5 ms·

I've held this theory on my own after experiencing geometric shapes while hallucinating after smoking a lot of marijuana years back. I sat down closed my eyes a

I've held this theory on my own after experiencing geometric shapes while hallucinating after smoking a lot of marijuana years back. I sat down closed my eyes and experienced an intense feeling of flying through what I can only explain as the starfield screen saver from Windows but with colored 2D shapes heavily dominated by hexagons of various sizes. During that experience I realized that I might be experiencing the inner workings of my brain in real time. I didn't give it much more thought but that ideas stuck in my mind for years. Recently I began fitness training with a trainer who believes in the stoned ape theory which reminded me of my own experience and I again read into it a bit. I'm not sold on the idea but the overall theory is solid in my book. Still to this day if I get really high I experience geometric hallucinations.

machiavelli1024 8y ago
I had a similar experience when I forgot to take my SNRI antidepressant. I woke up in the middle of the night, and when I tried to continue sleeping I had these ultra-detailed geometric patterns dancing before me. The visuals were nice, but then my ears started ringing too which started bothering me, so I opened my eyes and woke up completely, which stopped the visuals and the ringing.
- fallingfrog 8y ago
  If I'm woken up right in the middle of very intense R.E.M. sleep I'll sometimes see geometric patterns for a little while.
n4r9 8y ago
I've mentioned this before on HN, but I don't understand why SAH is seen as a "solid" theory. Psychedelics might increase some cognitive or perceptual faculties, but McKenna never gives any physical mechanics for how this could possibly lead to genetic alteration, i.e. how it creates any selection pressure for intelligence.
- __blockcipher__ 8y ago
  As someone who bas taken a bunch of LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, and DMT, as well as listened to a bunch of Terrence McKenna...the stoned ape theory is total horse shit. It’s a slap in the face to evolutionary biology and just a completely nonsensical “theory”
  - MisterTea 8y ago
    Not the stoned ape theory. I don't believe that at all. But the overall theory of geometric shapes and the relationship with the interworkings of our brain.
    - n4r9 8y ago
      Sorry, I misread your comment. My bad.
      - MisterTea 8y ago
        Yea, that was a crappy sentence to begin with.
- sissyFuss 8y ago
  I think the Stoned Ape Hypothesis (sah) is reasonable within the context of a social lawlessness found in the state of nature. The chaos of the animal kingdom would permit the transgression of norms among primates, with little consequence, and it wouldn't matter as much for animals to be indulging in mind altering substances, if other needs were all essentially met by the surrounding environment. Evolutionary theory is founded mostly on untouchable mechanics that operate at nearly geologic time scales, so we look, and we see slight incremental changes, and say to ourselves, yeah that holds up the rest. But at it's core, the fundamental question is: Why did the human brain explode onto the scene? Why wasn't that change gradual? Why did it only happen once? Was there an accelerant in the mix? To say that it happened fast is to speak in relative terms. It still would have happened across multiple generations, in movements of 10 and 20 years, according to sexual maturation. But to jump the rails, the change would have had to represent an ignition of sorts, to kick off a chain reaction that spreads outward from primary events, and is easily replicable crossing regional boundaries, once a successful game changer is cemented as viable. The human brain isn't totally unique in it's structure, if you look at elephants and dolphins. But the relative brain size to body size ratio, as an emergent evolutionary trait, seems to be pretty unique. Diet sounds like a plausible point of origin, when considering that the brain is a nutrition-greedy organ. So, the Stoned Ape Hypothesis is reasonable, in the sense that it layers nutritional augmentation on