couldn't be effective and as you say,
The issue is the methods used to test the safety and efficacy of any medications for various mood disorders (and for mental disorders in general). We're not really sure how they work (despite claims to the contrary), we do know that a big part of their efficacy is related to the placebo effect, and we don't know exactly what harm or long-term effects they may cause. Which is pretty much true of most illegal drugs.
Having a "trained and experienced" person mediate is less important (but still very necessary) than ensuring that any medication used to treat problems relating to the organ we know least about (the brain) has been tested using effective measures. The problem is that
1) In order to protect their position in the field of mental disorders and their treatment, psychiatrists created a diagnostic biomedical approach to treatment which is largely based on nothing and divides mental health problems in ways that can prevent or inhibit proper treatment
2) The methodology commonly employed to demonstrate that x drug is successful in treating y condition typically involves several tricks to ensure the results are weighted in favor of a positive outcome (using inert placebos, for example)
3) Given the biomedical approach, when a pill is successful in treating x condition (e.g., depression), the assumption is typically that whatever neurobiological effects the pill has (or we think it has) indicate that these demonstrate what neurobiological activity is involved with the "disease". However, as one psychiatrist put it (refering to the common practice of assuming that if, say, serotonin is typically lower or higher in x condition, then it follows that some "imbalance" in serotonin is the cause of that condition), measuring the neurophsyiological activity in someone who is depressed and then saying this is the cause is akin to firing a gun near somebody's head, then measuring their blood pression and diagnosing them with hypertension or something similar.
People who take things like speed do so because it tends to make them feel energized (even manic), allows them to concentrate (which is why so many college students take it during exam periods), and in general makes them much more productive (or at least capable of doing things). And, strangely enough (he said sarcastically), for people who have a hard time focusing, it can do exactly the same thing. Likewise, for people (i.e., my brother) who have a hard time getting out of bed and getting things done, when they are prescribed adderall, they too become energized and productive.
People who take various drugs, including benzodiazepines (valium, xanax, etc.), do so because they make one feel relaxed, calmer, etc. And, amazingly enough, when people who have anxiety disorders or anxiety as a side-effect of some disorder, they do exactly the same thing.
Additionally, it is these types of drugs/medications that are perhaps most effective. The only exception is, perhaps, the efficacy of certain antipsychotics on people who are severely manic or in the midst of a psychotic episode. However, this doesn't mean that the drugs actually treat the underlying problem (although this is frequently assumed). With some (especially the older ones, like thorazine), they work because they are (as a heard one psychiatrist put it during a talk/lecture) "like a sledgehammer to the brain". Turning somebody into a zombie (which, if you've ever visited the now largely closed down state hospitals, is what many of those with more severe conditions look like after treatment) doesn't mean you've "cured" them, or even treated anything other than the symptoms. It's like giving someone with a broken leg morphine and, when they aren't in so much pain, claiming that you've fixed the issue.
I have no doubt that ketamine, like valium, would be an effective treatment for the symptoms of many mental health problems. Same with MDMA and probably a number of other now-illegal drugs. Also, in terms of what we know about the negative side-effects, both short and long term, of recreational drugs, the general conception of which ones constitute dangerous, "hard" drugs vs. relatively innocuous aren't correct. Alcohol, for example, is probably more damaging then heroin. The difference is that most of those who consume alcohol do so "socially" because it is 1) legal and 2) socially acceptable. However, even among those who use some recreational drugs, the reputation heroin has tends to prevent any but those who are already inclined towards heavy and frequent usage and are predisposed to become addicted from using it. Thus, the population of heroin users in general have far more problems (both physiological and mental) as a result of usage than those who drink alcohol.
And while the side-effects of many psychotropic medications are generally mild (and in general don't seem to cause neurological problems after long-term usage), this is not true of many of them and for those that it is true for, the same could be said for controlled use of many recreational drugs.
