7 ms·

Completely unsupported thought: Could the ancient mushrooms and some of the theories about how mushrooms were the reason we became conscious be linked? https:

Completely unsupported thought: Could the ancient mushrooms and some of the theories about how mushrooms were the reason we became conscious be linked? https://mic.com/articles/14276/magic-mushrooms-how-they-played-a-crucial-role-in-the-evolution-of-human-consciousness https://mic.com/articles/14276/magic-mushrooms-how-they-play...

nicoburns 8y ago
I'm always very skeptical of people who make these kind of claims about psychedelics. One of the effects of psychedelic drugs is that they make people see things as significant or important even where there is nothing significant to be found (in the same way that drugs like MDMA increase mood, even when none of the normal mood-increasing things are present in the environment). This is fine, and can be useful so long as you keep it in mind. But also leads to some users of psychedelics who believe in all sorts of crackpot theories that they think they have discovered through something that seems akin to divine revelation, and are so utterly convinced of their truth that it goes beyond all reason.
- code_duck 8y ago
  “users of psychedelics who believe in all sorts of crackpot theories that they think they have discovered through something that seems akin to divine revelation” You’re aware that psychedelics have been used extensively for millennia by many cultures in religious ceremonies, right?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - behringer 8y ago
    You're reinforcing his statement.
    - code_duck 8y ago
      I felt like the statement was suggesting that it was a modern phenomenon of psychedelic users since the 60s.
  - kaffeemitsahne 8y ago
    If anything, that supports GP's point.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - code_duck 8y ago
      What was his point? That he’s an atheist? It seems like it inappropriate place to debate that.
  - slfnflctd 8y ago
    Which is precisely why we need to gather a whole lot more empirical data about their use in clinical settings, as well as conduct more rigorous analysis of their use outside those settings. They're clearly something our species has an interesting history with, and religious orders aren't always so reliable in the way they document events.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    "Millennia of religious ceremonies" are not a source of scientific truth. Rather the opposite.
    - code_duck 8y ago
      I don’t have a problem with that. I just feel like the comment made it seem like he feels like it’s this crazy new thing that drug users are doing, when it’s related to major religions. As far as whether you believe in spirituality and it’s relation to scientific truth, that’s none of my business.
  - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
    > You’re aware that psychedelics have been used extensively for millennia by many cultures in religious ceremonies, right? So has animal and human sacrifice. What's your point?
    - code_duck 8y ago
      Sure, I’d say the same if there was an attitude that human or animal sacrifice was a novel behavior.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Me too, however unless one think there is some magical component to consciousness then couldn't it be as good an explanation as many others? I am a pretty skeptical person when it comes to these things too (doesn't even believe in god) but it doesn't strike me as such a far out explanation although as I said I have no base other than what is out there. It's at least a contender that should be taken seriously IMO.
  - azernik 8y ago
    > One other interesting item of note about McKenna; his research led him to conclude that human consciousness would undergo a dramatic shift around the year 2012. He predicted this back in the late 1980s. I’m not sure how logically or scientifically valid his theory about “time wave zero” is, but there can be no denying that humanity is about to undergo some major socio-economic and political changes. The bond bubble has yet to blow, and when it does, it will take the entire machinery of the state down with it. The state's present spending trajectory is unsustainable. This is pretty darned crackpot. As to "as good an explanation as many others" - it really really isn't. We're getting into Lamarckian, inheritance-of-acquired-characteristics territory here, where this theory is positing a) that mushrooms being an aphrodisiac increases reproductive fitness of people who take them, and b) somehow this means the effects of the drug are passed on?? This is junk science.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      Oh yes that is crackpot but that doesn't mean everything is crackpot just like a scientific theory can be wrong in many ways and still right about something more fundamental. I am not supporting any single interpretation I am just saying that in this area we don't really have anything firm to grasp on to and given that mushrooms where here before us I am not going to rule out that there is something to this even though it might not be McKennas theories. I don't know how it can be junk science when it's not even science. I am asking a question there are more people than McKenna (people who didn't have any opinion about 2012) who have theories. Those theories will need to be testable to be science I don't think we have any test even by most rigorous scientific standards that allow us to test this area, at least not yet. Right now I am just speculating not putting forward any specific theory but just to repeat. Mushrooms were here before us apparently covering the planet. So whatever was here originally we are a part of and that's at least to me worth exploring a little more than just calling it junk science.