Just throwing in some personal anecdote here. (Disclaimer: I've only had four or five experiences with the subject.)
I've always wanted to test if dropping acid affects my problem-solving abilities in any way but I still haven't done so. As soon as the effect begins, I stop being fascinated by computers at all. Living things and music are so much more interesting to watch and interact with.
Perhaps this doesn't hold true for abstract or deep problems. I remember feeling aversion to Django, jQuery and the ugly (as in 'practical') mix of technologies that the modern web stack is.
I think this has to do with a more sensitive perception of beauty and 'purity'. Perhaps thinking of solving more abstract problems using higher-order techniques in LISP, Clojure or Haskell would've been a more pleasurable and rewarding experience. I'm normally turned on by sexy UI and not so much by algorithms, but at least I learned firsthand you don't want to work on your webapp under acid, it's just not fun.
I also had a somewhat negative experience with using GUI. It was very painful to use YouTube because it is packed with things you don't want to see. Normally, your eye ignores anything but what you focus on, but LSD seems to remove this filter so you actually have to experience everything: ads, unpleasant people in related videos. Google Suggest is especially maddening because it gives you ten things you don't want, and you can't just ignore it.
I also recall it being very difficult to make money transactions (i.e. buy some tea at the shop). Money and numbers seem very arbitrary and it's hard to focus on them.
I wanted to add that I don't think LSD makes you a "broader guy". For me, it did not change how I think in normal life. But it is nevertheless very interesting to realize that the "normal" way of perceiving reality is just one of the possible "implementations". That your organs and your brains can interpret the same sensory input in a wildly different way.
It deserves more study -- the idea of using much more reasonable doses as a form of anti-depressant is interesting.
However, it's probably not magic, just in the same way MJ oil is probably not a cure for cancer. They, of course, don't list the many other discoveries made by scientists not on LSD. The "studies" really aren't terribly disciplined... I grant you because of its illegal status, but...
Given my personal experience with LSD devotees, I'm extremely skeptical of the benefits. The general trend is more towards extreme narcissism than enlightenment, and I would advise people to stay away from the stuff.
If you haven't had a transformative psychedelic experience yourself, it's understandably hard to imagine the benefits.
LSD's benefit as an anti-depressant is indirect - that is, it is used for ego separation through counseled meditation, not through regular dosage like typical anti-depressants.
Ego separation is a very strange and complex thing. The ability to disconnect from being a human with our social pretenses and look at the world from (essentially) an alien's perspective is incredibly powerful. Such an experience changes people forever, usually for the better(through good
counseling).
In addition, seeing as being deeply involved in ones work often leads to essentially mental tunnel vision, the same properties described above provide insight and inspiration that ones mind might otherwise occlude(whether we want it to or not).
It would be an interesting thing to test for, that's for sure. But I would assume scientific analysis would focus on stopping depression caused by PTSD or something.
My question is connected to his statement that he knows the following and is intended to verify if he really knows or is also making the mistake he is pointing out.
"The general trend is more towards extreme narcissism than enlightenment"
This was my opinion only, based on my experiences and experiences of people I know. You can tell this by the way I use "enlightenment" in a very loose way when it is obviously impossible (as far as I know) to measure (I don't believe the state even exists, other than as a form of self deception or mental illness, to put a not so fine point on it).
Also by the fact that I am a random blowhard on the internet. :-)
You may disagree about my recommendation to stay away. Fine. However, do not pull this rhetorical trick on me. That is, require me to have a set of numbers to even state my opinion on a matter that, frankly, has no numbers, and could be argued either way by those so invested. Say what you mean... would you rather I use "seems to me to be" rather than "is"?
You see, as you may have noticed, there isn't a whole lot of information on the benefits of LSD. Just a lot of anecdotes and poorly designed research experiments. There are very well documented cases of the dangers. Whether that's due to bad genetics, bad dosing or impure samples, I don't know, but again, I think it's rather a dumb thing to risk your brain for.
I have no interest in arguing for psychedelics here - my interest in asking the question is exactly as stated - about truth and Enlightenment. So many people claim Enlightenment in the world today but in history only a very small handful actually have the evidence of the ability (and knowledge), theretofore unknown but necessary information, wisdom (vision), and life that come along with it. Since Enlightenment is an extremely essential thing for mankind I'm always careful to confirm what is true and false in people's words when they speak about it.
I mean, quite plainly, what does your question mean:
"How do you recognize whether someone is Enlightened or not?"
If you can't define precisely what the question is, how can you begin to answer it? One might almost begin to suspect that the term "Enlightenment" is a load of bs ...