Basically, the problem isn't that recreational drugs have more serious side-effects or are more addictive so much as it is that we really don't understand mental health problems, the psychiatric community (for various reasons) pretends for the most part that this isn't true and that we also know how and why psychotropic medications are effective (and that they are effective), and that the literature on both recreational psychotropics and those prescribed by a psychiatrist is riddled problems at every level.
Last edited:
(continued from above)
Some advice based on personal experience (i.e., feel free to ignore): Scientific American, like most media intended for a general audience, frequently distorts the actual findings of studies in order to make money. On his site, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky has a great summary of the problem (found here):
"The media thinks that only the cutting edge of science, the very latest controversies, are worth reporting on. How often do you see headlines like "General Relativity still governing planetary orbits" or "Phlogiston theory remains false"? By the time anything is solid science, it is no longer a breaking headline. "Newsworthy" science is based on the thinnest of evidence and wrong half the time. If it were not on the uttermost fringes of the scientific frontier, it would not be news. Scientific controversies are problems so difficult that even people who've spent years mastering the field can still fool themselves. That's what makes the problem controversial and attracts all the media attention. So the reporters show up, and hear the scientists speak fascinating words. The reporters are told that "particles" are "waves", but there is no understanding of math for the words to invoke. What the physicist means by "wave" is not what the reporters hear, even if the physicist's math applies also to the structure of water as it crashes on the shore.
And then the reporters write stories, which are not worth the lives of the dead trees on which they are printed."
Unfortunately, even Scientific American suffers from this problem, as their goal is to be interesting to a general audience. So whenever you come across a report or press release about a study, whether Scientific American or even the "news" sections of highly respected journals like Science, try to find the abstract of the actual study in question at the very least and, if possible, use google scholar to try to find the full study for free. The abstract will give you a far more accurate yet still non-technical summary of what the study concerned and what the results were, and if you can find the study itself, typically the introduction and discussion sections (the first and last sections of most studies) are non-technical and will give you an even better understanding of what the researchers actually found.
Interestingly enough, Felix Hoffman synthesized diacetylmorphine (what would be heroin) shortly after he synthesized acetylsalicyclic acid (aspirin). Although he didn't discover/invent it, the company he worked for (Bayer) soon decided its pharmalogical benifits were clear, and marketed it under the trademark Heroin. Romancing Opiates: Pharmacological Lies and the Addiction Bureaucracy by Dalrymple includes a summary of the history behind heroin including (if memory serves) a copy of an advertisement from Bayer on this new "non-addictive" wonder drug. Additionally, a much shorter history is give in Walter Sneader's "The discovery of heroin" (The Lancet, Volume 352, Issue 9141, 1998, Pages 16971699, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07115-3 )
It was a highly effective cough suppressant and analgesic, but as Bayer sold it in higher than needed strengths and made it an over-the-counter drug, the addictive nature of the drug showed up very quickly at the same time its supposed benefits over morphine (which, actually, it had in some ways) were being questioned, it wasn't long before it was discontinued for any medicinal purposes. Had Bayer not marketed Heroin in the way that it did, we would at least see it alongside morphine (which predated heroin) in severe circumstances, if not in even more common incidents.
Quite true. Actually, a number of deaths related to overdoses are due to setting in a much more specific way (i.e., not cultural). Certain drugs are often used in privacy in a specific location (generally somewhere in one's residence) at fairly regular times. However, this "ritual" use (in the non-spiritual sense) creates an expectation much like that in Pavlov's dogs. Without knowing it, the user's body (including brain) contributes to the effect of the drug through mechanisms similar to that of the placebo effect. Therefore, sometimes when such individual "use" elsewhere, the lack of this contribution to the "high" makes the user feel as if s/he needs more, and this "more" becomes a lethal dose.
Also, while saying "I see dead people" is a sign of a psychotic state in most countries unless you are talking to Bruce Willis, in some cultures it is a regular occurance to see recently passed love ones. To me, this indicates that cultural norms can so effect the mind that what is generally an indication of psychosis can be no more irregular or indicative of some condition than the feeling physically ill because of extreme stress or anxiety.
