Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

“When I began to navigate psychospace with LSD, I realized that before we were conscious, seemingly self-propelled human beings, many tapes and corridors had been created in our minds and reflexes which were not of our own making. These patterns and tapes laid down in our consciousness are walled off from each other. I see it as a vast labyrinth with high walls sealing off the many directives created by our personal history.

Many of these directives are contradictory. The coexistence of these contradictory programs is what we call inner conflict. This conflict causes us to constantly check ourselves while we are caught in the opposition of polarity. Another metaphor would be like a computer with many programs running simultaneously. The more programs that are running, the slower the computer functions. This is a problem then. With all the programs running that are demanded of our consciousness in this modern world, we have problems finding deep integration.

To complicate matters, the programs are reinforced by fear. Fear separates, love integrates. We find ourselves drawn to love and unity, but afraid to make the leap.

What I found to be the genius of LSD is that it really gets you high, higher than the programs, higher than the walls that mask and blind one to the energy destroying presence of many contradictory but hidden programs. When LSD is used intentionally it enables you to see all the tracks laid down, to explore each one intensely. It also allows you to see the many parallel and redundant programs as well as the contradictory ones.

It allows you to see the underlying unity of all opposites in the magic play of existence. This allows you to edit these programs and recreate superior programs that give you the insight to shake loose the restrictions and conflicts programmed into each one of us by our parents, our religion, our early education, and by society as a whole.”

~ Nick Sand, 2001, Mind States conference, quoted in Casey Hardison's obituary




I feel like if all the things people believe and espouse about hallucinogens were true and not just the effect of permanently damaging your mind, with the illusion of wisdom, we’d be able to point at all the revolutionary scientific breakthroughs and discoveries made under the influence of hallucinogenic substances.

However, everyone I’ve met who admits to having taken hallucinogens seems reduced in some way, rather than enhanced. Like the lights are on but someone else is home.


This was sort of my experience with LSD. It just broke me. I fell into a deep depression afterward, but the reason was only partly due to damaging my mind. The other part of it was that the LSD made me realize where my life was going, and how completely unfulfilled I'd end up being in 10-20 years. In that way, it helped me course-correct. I'm healthier, more honest with myself, and got back into college because of the experience.

But it did damage my mind. I have mild to moderate anhedonia now. Weed hits me completely differently now (feels more like strong caffeine + brain fog instead of any pleasure). I lost my desire to write creatively.


Unless you did a thumbprint, you're perfectly fine, no damage. Just get your shit together, that seems to be your takeaway. Sounds like it worked. Now you have to keep working on yourself rather than blaming a harmless drug for your problems.


If a thumbprint can do damage, why can't a lower dose? What's the mechanism?


It's similar to one aspirin vs 10000. Also, people do thumbprints and live normal lives after, I just threw that out as an extreme. LSD is very safe if you're doing normal doses. Most people don't take 10000 doses so I can't really speak to that.


Water will kill you if you consume too much of it - almost universally, the poison is in the dose not the substance.


The mechanism for water toxicity is physically displacing ions in the brain, causing osmotic damage. (This also explains why lower amounts of water are safe.) A thumbprint dose of LSD is nowhere near high enough to do something like that.


There are lots of examples, you've just decided not to see them. Just for a start, here's an account by Ralph Abraham of the impact of psychedelics on mathematics. http://www.ralph-abraham.org/articles/MS%23124.Maps/maps2.pd...


There is the Qualia Research Institute, one of the things they do is using dope and making simulations of the experience. They basically found 2 main types of drugs:

1. Most “create more separate personalities” in you

2. One (the “toad poison”) actually makes you feel like a giant place, the feeling is usually pleasant.

So there is either “agentification” of you into more “agents” or “space-ification” into one giant place without any agency in it. I think we can make this static place AI and it’ll be safe by definition because we’re the only agents in it.

P.S. I don’t promote drugs


A fair observation, but real assumptions about progress, what it means, and what is valuable


I don't know if he credits the drug for the inspiration but the inventor of PCR was famously a user of LSD.


It happens all the time. DNA double helix is a good example. You really think people are going to mention their drug use in white papers? I think not. Nothing to gain and everything to lose.


The record of a scientific discovery that is heavily criticized for plagiarism and falsehoods is probably not a good example, actually.


Well here's one: tons of people do drugs. It's not even a question whether or not drugs have inspired discoveries. They obviously have.


Tons of people eat carrots. That doesn’t imply carrots have inspired discoveries.


That is a textbook false equivalence.


It’s exactly the same argument.


Please explain how they are equivalent and why the psychoactive properties of a psychedelic don't make it categorically different in this situation than a carrot.


The argument was: lots of people do X, so X has obviously inspired discoveries.


Carrots inspire science, too.

https://phys.org/news/2015-12-tablet-screen-brought-aid-carr...

> It was the Austrian botanist Friedrich Reinitzer and the German physicist Otto Lehmann who discovered liquid crystals in 1888 when they were experimenting with the natural substances found in carrots

Carrots have also inspired art, I don't need to find an example of that.

That said, if you view that premise as it being a given that X has inspired something just because lots of people do it, then it is indeed preposterous.

However, if you view it as "a critical mass of people have done mind-altering substances and thus it's almost a certainty that discoveries have been made under and due to their influence", then it makes a lot more sense. It's a fundamentally different argument and you can't generalize it to any non-mind-altering substance. The point is that the mind is altered by the substance, causing different modes of thought. I think you were just confused about the way the other commenter laid out their premise, because it's a purely statistical argument with the qualifier that we're talking about substances that measurably alter thought processes.


> a critical mass of people have done mind-altering substances and thus it's almost a certainty that discoveries have been made under... their influence

This much is obvious. But that sneaky “and due to” which I cut out does not belong. You’re putting a completely unfounded assumption next to a simple statistical argument and presenting them as equivalent.


It's not sneaky at all, I'd appreciate a more charitable interpretation. It's not unfounded. If a substance alters someone's thoughts, it is then responsible in some part for the thoughts they have while under its influence.


It's either unfounded as written (it might be sensible with more support), or it needs a notion of responsibility that's so broad as to be useless.

Everything in your past light cone alters your thoughts to some degree. To be considered responsible for discoveries, the alteration needs to be significant and be in a way that the discovery wouldn't have happened without it. Significance is pretty much a given, there are plenty of drugs that significantly alter thoughts. But "wouldn't have happened without it" is a big assumption that, at the very least, is not supported by the argument I was replying to.


I agree, but it's difficult to make the criteria objective. "I was drunk last night and I realized X..." vs "Last night, a molecule of alcohol hit just the right neuron and fired off a chain of thoughts that led to a discovery"... Aren't both valid?


If there's no evidentiary reason to assume causal relationship, I would say that's a useless distinction, personally.

There's just as much reason to assume that if you didn't drink at all, you'd have thought of it sooner.


Have they? I find it likely, personally, but it doesn’t mean it’s not entirely coincidental either.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: