4 ms·

I think the definition of "hurt" is relative. I've heard so many people describe their experiences on psychedelics as, to paraphrase, seeing more of reality, se

I think the definition of "hurt" is relative. I've heard so many people describe their experiences on psychedelics as, to paraphrase, seeing more of reality, seeing the true nature of reality, expanding their minds, etc. In reality, they make you hallucinate, i.e. perceive things that are not real; the feelings of expansion are just part of the brain-meddling they cause. If people can separate their experiences from reality, then sure, I have no problem with them (just don't do them alone, in case you have a bad trip). But because so many people don't seem to be able to make that distinction, it's kind of a major problem.

quantified 4y ago
Watching TV makes you perceive things that are not real. Some religious sects ban reading of novels and such for reasons including this. Yet TV, novels, propaganda are somehow more OK? Oh, yes, and dreaming while asleep, which seems to have benefit for the basic function of our brains. And psychedelics give you the ability to re-perceive prior events in differenr ways. That is a super-important fact for therapeutic purposes. Personally, it just sounds likewe should accept that things which are enjoyable can be useful and vice versa.
- IceMetalPunk 4y ago
  I think you missed my point. Perceiving things that are not real isn't the problem. Perceiving things that are not real, and then thinking they are real, is the problem. If someone watches Moon Knight, that's fine (and also a great show, imho); if someone watches Moon Knight and now believes the Egyptian gods are real and giving people superpowers, that is NOT fine. And no, I don't think religion or propaganda are okay, either, for the same reason. "And psychedelics give you the ability to re-perceive prior events in different ways. That is a super-important fact for therapeutic purposes." It is... as long as the new perception aligns with reality. If it doesn't, then regardless of its potential therapeutic properties, it is harmful. "Personally, it just sounds like we should accept that things which are enjoyable can be useful and vice versa." Anything can be enjoyable to someone, and many things can be useful. It's about balancing the benefits against the harms and not ignoring either side.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    You seem to have a strong belief that reality has objective definition, and that yours is it. Much of the value of psychedelics is in unseating us from assuming that what we have always thought was real necessarily is. In most cases it mostly is not. Yes, rocks are hard, and fog is soft, but the ways the world works are very different from what we picked up as children. It is extremely rare for people to have rethought everything in light of later experience, so most cling to falsehoods they have not examined. Psychedelics do not convince you that falsehoods are true. They help you question things that often enough turn out not to be true. Afterward you still might believe things that are not true, but that was where you started.
    - IceMetalPunk 4y ago
      "You seem to have a strong belief that reality has objective definition, and that yours is it." No, I have a strong belief that reality has an objective definition, and that empirical evidence shows what that definition is. Because, though this may come as a surprise to you, empirical evidence is the very definition of looking at what the universe does to figure out what the universe does. "Much of the value of psychedelics is in unseating us from assuming that what we have always thought was real necessarily is. In most cases it mostly is not. Yes, rocks are hard, and fog is soft, but the ways the world works are very different from what we picked up as children. It is extremely rare for people to have rethought everything in light of later experience, so most cling to falsehoods they have not examined." This is... well, a vast generalization. While it's true there are some things that turn out to be not quite as we thought, the way to discover those inaccuracies is through empirical evidence. Thinking that hallucinogenics are the way to discover what is not true and what is true is basically saying "my perceptions are more real than everything around me is, and if I just think about things in the right way, I will discover the truth, even if it contradicts the evidence". You don't find truth by distorting your perceptions and then thinking hard about what you've perceived; you find it by looking at the world outside your own brain and listening to what that world shows you through empirical measurements. The scientific method is designed specifically to counteract the many ways in which our perceptions already fool us, and it has worked exceptionally well at discovering the truths of the universe (the computer you're using right now is one tiny bit of proof of that). Relying on our perceptions is already problematic, but distorting those perceptions and then relying on them as a source of truth? That's just hubris.
failTide 4y ago
Have you ever tried these compounds? At lower doses, there's really no significant visuals or hallucinating at all. It's more like it gives you different perspectives, different ways of thinking, strategies for being happier, strategies for dealing with difficult issues in your life. With the trends of microdosing, I think the lower dosage trips will be much more popular. With that being said - it's not for everyone, and could be bad for some people. I'm all for the personal responsibility aspect and being able to decide for myself.
- IceMetalPunk 4y ago
  I'm all for microdosing, if done in a controlled environment with a (medical) professional present. The problem with it being available for anyone to just "try as they want" is that most people don't know what the proper safe dosage is. I don't think it should be illegal, but certainly controlled.
  - failTide 4y ago
    I don't mind some common sense controls, as long as it doesn't end up in jail time for anyone. The bill doesn't make the substances legal to sell - that part can be determined later. I think just being able to grow one's own personal supply legally is a fair compromise.
    - IceMetalPunk 4y ago
      > I think just being able to grow one's own personal supply legally is a fair compromise. And we disagree here, for the reason I mentioned before about how most people don't actually know what a safe dose is, i.e. what dose leads to distortions as opposed to just the benefits. I think a better compromise than "everyone should be able to have all the psychedelics they want" would be "treat it as a controlled substance and allow for microdosing clinics, or prescribed doses, all of which have supervision by a medical professional".
      - failTide 4y ago