Sanity, in other words, is not only tied to connectedness and a sense of meaningfulness, but also to an extend a cultural norm. The simplest example of this I know of (apart from culturally specific mental health issues) is the relative efficacy of "talk therapy" vs. medicinal therapy for mood disorders when the patient believes that mental health problems are "diseases". Those who view them as diseases are far less likely to be helped by therapy (especially therapy alone) and more likely to improve via medicinal treatment, while the reverse is true for those who view mental health issues as a mental state caused by social, experiential, emotional, etc., problems and/or stress.
Some advice based on personal experience (i.e., feel free to ignore): Scientific American, like most media intended for a general audience, frequently distorts the actual findings of studies in order to make money. On his site, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky has a great summary of the problem (found here):
"The media thinks that only the cutting edge of science, the very latest controversies, are worth reporting on. How often do you see headlines like "General Relativity still governing planetary orbits" or "Phlogiston theory remains false"? By the time anything is solid science, it is no longer a breaking headline. "Newsworthy" science is based on the thinnest of evidence and wrong half the time. If it were not on the uttermost fringes of the scientific frontier, it would not be news. Scientific controversies are problems so difficult that even people who've spent years mastering the field can still fool themselves. That's what makes the problem controversial and attracts all the media attention. So the reporters show up, and hear the scientists speak fascinating words. The reporters are told that "particles" are "waves", but there is no understanding of math for the words to invoke. What the physicist means by "wave" is not what the reporters hear, even if the physicist's math applies also to the structure of water as it crashes on the shore.
And then the reporters write stories, which are not worth the lives of the dead trees on which they are printed."
Unfortunately, even Scientific American suffers from this problem, as their goal is to be interesting to a general audience. So whenever you come across a report or press release about a study, whether Scientific American or even the "news" sections of highly respected journals like Science, try to find the abstract of the actual study in question at the very least and, if possible, use google scholar to try to find the full study for free. The abstract will give you a far more accurate yet still non-technical summary of what the study concerned and what the results were, and if you can find the study itself, typically the introduction and discussion sections (the first and last sections of most studies) are non-technical and will give you an even better understanding of what the researchers actually found.
Interestingly enough, Felix Hoffman synthesized diacetylmorphine (what would be heroin) shortly after he synthesized acetylsalicyclic acid (aspirin). Although he didn't discover/invent it, the company he worked for (Bayer) soon decided its pharmalogical benifits were clear, and marketed it under the trademark Heroin. Romancing Opiates: Pharmacological Lies and the Addiction Bureaucracy by Dalrymple includes a summary of the history behind heroin including (if memory serves) a copy of an advertisement from Bayer on this new "non-addictive" wonder drug. Additionally, a much shorter history is give in Walter Sneader's "The discovery of heroin" (The Lancet, Volume 352, Issue 9141, 1998, Pages 16971699, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07115-3 )
It was a highly effective cough suppressant and analgesic, but as Bayer sold it in higher than needed strengths and made it an over-the-counter drug, the addictive nature of the drug showed up very quickly at the same time its supposed benefits over morphine (which, actually, it had in some ways) were being questioned, it wasn't long before it was discontinued for any medicinal purposes. Had Bayer not marketed Heroin in the way that it did, we would at least see it alongside morphine (which predated heroin) in severe circumstances, if not in even more common incidents.
Quite true. Actually, a number of deaths related to overdoses are due to setting in a much more specific way (i.e., not cultural). Certain drugs are often used in privacy in a specific location (generally somewhere in one's residence) at fairly regular times. However, this "ritual" use (in the non-spiritual sense) creates an expectation much like that in Pavlov's dogs. Without knowing it, the user's body (including brain) contributes to the effect of the drug through mechanisms similar to that of the placebo effect. Therefore, sometimes when such individual "use" elsewhere, the lack of this contribution to the "high" makes the user feel as if s/he needs more, and this "more" becomes a lethal dose.