top of evolutionary theory. On the one hand, you still have evolutionary mechanics as the operating framework, but the dietary augmentation produces behavioral effects that change mating strategies. So then, selection processes take over, and the successful live, and the others die. The successful produce alike offspring, and combinations of traits group together. But all clustered around this drug induced behavioral mess, where you find these apes getting into catnip and going nuts. The idea is not without precedent. Consider the Greek Oracle, as a temple ventilated with toxic volcanic gases, acting as the mind altering substance. People willfully producing an altered state, by effectively huffing volatile, oxygen depriving vapors not unlike spray paint fumes, to gain insight and augment decision making. Which brings us around to the crux of the idea. It should be possible to replicate the process, even at a small scale, by modeling the scenario with other animals. Usually mice have a short enough lifespan to push their genes around with careful engineering. So, what about talking mice that modify their environment? Could drugs and rampant sex make that happen in a time frame comparable to the fossile record for humans? But geeze, talking mice that invent and implement conceptual ideas? What would we do with them, once they're here? What if they escape the lab? Would their population explode as an invasive species? Capable of direct lilliputian competition with humans? Once the invasive species status is realized, all the rest fits into place. We wouldn't want to let the mice escape into the wild. So the only missing piece, regarding the mechanics of the idea, is the bridge in between dumb mice and smart mice.
asd9873 8y ago
When I was a kid, closing my eyes would generate fractal-like patterns. They'd get stronger if I lightly pushed on my closed eyelids or rubbed them. I got older and started seeing psychedelic art and such, and was like "Ah, others see this stuff too." I never got into the voodoo/mysticism that is often peddled. Always figured it was some sort of light penetrating the liquid layers of my eyes still still, or something. Illuminating them just enough to make out that, but not the rest of the physical world.
hanoz 8y ago
Wait, what, doesn't everyone see these same geometric patterns merely by closing their eyes tight?
- fallingfrog 8y ago
  Ow thanks for the suggestion, now I have a headache
DoctorOetker 8y ago
I often joke (but dont take serious at all) that addictive smokable plants are addictive due to natural selection: Most people I know who either smoke tobacco or marihuana, are addicted to either and can smoke the other without getting addicted. In my case I am addicted to nicotine, and I like smoking weed but never get addicted to it. I.e. one addiction is sufficient. But for what? Another observation is that individuals that never smoke don't feel addicted, i.e. there is no innate attraction towards a substance, only after using it for a while. Any smoker knows that after a while you need to smoke again. The jokke/hypothesis is as follows: fire was important for human survival, tribes with fire were at an advantage over tribes without fire. Yet smoking is not healthy. The tribe only needs a few members to keep the fire going, so instead of innate attraction to keep the fire going (which would be unhealthy to each member of the group), only people who are initiated by the current fire-man get addicted, but should get addicted lest they not neglect the fire (i.e. a biological timer reminding you to inhale from the portable pipe). This way nomadic tribes that had a propensity for addiction had access to fire and its applications, and the tribe survived better than those tribes that could not get addicted (and occasionally lost their fire, possibly executing the specific fire-man at fault, a selection pressure). I say joke, and that I don't take it serious for multiple reasons: species that probably never benefitted from fire -like spiders- feel the effects off say nicotine. Another hole in the theory is that tobacco was imported after the discovery of the new world. But I can immagine other plants having fulfilled similar roles.