I believe the one who is having difficulty understanding the question is you. To be clear, it's your lacking. If you asked me "What is the definition of Enlightenment?" I can answer you immediately and correctly. But instead you were determined to give me a question which itself deviates from what you really wanted to know. If you have anything to find out or any questions then I'll do my best to answer them on the condition that you ask sincerely.
Interesting. I just finished reading a book mentioned in the article, "What The Dormouse Said", which traces the interaction of the 60s counterculture and the formation of Silicon Valley computer culture.
Based on the book, LSD was used by a lot more of the early computer pioneers than you might imagine. Everyone knows Steve Jobs talked glowingly about his LSD experience, but there were many others as well.
The book is worth a read, it's an unusual perspective on both hippie culture and computer culture.
They are schedule 1 because they have no recognized medicinal value, and no, you can't research any medicinal value because they are schedule 1!
Like most drug-related laws in western countries (that I know of), it comes down to a moral stance. We have decided these things are bad, regardless of any of your irritating 'facts' or 'evidence'. If you question us or stand against us you are soft on crime and are not thinking of the children.
There is no circular reasoning as your entire premise is flawed. Schedule 1 substances are defined as having no currently accepted medical use, but this does not preclude the ability to test for medical use going forward.
The dates in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article, and the dates of when California and then the US banned the use of LSD in the article align to the fact that MKUltra was cut down in 1967.
Thanks for the reference. Would not have expected to see an article like this make the front page of HN.
I know its changed the way i perceive the world. Could possibly be the reason I find it easier to see problems from different angles and in a different light.
I wasn't necessarily bad at solving problems before. I think it just opened my mind to more avenues of attacking problems.
After hallucinating to a point where your thoughts influence your vision, you have a different relationship with perception. It's not something easily explained to people that have not gone through a similar same experience.
When on any sort of hallucinogen I never though I could solve math problems or computer problems. Quite the opposite really, I was almost useless at the computer and getting simple things like running winamp's screensaver seemed like a chore. The mind is easily distracted and literally thinks at speeds that is above average. I remember playing Dead or Alive and being able to literally see the game moving in slow motion and completely kicking the computers ass. Under normal circumstances I was never as good.
The whole idea being, experiencing a different reality opens the mind to a whole different set of possibilities. Things like what is a memory? Is there really a difference in experiencing something in a dream vs real life? You are what you sense which is all in your head. This is often why it is seen as a spiritual journey.
While people clearly love LSD and the effects it has on them, I am highly dubious of some of the claims in this article. For example, "Francis Crick confessed that he was tripping the first time he envisioned the double helix" and similar claims are peppered by pro-LSD folks all the time, yet evidence is scant. In this case, the double helix was discovered around 1951, yet LSD was very new at the time, and distribution wasn't common until the late 50's. There is no question that Crick tried LSD, yet I think so often there is a confounding between trying a drug and the drug having a mitigating effect on a part of an important person's life.
> I am frequently asked for my opinion on the speculation that Francis Crick was on LSD when he discovered the double helix; or that he was involved with a man named Dick Kemp in the manufacture of LSD. These assertions were reported second hand in an article in the Mail on Sunday by Alun Rees following Crick's death and they have since gained a certain amount of traction on the internet. Both stories are wrong. The true story, which I was told directly by Crick's widow and by the man who (as his widow confirms) first supplied the Cricks with LSD, is much less sensational. Crick was given (not sold) LSD on several occasions from 1967 onwards by Henry Todd, who met the Cricks through his girlfriend. Todd did know Kemp, with whom he was eventually prosecuted, but the Cricks did not. As for the implausible idea that the then impoverished and conventional Crick would have had access to LSD when it was newly invented in the early 1950s, there is simply no evidence for it at all. Those who wish to argue that LSD helped Crick make discoveries should note that all his major breakthroughs in molecular biology were made before 1967.
> "He listened with rapt, amused attention to what I told him about the role of LSD in his Nobel Prize-winning discovery. He gave no intimation of surprise. When I had finished, he said: 'Print a word of it and I'll sue.'"
> The arrest and conviction of Solomon, Kemp and a string of co-conspirators dominated the headlines for months. I was covering the case as a reporter at the time and it was then that I met Kemp's close friend, Garrod Harker, whose home had been raided by police but who had not been arrest ed. Harker told me that Kemp and his girlfriend Christine Bott by then in jail were hippie idealists who were completely uninterested in the money they were making....'Dick Kemp told me he met Francis Crick at Cambridge. Crick had told him that some Cambridge academics used LSD in tiny amounts as a thinking tool, to liberate them from preconceptions and let their genius wander freely to new ideas. Crick told him he had perceived the double-helix shape while on LSD. 'It was clear that Dick Kemp was highly impressed and probably bowled over by what Crick had told him. He told me that if a man like Crick, who had gone to the heart of human existence, had used LSD, then it was worth using. Crick was certainly Dick Kemp's inspiration.' Shortly afterwards I visited Crick at his home, Golden Helix, in Cambridge. He listened with rapt, amused attention to what I told him about the role of LSD in his Nobel Prize-winning discovery. He gave no intimation of surprise. When I had finished, he said: 'Print a word of it and I'll sue.'
That article is also useful for documenting his post-DNA involvement in psychedelic societies like Soma.
Since LSD was synthesized well before March 1953, was being used in psychiatric applications and research starting 1949, the window was open.
So, Crick has means , opportunity, motive, and was unquestionably using it after 1953; unfortunately, the direct evidence is two questionable persons' testimony.
So the best answer to whether LSD helped discover the double helix is: "maybe".
If LSD appears to offer such a huge benefit to scientists, why aren't there intellectual haven countries that allow it (this would give them a huge STEM advantage over others, wouldn't it?)?
1) Drug enhanced STEM advancement doesn't seem to have caught on that much with far less controversial substances. It's a little taboo.
2) I'm not convinced that psychedelics do offer all these amazing benefits, I think a lot of it is wishful thinking. (Though this is where further research would be helpful).
3) There are all sorts of political reasons why a switch-around on policy isn't going to happen overnight. Large sections the public are still sold on drugs as the scourge of society, and politicians are still making bank on talking that up. There are also a variety of international treaties that make changing these laws more tricky (IIRC).
Tobacco and alcohol companies have lobbies that help keep MJ, LSD, and magic mushrooms illegal. I am pretty sure all three are less physically addictive and detrimental than tobacco and alcohol, but it might be a very long time before we find out definitively because research is blocked by these lobbies.
This is one of the most thought-provoking articles I've read (to the end) in a long time. I've recently been researching Ayahuasca, similarly outlawed despite thousands of years of safe use in indigenous cultures and extremely promising clinical results for treating addiction, depression and antisocial behaviour...
LSD seemed to me a more edgy phenomenon - it's purely chemical - whereas one of the key psychoactive compounds in Ayahuasca, DMT, occurs naturally (nobody knows why) in mammalian bodies.
This struck me as incredibly important: "Francis Crick confessed that he was tripping the first time he envisioned the double helix."
Based on my own (so far very limited) experience, I only implore people to go and try these things for themselves, in a safe environment, with all the information prepared for skepticism and intellectual/scientific reasoning and debate... let our culture be based on experience, not received wisdom.
Some of us may some day be the lawmakers and influencers, or may already be so - if we get these experiences now (preferably in countries where risk of persecution is lower) perhaps we can bring such experiences and learnings into the everyday world. If not by decriminalising, then at least by increasing awareness and supporting proper scientific study.
HPPD is not so bad. I had one and know people have one and nothing happens. It's rather not harmful. For me, even flashbacks are not something worth to be afraid of. Anyway there's much more to gain than to lose. Not for everybody, needs much responsibility, but definetely worth to take advantage from.
Another good read on this, if interested, is Jay Stevens' "Storming Heaven: LSD and the American Dream". Great piece of journalism and a look into all the old studies and politics surrounding LSD.
This "voice" is the product of my using guitar for "creativity experiment" to deal with recent losses.
I honestly do not care if it is a shameless plug. This acid test is still going on, and the structures of intentional space which it allows for one to analyze _as presentation_ is breathtaking, illuminating. With the six items, surely, I believe major therapeutic gains can be had, along with contentful output.
I've always wanted to test if dropping acid affects my problem-solving abilities in any way but I still haven't done so. As soon as the effect begins, I stop being fascinated by computers at all. Living things and music are so much more interesting to watch and interact with.
Perhaps this doesn't hold true for abstract or deep problems. I remember feeling aversion to Django, jQuery and the ugly (as in 'practical') mix of technologies that the modern web stack is.
I think this has to do with a more sensitive perception of beauty and 'purity'. Perhaps thinking of solving more abstract problems using higher-order techniques in LISP, Clojure or Haskell would've been a more pleasurable and rewarding experience. I'm normally turned on by sexy UI and not so much by algorithms, but at least I learned firsthand you don't want to work on your webapp under acid, it's just not fun.
I also had a somewhat negative experience with using GUI. It was very painful to use YouTube because it is packed with things you don't want to see. Normally, your eye ignores anything but what you focus on, but LSD seems to remove this filter so you actually have to experience everything: ads, unpleasant people in related videos. Google Suggest is especially maddening because it gives you ten things you don't want, and you can't just ignore it.
I also recall it being very difficult to make money transactions (i.e. buy some tea at the shop). Money and numbers seem very arbitrary and it's hard to focus on them.