Also, while saying "I see dead people" is a sign of a psychotic state in most countries unless you are talking to Bruce Willis, in some cultures it is a regular occurance to see recently passed love ones. To me, this indicates that cultural norms can so effect the mind that what is generally an indication of psychosis can be no more irregular or indicative of some condition than the feeling physically ill because of extreme stress or anxiety.
Sanity, in other words, is not only tied to connectedness and a sense of meaningfulness, but also to an extend a cultural norm. The simplest example of this I know of (apart from culturally specific mental health issues) is the relative efficacy of "talk therapy" vs. medicinal therapy for mood disorders when the patient believes that mental health problems are "diseases". Those who view them as diseases are far less likely to be helped by therapy (especially therapy alone) and more likely to improve via medicinal treatment, while the reverse is true for those who view mental health issues as a mental state caused by social, experiential, emotional, etc., problems and/or stress.
horizon_mj1
Well-Known Member
I just wanted to add a "personal" thought to this topic; Think about it, if as much money spent to make new drugs was given to research of Holistic or Nature based medicines, how much further would Humanity be to answering all medical and biological questions.
This is a good point and from a very similar perspective industrialization is what turned substances that are natural and not addictive in their natural forms into highly concentrated, addictive and dangerous forms, e.g. Cocaine. Cocaine in its natural form is a mild stimulant that was used by native Americans for centuries!
apophenia
Well-Known Member
The cocaine in coca trees is identical to the freebase cocaine on the street. The difference is that there is only a small amount in the leaves. If you chew coca leaves all day you may get a total dose of 100mg, spread over many hours. At that dose it is not a problem.
The same thing is now happening with caffeine. You can buy pure caffeine by the kilo very cheaply now. 'Energy drinks' are becoming a scourge because of the high doses, which allow people to drink a lot of alcohol without passing out. This means that people who would otherwise be unconscious are awake, disinhibited and often belligerent, which is fueling a lot of urban violence.
If it weren't for the fact that coffee is the most valuable cash crop on earth, caffeine would probably be a controlled substance by now.
horizon_mj1
Well-Known Member
Very good point
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
horizon_mj1
Well-Known Member
Thank you very much Father Heathen; that is an awesome site (I added it to bookmarks in fact
) I was never lucky enough until now to find info on various herbs and such in one place. Thanks again:angel2:
Actually this whole concept is something I view as an argument for atheism/agnosticism.
If mystical experiences are linked to brain chemistry, and can be created by external substances or specifically brought on internally by influencing the brain chemistry in some way, it pulls the experience into the mundane.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
If light passes through a crystal, it produces a rainbow diffraction pattern
The specifics of the crystal will determine the pattern produced.
If we consider the possibility that being/awareness/mind ( perhaps as advaitin hindus suggest, the ultimate substrata of experience) is analogous to light, and the crystal to the brain, then this indicates why stored experience affects the display associated with such experiences.
Various other analogies could be used, such as white noise passing through variable filter networks, or the specific distortion a particular radio receiver induces in a radio signal.
I should also add that there is no reason to consider such ideas as support for 'mystical' belief in the sense of 'supernatural'. If being/awareness ( language fails here) is a fundamental, like gravity or magnetism, then that is natural.
BTW ... this can also be viewed as a form of (or compatible with)atheism. No deity need be included in such a view, a fact often overlooked by many atheists.
Last edited:
I'm not saying that a chemical basis for mystical experiences is absolute proof that it's purely a material phenomenon, but in response to the idea that DMT would influence many atheists or agnostics to become theists, I view it as quite the opposite.
When researchers show that meditation causes noticeable changes in brain activity, or shows that a given substance like DMT or LSD can trigger experiences similar to or identical with reported mystical experiences (or even theorize further that natural mystical experiences are the result of DMT produced by the brain), then this can be useful research but basically amounts to enlightenment as a form of a natural high.
So in response to that post- why would a chemically induced state of altered awareness result in increased belief in a deity?