machiavelli1024 8y ago

I had a similar experience when I forgot to take my SNRI antidepressant. I woke up in the middle of the night, and when I tried to continue sleeping I had these ultra-detailed geometric patterns dancing before me. The visuals were nice, but then my ears started ringing too which started bothering me, so I opened my eyes and woke up completely, which stopped the visuals and the ringing.

fallingfrog 8y ago
If I'm woken up right in the middle of very intense R.E.M. sleep I'll sometimes see geometric patterns for a little while.

n4r9 8y ago

I've mentioned this before on HN, but I don't understand why SAH is seen as a "solid" theory. Psychedelics might increase some cognitive or perceptual faculties, but McKenna never gives any physical mechanics for how this could possibly lead to genetic alteration, i.e. how it creates any selection pressure for intelligence.

__blockcipher__ 8y ago
As someone who bas taken a bunch of LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, and DMT, as well as listened to a bunch of Terrence McKenna...the stoned ape theory is total horse shit. It’s a slap in the face to evolutionary biology and just a completely nonsensical “theory”
- MisterTea 8y ago
  Not the stoned ape theory. I don't believe that at all. But the overall theory of geometric shapes and the relationship with the interworkings of our brain.
  - n4r9 8y ago
    Sorry, I misread your comment. My bad.
    - MisterTea 8y ago
      Yea, that was a crappy sentence to begin with.
sissyFuss 8y ago
I think the Stoned Ape Hypothesis (sah) is reasonable within the context of a social lawlessness found in the state of nature. The chaos of the animal kingdom would permit the transgression of norms among primates, with little consequence, and it wouldn't matter as much for animals to be indulging in mind altering substances, if other needs were all essentially met by the surrounding environment. Evolutionary theory is founded mostly on untouchable mechanics that operate at nearly geologic time scales, so we look, and we see slight incremental changes, and say to ourselves, yeah that holds up the rest. But at it's core, the fundamental question is: Why did the human brain explode onto the scene? Why wasn't that change gradual? Why did it only happen once? Was there an accelerant in the mix? To say that it happened fast is to speak in relative terms. It still would have happened across multiple generations, in movements of 10 and 20 years, according to sexual maturation. But to jump the rails, the change would have had to represent an ignition of sorts, to kick off a chain reaction that spreads outward from primary events, and is easily replicable crossing regional boundaries, once a successful game changer is cemented as viable. The human brain isn't totally unique in it's structure, if you look at elephants and dolphins. But the relative brain size to body size ratio, as an emergent evolutionary trait, seems to be pretty unique. Diet sounds like a plausible point of origin, when considering that the brain is a nutrition-greedy organ. So, the Stoned Ape Hypothesis is reasonable, in the sense that it layers nutritional augmentation on top of evolutionary theory. On the one hand, you still have evolutionary mechanics as the operating framework, but the dietary augmentation produces behavioral effects that change mating strategies. So then, selection processes take over, and the successful live, and the others die. The successful produce alike offspring, and combinations of traits group together. But all clustered around this drug induced behavioral mess, where you find these apes getting into catnip and going nuts. The idea is not without precedent. Consider the Greek Oracle, as a temple ventilated with toxic volcanic gases, acting as the mind altering substance. People willfully producing an altered state, by effectively huffing volatile, oxygen depriving vapors not unlike spray paint fumes, to gain insight and augment decision making. Which brings us around to the crux of the idea. It should be possible to replicate the process, even at a small scale, by modeling the scenario with other animals. Usually mice have a short enough lifespan to push their genes around with careful engineering. So, what about talking mice that modify their environment? Could drugs and rampant sex make that happen in a time frame comparable to the fossile record for humans? But geeze, talking mice that invent and implement conceptual ideas? What would we do with them, once they're here? What if they escape the lab? Would their population explode as an invasive species? Capable of direct lilliputian competition with humans? Once the invasive species status is realized, all the rest fits into place. We wouldn't want to let the mice escape into the wild. So the only missing piece, regarding the mechanics of the idea, is the bridge in between dumb mice and smart mice.

asd9873 8y ago

When I was a kid, closing my eyes would generate fractal-like patterns. They'd get stronger if I lightly pushed on my closed eyelids or rubbed them. I got older and started seeing psychedelic art and such, and was like "Ah, others see this stuff too." I never got into the voodoo/mysticism that is often peddled. Always figured it was some sort of light penetrating the liquid layers of my eyes still still, or something. Illuminating them just enough to make out that, but not the rest of the physical world.

hanoz 8y ago

Wait, what, doesn't everyone see these same geometric patterns merely by closing their eyes tight?

fallingfrog 8y ago
Ow thanks for the suggestion, now I have a headache

DoctorOetker 8y ago

I often joke (but dont take serious at all) that addictive smokable plants are addictive due to natural selection: Most people I know who either smoke tobacco or marihuana, are addicted to either and can smoke the other without getting addicted. In my case I am addicted to nicotine, and I like smoking weed but never get addicted to it. I.e. one addiction is sufficient. But for what? Another observation is that individuals that never smoke don't feel addicted, i.e. there is no innate attraction towards a substance, only after using it for a while. Any smoker knows that after a while you need to smoke again. The jokke/hypothesis is as follows: fire was important for human survival, tribes with fire were at an advantage over tribes without fire. Yet smoking is not healthy. The tribe only needs a few members to keep the fire going, so instead of innate attraction to keep the fire going (which would be unhealthy to each member of the group), only people who are initiated by the current fire-man get addicted, but should get addicted lest they not neglect the fire (i.e. a biological timer reminding you to inhale from the portable pipe). This way nomadic tribes that had a propensity for addiction had access to fire and its applications, and the tribe survived better than those tribes that could not get addicted (and occasionally lost their fire, possibly executing the specific fire-man at fault, a selection pressure). I say joke, and that I don't take it serious for multiple reasons: species that probably never benefitted from fire -like spiders- feel the effects off say nicotine. Another hole in the theory is that tobacco was imported after the discovery of the new world. But I can immagine other plants having fulfilled similar roles.