quantified 4y ago

Watching TV makes you perceive things that are not real. Some religious sects ban reading of novels and such for reasons including this. Yet TV, novels, propaganda are somehow more OK? Oh, yes, and dreaming while asleep, which seems to have benefit for the basic function of our brains. And psychedelics give you the ability to re-perceive prior events in differenr ways. That is a super-important fact for therapeutic purposes. Personally, it just sounds likewe should accept that things which are enjoyable can be useful and vice versa.

IceMetalPunk 4y ago
I think you missed my point. Perceiving things that are not real isn't the problem. Perceiving things that are not real, and then thinking they are real, is the problem. If someone watches Moon Knight, that's fine (and also a great show, imho); if someone watches Moon Knight and now believes the Egyptian gods are real and giving people superpowers, that is NOT fine. And no, I don't think religion or propaganda are okay, either, for the same reason. "And psychedelics give you the ability to re-perceive prior events in different ways. That is a super-important fact for therapeutic purposes." It is... as long as the new perception aligns with reality. If it doesn't, then regardless of its potential therapeutic properties, it is harmful. "Personally, it just sounds like we should accept that things which are enjoyable can be useful and vice versa." Anything can be enjoyable to someone, and many things can be useful. It's about balancing the benefits against the harms and not ignoring either side.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  You seem to have a strong belief that reality has objective definition, and that yours is it. Much of the value of psychedelics is in unseating us from assuming that what we have always thought was real necessarily is. In most cases it mostly is not. Yes, rocks are hard, and fog is soft, but the ways the world works are very different from what we picked up as children. It is extremely rare for people to have rethought everything in light of later experience, so most cling to falsehoods they have not examined. Psychedelics do not convince you that falsehoods are true. They help you question things that often enough turn out not to be true. Afterward you still might believe things that are not true, but that was where you started.
  - IceMetalPunk 4y ago
    "You seem to have a strong belief that reality has objective definition, and that yours is it." No, I have a strong belief that reality has an objective definition, and that empirical evidence shows what that definition is. Because, though this may come as a surprise to you, empirical evidence is the very definition of looking at what the universe does to figure out what the universe does. "Much of the value of psychedelics is in unseating us from assuming that what we have always thought was real necessarily is. In most cases it mostly is not. Yes, rocks are hard, and fog is soft, but the ways the world works are very different from what we picked up as children. It is extremely rare for people to have rethought everything in light of later experience, so most cling to falsehoods they have not examined." This is... well, a vast generalization. While it's true there are some things that turn out to be not quite as we thought, the way to discover those inaccuracies is through empirical evidence. Thinking that hallucinogenics are the way to discover what is not true and what is true is basically saying "my perceptions are more real than everything around me is, and if I just think about things in the right way, I will discover the truth, even if it contradicts the evidence". You don't find truth by distorting your perceptions and then thinking hard about what you've perceived; you find it by looking at the world outside your own brain and listening to what that world shows you through empirical measurements. The scientific method is designed specifically to counteract the many ways in which our perceptions already fool us, and it has worked exceptionally well at discovering the truths of the universe (the computer you're using right now is one tiny bit of proof of that). Relying on our perceptions is already problematic, but distorting those perceptions and then relying on them as a source of truth? That's just hubris.

failTide 4y ago

Have you ever tried these compounds? At lower doses, there's really no significant visuals or hallucinating at all. It's more like it gives you different perspectives, different ways of thinking, strategies for being happier, strategies for dealing with difficult issues in your life. With the trends of microdosing, I think the lower dosage trips will be much more popular. With that being said - it's not for everyone, and could be bad for some people. I'm all for the personal responsibility aspect and being able to decide for myself.

IceMetalPunk 4y ago
I'm all for microdosing, if done in a controlled environment with a (medical) professional present. The problem with it being available for anyone to just "try as they want" is that most people don't know what the proper safe dosage is. I don't think it should be illegal, but certainly controlled.
- failTide 4y ago
  I don't mind some common sense controls, as long as it doesn't end up in jail time for anyone. The bill doesn't make the substances legal to sell - that part can be determined later. I think just being able to grow one's own personal supply legally is a fair compromise.
  - IceMetalPunk 4y ago
    > I think just being able to grow one's own personal supply legally is a fair compromise. And we disagree here, for the reason I mentioned before about how most people don't actually know what a safe dose is, i.e. what dose leads to distortions as opposed to just the benefits. I think a better compromise than "everyone should be able to have all the psychedelics they want" would be "treat it as a controlled substance and allow for microdosing clinics, or prescribed doses, all of which have supervision by a medical professional".
    - failTide 4y ago