Generally only overlooked atheists that are rather unfamiliar with eastern religions or the more mystical branches of western religions and think in terms of "religion = mainstream Christianity".
apophenia
Well-Known Member
So do I.
Did someone suggest that DMT or LSD would lead to theism ? I must have missed that. I've never known anyone to become theistic as a result of tripping. It can lead to a kind of pantheism, but usually it just leads to awe-struck wonder and a kind of acceptable amused bewilderment as far as cosmology is concerned. In my experience anyway. Trippers usually realise that "there is more in heaven and earth than in your philosophy" etc, and comedy takes over from certainty. Except for the hardest-headed recalcitrant jerks
Yes and no. Satoris and 'peak experiences' may be natural highs, but I reserve the word enlightenment to be a much more general recognition that all perceptions are one's own nature, whether good bad or indifferent.
As I've said, it doesn't. It tends to lead to a realisation that consciousness and matter exist as a spectrum.
That's probably most of them out there in the world - this forum is a special case, where there is a bit more general knowledge absorbed by members. I think most western people equate religion with either Judaism, Christianity or Islam, with maybe a very vague notion of eastern (hindu and buddhist) ideas.
Atheists of the scientism persuasion tend to scoff at any idea which is not unqualified materialism.
Yes, the post I originally responded to:
Dude, did you respond to my post without first seeing what I was responding to?
None of which has much to do with my original point that the idea of DMT influencing atheists to be theists doesn't make much sense and that if anything, the fact that these kinds of experiences can be chemically induced would likely be an argument for the material side of things rather than the truly mystical side.I've never known anyone to become theistic as a result of tripping. It can lead to a kind of pantheism, but usually it just leads to awe-struck wonder and a kind of acceptable amused bewilderment as far as cosmology is concerned. In my experience anyway. Trippers usually realise that "there is more in heaven and earth than in your philosophy" etc, and comedy takes over from certainty. Except for the hardest-headed recalcitrant jerks
Yes and no. Satoris and 'peak experiences' may be natural highs, but I reserve the word enlightenment to be a much more general recognition that all perceptions are one's own nature, whether good bad or indifferent.
As I've said, it doesn't. It tends to lead to a realisation that consciousness and matter exist as a spectrum.
That's probably most of them out there in the world - this forum is a special case, where there is a bit more general knowledge absorbed by members. I think most western people equate religion with either Judaism, Christianity or Islam, with maybe a very vague notion of eastern (hindu and buddhist) ideas.
Atheists of the scientism persuasion tend to scoff at any idea which is not unqualified materialism.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
Actually, psychedelics lead to a huge variety of experiences and attitudes...
Compare Timothy Leary, Hunter S Thompson, Terrence McKenna, Charles Manson, Aleister Crowley, G.I Gurdjieff, Cary Grant, Francis Ford Coppola, Central and South American 'shamans',the dance club scene, Dr Albert Hoffman, the Dalai Lama and John Lennon to name just a few.
That covers a lot of ground, and only scrapes the surface of possible outcomes.
Mostly, the 'realisations' are about intricate subtle details of the psyche of the individual, experienced in a context of wildly variable states.
Compare Timothy Leary, Hunter S Thompson, Terrence McKenna, Charles Manson, Aleister Crowley, G.I Gurdjieff, Cary Grant, Francis Ford Coppola, Central and South American 'shamans',the dance club scene, Dr Albert Hoffman, the Dalai Lama and John Lennon to name just a few.
That covers a lot of ground, and only scrapes the surface of possible outcomes.
Mostly, the 'realisations' are about intricate subtle details of the psyche of the individual, experienced in a context of wildly variable states.
Last edited:
apophenia
Well-Known Member
Dude, did you respond to my post without first seeing what I was responding to?
I've been following the thread, but overlooked that. Damn my fallibility.
Somehow I missed that last post of yours too. Probably because I didn't update the screen. I'm having problems with attention span today, which is probably because I'm doing a bad job of studying, and getting stressed - I really shouldn't be on forums at all right now.:no: