2 ms·

For any complex system such as brain you should expect any noticable effect to be negative. Brains are designed to work in a narrow corridor of environmental st

For any complex system such as brain you should expect any noticable effect to be negative. Brains are designed to work in a narrow corridor of environmental states and any shift away from it is likely causing a malfunction. This should be pretty obvious for anyone who understands information/entropy. As for your list, I am yet to see any unbiased proof for any benefits beyond good mood (and even that one is still doubtful in longer term). In my opinion like most other psychodelics users you are doing a lot of damage by providing your personal experience without also providing how non-participating users see your experience from an unaffected standpoint. As I mentioned above, you might think you are more open and empathetic, while peers might see you as a close-minded jerk. You certainly sound like a nutjob to me because the part of your comment about expecting varied outcome contradicts even common sense about complex systems. E.g. if you insert pretty much anything into a running motor, that is not supposed to be there, the motor performance will likely drop sharply and chances are the damage will be permanent. And a motor is basically primitive in comparison to a human brain.

neuro_image2 5y ago
That's a surprisingly disparaging and unsupported reply (but I welcome the discussion). You may want to review your comments and question whether they're a fair response to what I've written. I also wonder why you find it necessary to be so adamant and pejorative. You clearly have a strong negative bias on this issue (without any demonstrable knowledge on the topic). I'm a physician with subspecialty qualifications and publications across multiple fields in neuroscience, so I would strongly argue against your points on the nervous system (you seam to be talking from the position of someone without biological or neuroscience training). There is substantial 'non-biased' evidence for the utility of psychedelics. Here are just a a few publications, which may interest you: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01336-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01336-3 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032994 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032994 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881116675513 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02698811166755... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-017-4771-x https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-017-4771-x https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/rapid-antidepressant-effects-of-the-psychedelic-ayahuasca-in-treatmentresistant-depression-a-randomized-a-trial/E67A8A4BBE4F5F14DE8552DB9A0CBC97 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medici...
- lostmsu 5y ago
  I am not sure what you are arguing here. The studies you linked confirm my statement exactly: 'I am yet to see any unbiased proof for any benefits beyond good mood (and even that one is still doubtful in longer term).' No study you linked claims any benefits beyond mood improvement. No study checks mood past a few months. No study checks for damage to brain function. This is what you claimed: 'Openness to more creative ideas'. Any of the links confirm that, or is it simply your wishful thinking under influence?
  - neuro_image2 5y ago
    Did someone who uses mushrooms steal your girlfriend? You clearly have no medical, biological or neuroscience background, yet keep spewing the same bad faith arguments. I've taken a look at some of your previous posts - you come across as consistently obnoxious and uninformed yet willing to post an uncompromising opinion. Google scholar is great if you actually want to search for evidence that may counter your view (which you don't seam to). For anyone interested in a good faith discussion on psychedelics and creativity, there are several articles (although the reductionist approach may not be the best one on this topic), but here's an example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811920302135 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381192...
    - lostmsu 5y ago
      What is it with you starting ad-hominem? You basically don't like that I consider your comments on the topic plainly wrong and therefore dangerous, and you think that stating it along with reasons as to why they are wrong makes me a kind of bad person. You have not pointed out any of my statements to be wrong with any kind of evidence supported contradiction. That last link you just posted https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811920302135 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381192... for instance is a philosophical article published in a relatively low quality journal with no model and corresponding research to confirm that model. UPD. Even that last link points out that research into creativity being boosted by psychedelics is so far inconclusive, which should be read as "does not support the statement, that psychedelics increase creativity". Considering you somehow read it as supporting your point, this kinda proves your point is based on wishful thinking rather than careful reading of research.
neuro_image2 5y ago
'Brains are designed to work in a narrow corridor of environmental states and any shift away from it is likely causing a malfunction.' This runs completely contrary to everything we know about the structure and function of the brain. The brain's function is in no way similar to that of a motor engine.
- lostmsu 5y ago
  Maybe everything you think you know (btw, what is it do you think you know exactly that supports your claim?). I know when temperature goes up 1C the brain gets sluggish. I know food is filtered before going into blood, and is further filtered by blood-brain barrier to reduce chances of contamination thus breaking its delicate function. Also, it does not matter if the brain function is similar to a motor, the point applies to any complex system.
  - neuro_image2 5y ago
    Your comments are unusually poorly informed and mean spirited for HN. Here is a course on neuroscience to get you started. Take a look and get back when you may have some idea of what you're commenting on. https://www.coursera.org/learn/medical-neuroscience#syllabus https://www.coursera.org/learn/medical-neuroscience#syllabus
    - lostmsu 5y ago
      I take mean spirited any time over harmful, which I believe your comments are. If you see a problem with my statements, point to it. If we were discussing programming where my main expertise lies, I would not be directing people to read a "C++ for beginners" book, but pointed to a specific statement in one. What exactly do you expect me to find in that course that would contradict my comments?

neuro_image2 5y ago

That's a surprisingly disparaging and unsupported reply (but I welcome the discussion). You may want to review your comments and question whether they're a fair response to what I've written. I also wonder why you find it necessary to be so adamant and pejorative. You clearly have a strong negative bias on this issue (without any demonstrable knowledge on the topic). I'm a physician with subspecialty qualifications and publications across multiple fields in neuroscience, so I would strongly argue against your points on the nervous system (you seam to be talking from the position of someone without biological or neuroscience training). There is substantial 'non-biased' evidence for the utility of psychedelics. Here are just a a few publications, which may interest you: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01336-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01336-3 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032994 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032994 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881116675513 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02698811166755... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-017-4771-x https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-017-4771-x https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/rapid-antidepressant-effects-of-the-psychedelic-ayahuasca-in-treatmentresistant-depression-a-randomized-a-trial/E67A8A4BBE4F5F14DE8552DB9A0CBC97 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medici...

lostmsu 5y ago
I am not sure what you are arguing here. The studies you linked confirm my statement exactly: 'I am yet to see any unbiased proof for any benefits beyond good mood (and even that one is still doubtful in longer term).' No study you linked claims any benefits beyond mood improvement. No study checks mood past a few months. No study checks for damage to brain function. This is what you claimed: 'Openness to more creative ideas'. Any of the links confirm that, or is it simply your wishful thinking under influence?
- neuro_image2 5y ago
  Did someone who uses mushrooms steal your girlfriend? You clearly have no medical, biological or neuroscience background, yet keep spewing the same bad faith arguments. I've taken a look at some of your previous posts - you come across as consistently obnoxious and uninformed yet willing to post an uncompromising opinion. Google scholar is great if you actually want to search for evidence that may counter your view (which you don't seam to). For anyone interested in a good faith discussion on psychedelics and creativity, there are several articles (although the reductionist approach may not be the best one on this topic), but here's an example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811920302135 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381192...
  - lostmsu 5y ago
    What is it with you starting ad-hominem? You basically don't like that I consider your comments on the topic plainly wrong and therefore dangerous, and you think that stating it along with reasons as to why they are wrong makes me a kind of bad person. You have not pointed out any of my statements to be wrong with any kind of evidence supported contradiction. That last link you just posted https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811920302135 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381192... for instance is a philosophical article published in a relatively low quality journal with no model and corresponding research to confirm that model. UPD. Even that last link points out that research into creativity being boosted by psychedelics is so far inconclusive, which should be read as "does not support the statement, that psychedelics increase creativity". Considering you somehow read it as supporting your point, this kinda proves your point is based on wishful thinking rather than careful reading of research.

neuro_image2 5y ago

'Brains are designed to work in a narrow corridor of environmental states and any shift away from it is likely causing a malfunction.' This runs completely contrary to everything we know about the structure and function of the brain. The brain's function is in no way similar to that of a motor engine.

lostmsu 5y ago
Maybe everything you think you know (btw, what is it do you think you know exactly that supports your claim?). I know when temperature goes up 1C the brain gets sluggish. I know food is filtered before going into blood, and is further filtered by blood-brain barrier to reduce chances of contamination thus breaking its delicate function. Also, it does not matter if the brain function is similar to a motor, the point applies to any complex system.
- neuro_image2 5y ago
  Your comments are unusually poorly informed and mean spirited for HN. Here is a course on neuroscience to get you started. Take a look and get back when you may have some idea of what you're commenting on. https://www.coursera.org/learn/medical-neuroscience#syllabus https://www.coursera.org/learn/medical-neuroscience#syllabus
  - lostmsu 5y ago
    I take mean spirited any time over harmful, which I believe your comments are. If you see a problem with my statements, point to it. If we were discussing programming where my main expertise lies, I would not be directing people to read a "C++ for beginners" book, but pointed to a specific statement in one. What exactly do you expect me to find in that course that would contradict my comments?