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >One of the effects of psychedelic drugs is that they make people see things as significant or important even where there is nothing significant to be found Do they really? Or do they provide significant or important insights that are there anyway, but we can't reach them in our regular state? This is like saying amphetamine provides an alertness that wasn't there in the host (who was, e.g. tired before taking it). Sure, that doesn't mean it's a bogus alertness.
  - ChrisLomont 8y ago
    >Or do they provide significant or important insights that are there anyway, but we can't reach them in our regular state? Compare how many important insights that changed the world were obtained on psychedelics to how many were obtained not on psychedelics. Psychedelics most likely simply trick the brain into thinking things are insightful, while dulling one's sense of reason and accuracy, making such insights fade once reason and accuracy return.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >Compare how many important insights that changed the world were obtained on psychedelics to how many were obtained not on psychedelics Those could simply be insights of a different nature. Technical insights you need to sober to come up with. Artistic and philosophic insights can benefit from psychedelics (and have for millennia).
  - Retra 8y ago
    If that were the case, then those insights would be remain insightful when taught to someone who isn't on the drug. And if it isn't teachable, it's neither demonstrably true nor valuable. Alertness is a state of mind. Insight is not.
    - state_less 8y ago
      It can be very difficult to teach someone something they are actively repressing. There might be lines of thought that are repressed normally that when on a psychedelic are allowed to enter the conscious mind. I think psychedelic research has been repressed by society at large and I can only guess at why... But there is some positive findings that we ought to pursue around depression and addiction. I hope we can make some progress here.
- jpfed 8y ago
  Actually serious- have scientists tried given study participants psychedelic drugs specifically to understand the mechanisms underlying people's sense of what is significant or important?
- samstave 8y ago
  >"It must be changing something about the internal communication in my brain. Whatever my inner process is that lets me solve problems, it works differently, or maybe different parts of my brain are used, " said Herbert, 42, an early employee of Cisco Systems who says he solved his toughest technical problems while tripping to drum solos by the Grateful Dead – who were among the many artists inspired by LSD. >"When I'm on LSD and hearing something that's pure rhythm, it takes me to another world and into anther brain state where I've stopped thinking and started knowing," said Herbert who intervened to ban drug testing of technologists at Cisco Systems. --- I can't find the original article I read years ago, but there was one article where they claimed they came up with BGP on LSD... https://www.wired.com/2006/01/lsd-the-geeks-wonder-drug/ https://www.wired.com/2006/01/lsd-the-geeks-wonder-drug/
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
It's an interesting idea, but these giant mushrooms went extinct millions of years before the development of land vertebrates, much less mammals and primates.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Sure but how much of them went extinct? I am not strong on early stage primordial soup and what went on there but I find it a little hard to believe that something went completely extinct and then something completely new appeared. Surely there must be something that survived no?
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    > I am not strong on early stage primordial soup and what went on there Clearly, since the "giant mushrooms" and "primordial soup" were separated by 3 billion years (75% of the earth's existence) > I find it a little hard to believe that something went completely extinct and then something completely new appeared. Surely there must be something that survived no? Yes, they're called "offspring". You are basically assuming that an organism has the same eye color as it's 800 millionth great grandparent.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      I am aware of the difference between primordial soup and mushrooms :) dont think im assuming something, just trying to think through whether the emergent complexity process started way back or if its something that evolved more recently.
      - jamiek88 8y ago
        That’s like trying to understand the gravitational effects of dark matter without knowing basic maths. Rather pointless.
        ThomPete 8y ago
pvaldes 8y ago
Not probable. Slugs aren't conscious and eat much more mushrooms in variety and weight than we eat. Even very poisonous mushroms that could kill easily a human. On the other hand, there is not much (chemically speaking) in a mushroom that plants can't do. If the humans had achieved conscious eating "X", X could be anything. There is not need to fill the gap in this hypothesis with a mushroom.

nicoburns 8y ago

I'm always very skeptical of people who make these kind of claims about psychedelics. One of the effects of psychedelic drugs is that they make people see things as significant or important even where there is nothing significant to be found (in the same way that drugs like MDMA increase mood, even when none of the normal mood-increasing things are present in the environment). This is fine, and can be useful so long as you keep it in mind. But also leads to some users of psychedelics who believe in all sorts of crackpot theories that they think they have discovered through something that seems akin to divine revelation, and are so utterly convinced of their truth that it goes beyond all reason.

code_duck 8y ago
“users of psychedelics who believe in all sorts of crackpot theories that they think they have discovered through something that seems akin to divine revelation” You’re aware that psychedelics have been used extensively for millennia by many cultures in religious ceremonies, right?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- behringer 8y ago
  You're reinforcing his statement.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    I felt like the statement was suggesting that it was a modern phenomenon of psychedelic users since the 60s.
- kaffeemitsahne 8y ago
  If anything, that supports GP's point.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - code_duck 8y ago
    What was his point? That he’s an atheist? It seems like it inappropriate place to debate that.
- slfnflctd 8y ago
  Which is precisely why we need to gather a whole lot more empirical data about their use in clinical settings, as well as conduct more rigorous analysis of their use outside those settings. They're clearly something our species has an interesting history with, and religious orders aren't always so reliable in the way they document events.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  "Millennia of religious ceremonies" are not a source of scientific truth. Rather the opposite.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    I don’t have a problem with that. I just feel like the comment made it seem like he feels like it’s this crazy new thing that drug users are doing, when it’s related to major religions. As far as whether you believe in spirituality and it’s relation to scientific truth, that’s none of my business.
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  > You’re aware that psychedelics have been used extensively for millennia by many cultures in religious ceremonies, right? So has animal and human sacrifice. What's your point?
  - code_duck 8y ago
    Sure, I’d say the same if there was an attitude that human or animal sacrifice was a novel behavior.
ThomPete 8y ago
Me too, however unless one think there is some magical component to consciousness then couldn't it be as good an explanation as many others? I am a pretty skeptical person when it comes to these things too (doesn't even believe in god) but it doesn't strike me as such a far out explanation although as I said I have no base other than what is out there. It's at least a contender that should be taken seriously IMO.
- azernik 8y ago
  > One other interesting item of note about McKenna; his research led him to conclude that human consciousness would undergo a dramatic shift around the year 2012. He predicted this back in the late 1980s. I’m not sure how logically or scientifically valid his theory about “time wave zero” is, but there can be no denying that humanity is about to undergo some major socio-economic and political changes. The bond bubble has yet to blow, and when it does, it will take the entire machinery of the state down with it. The state's present spending trajectory is unsustainable. This is pretty darned crackpot. As to "as good an explanation as many others" - it really really isn't. We're getting into Lamarckian, inheritance-of-acquired-characteristics territory here, where this theory is positing a) that mushrooms being an aphrodisiac increases reproductive fitness of people who take them, and b) somehow this means the effects of the drug are passed on?? This is junk science.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Oh yes that is crackpot but that doesn't mean everything is crackpot just like a scientific theory can be wrong in many ways and still right about something more fundamental. I am not supporting any single interpretation I am just saying that in this area we don't really have anything firm to grasp on to and given that mushrooms where here before us I am not going to rule out that there is something to this even though it might not be McKennas theories. I don't know how it can be junk science when it's not even science. I am asking a question there are more people than McKenna (people who didn't have any opinion about 2012) who have theories. Those theories will need to be testable to be science I don't think we have any test even by most rigorous scientific standards that allow us to test this area, at least not yet. Right now I am just speculating not putting forward any specific theory but just to repeat. Mushrooms were here before us apparently covering the planet. So whatever was here originally we are a part of and that's at least to me worth exploring a little more than just calling it junk science.
coldtea 8y ago
>One of the effects of psychedelic drugs is that they make people see things as significant or important even where there is nothing significant to be found Do they really? Or do they provide significant or important insights that are there anyway, but we can't reach them in our regular state? This is like saying amphetamine provides an alertness that wasn't there in the host (who was, e.g. tired before taking it). Sure, that doesn't mean it's a bogus alertness.
- ChrisLomont 8y ago
  >Or do they provide significant or important insights that are there anyway, but we can't reach them in our regular state? Compare how many important insights that changed the world were obtained on psychedelics to how many were obtained not on psychedelics. Psychedelics most likely simply trick the brain into thinking things are insightful, while dulling one's sense of reason and accuracy, making such insights fade once reason and accuracy return.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Compare how many important insights that changed the world were obtained on psychedelics to how many were obtained not on psychedelics Those could simply be insights of a different nature. Technical insights you need to sober to come up with. Artistic and philosophic insights can benefit from psychedelics (and have for millennia).
- Retra 8y ago
  If that were the case, then those insights would be remain insightful when taught to someone who isn't on the drug. And if it isn't teachable, it's neither demonstrably true nor valuable. Alertness is a state of mind. Insight is not.
  - state_less 8y ago
    It can be very difficult to teach someone something they are actively repressing. There might be lines of thought that are repressed normally that when on a psychedelic are allowed to enter the conscious mind. I think psychedelic research has been repressed by society at large and I can only guess at why... But there is some positive findings that we ought to pursue around depression and addiction. I hope we can make some progress here.
jpfed 8y ago
Actually serious- have scientists tried given study participants psychedelic drugs specifically to understand the mechanisms underlying people's sense of what is significant or important?
samstave 8y ago
>"It must be changing something about the internal communication in my brain. Whatever my inner process is that lets me solve problems, it works differently, or maybe different parts of my brain are used, " said Herbert, 42, an early employee of Cisco Systems who says he solved his toughest technical problems while tripping to drum solos by the Grateful Dead – who were among the many artists inspired by LSD. >"When I'm on LSD and hearing something that's pure rhythm, it takes me to another world and into anther brain state where I've stopped thinking and started knowing," said Herbert who intervened to ban drug testing of technologists at Cisco Systems. --- I can't find the original article I read years ago, but there was one article where they claimed they came up with BGP on LSD... https://www.wired.com/2006/01/lsd-the-geeks-wonder-drug/ https://www.wired.com/2006/01/lsd-the-geeks-wonder-drug/

PhasmaFelis 8y ago

It's an interesting idea, but these giant mushrooms went extinct millions of years before the development of land vertebrates, much less mammals and primates.

ThomPete 8y ago
Sure but how much of them went extinct? I am not strong on early stage primordial soup and what went on there but I find it a little hard to believe that something went completely extinct and then something completely new appeared. Surely there must be something that survived no?
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  > I am not strong on early stage primordial soup and what went on there Clearly, since the "giant mushrooms" and "primordial soup" were separated by 3 billion years (75% of the earth's existence) > I find it a little hard to believe that something went completely extinct and then something completely new appeared. Surely there must be something that survived no? Yes, they're called "offspring". You are basically assuming that an organism has the same eye color as it's 800 millionth great grandparent.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    I am aware of the difference between primordial soup and mushrooms :) dont think im assuming something, just trying to think through whether the emergent complexity process started way back or if its something that evolved more recently.
    - jamiek88 8y ago
      That’s like trying to understand the gravitational effects of dark matter without knowing basic maths. Rather pointless.
      - ThomPete 8y ago

pvaldes 8y ago

Not probable. Slugs aren't conscious and eat much more mushrooms in variety and weight than we eat. Even very poisonous mushroms that could kill easily a human. On the other hand, there is not much (chemically speaking) in a mushroom that plants can't do. If the humans had achieved conscious eating "X", X could be anything. There is not need to fill the gap in this hypothesis with a mushroom.