JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 12th December 2012, 11:10 AM   #361
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,240
Originally Posted by porch View Post
Oh my, that is big!

Is that 12 hours taken from different talks, or was it a continuous, 12 hour session?

I think a continuous 12 hour session! He had some die hard followers by the time he did this talk I presume. I've only ever gotten a little way in myself, never past an hour or so.

Excepts from all parts of it are all over youtube though.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2012, 12:02 PM   #362
porch
Muse
 
porch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 529
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
I think a continuous 12 hour session! He had some die hard followers by the time he did this talk I presume.

Yes. Yes, and he probably had a few more after such a lengthy, perhaps mesmerizing to some, "down the rabbit hole" display of charisma. I'm even more curious now as to where this event took place, where he felt safe enough in his position that he could come out as a liar. Because to me, this narrative is getting eerily close to a classic cult narrative, i.e., deceive the initiates --> once they're around long enough to "level up", reveal that you have tricked them --> explain that they are special and wise enough to have the real truth revealed to them. --> They are now adepts. Make them complicit in deceiving new initiates. --> repeat. Ta-da!

And of course, in this story, it all makes sense that deception is beneficial to the initiate, the adept, the Great Mission, and to the prophet/guru. And of course, what is beneficial to the guru is what is best for the entire human race. Isn't it neat how it all works out in the end?

I think I might go back and listen to some more snippets of that monstrous load of audio. I'm particularly curious as to how he handles criticism. I would also like to know if the attendees knew that they were in for such an epic event ahead of time, or if they were expecting maybe 2-3 hours and it went on way longer. This would also lead to the question of how much food the attendees had over that 12 hour period. That's a pretty long time with a lot of swirling, heady ideas knocking about in your brain, with no time for solitude and quiet reflection. Perhaps McKenna was clever enough to plan ahead and deliberately set up the event in just such a way in order to induce a "transformative experience" in his followers. He is after all, a benign trickster, out to share his wealth of insight with the world! Or maybe he's a manipulative creep. It's a matter of differing paradigms.
porch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2012, 12:44 PM   #363
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 35,746
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
The study of 9/11 victims offspring with similar PTSD is one of a few.
Not really the controls and protocols do not allow you to draw any conclusions about genetics.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2012, 03:17 PM   #364
asydhouse
Graduate Poster
 
asydhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Swansea in the UK
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by porch View Post
.... a benign trickster, out to share his wealth of insight with the world! Or maybe he's a manipulative creep. It's a matter of differing paradigms.
Fascinating analysis of Terence McKenna's thing. It's true he was a charismatic "poet" of voice presentation and intriguing semi-magical conceptual revelatory mind-tickling, which is a sort of hallucinatory blur to the mind like an attractive noise is fodder to the hallucinating ears of the tripper... ironic that only a truly iconoclastic move of mind can free the psychonauts from the traps his offer of freedom turns out to be... (Never read his books, but heard his raps on a couple of psychedelic records.... very effective fantasies!)

Personally I'm pleased to see this rational psychedelic analysis taking place in this thread.

I salute you, Bakers, and porch. I'd really be interested in what you might have to say about a similarly iconoclastic reportage (looking for the truth of the stories around psilocybin): Shroom: A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom by Andy Letcher. Seems to be well researched, and the author has real knowledge of the mushroom experience to boot. The book is also a really good read, & I highly recommend it.

Last edited by asydhouse; 12th December 2012 at 03:19 PM. Reason: adding comment
asydhouse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2012, 03:43 PM   #365
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,856
The OP seems to have gone a bit quiet on the thread topic
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2012, 07:53 PM   #366
porch
Muse
 
porch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 529
Thanks, asydhouse. Of course the truth about McKenna must not have been so simple as either/or between benign and malicious. I'm guessing there was a great deal of self-deception involved. But really I'm just making this stuff up on the fly. The information Bakers brought to the table was all news to me, and tied in with some suspicious feelings I had about McKenna from when I read his book a long time ago. I haven't really researched him.

When I read FOTG I was under the impression, for some reason, that McKenna was a prof. By the end of the book, I vaguely wondered what his university thought of his delving into biology without any expertise in, or even much regard for, the field. I was pretty disappointed that he wasn't able to make his main points about mushrooms and evolution clear to me. I tried reading over the key parts a few times, and I just didn't get how the mushrooms led to genetic change in the population. I really suspected that he didn't either. Maybe I can credit the book for turning me off of any quest for meaning through drugs once and for all.

Any experiences from psychedelics in my past which remain meaningful to me to this day would be social experiences. Bonding over a crazy mutual mindwarp moment. Laughing and being silly together. The shared experience of surviving a trip in which a handful of hours simultaneously felt like years and seconds. (Yeah, dude, it was totally like that for me, too!) I found psychedelics could cause the feeling of great significance in whatever is occurring, or whatever it is that you are thinking at the moment. But in the end, sorry if I sound a bit saccharine, it's the people around you that matter more than some cosmic wizard thoughts in your head. There is no big secret to unlock.

Sorry for rambling and preaching. I'm getting pretty sleepy.
porch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2012, 08:07 PM   #367
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,665
Originally Posted by porch View Post

Any experiences from psychedelics in my past which remain meaningful to me to this day would be social experiences. Bonding over a crazy mutual mindwarp moment. Laughing and being silly together. The shared experience of surviving a trip in which a handful of hours simultaneously felt like years and seconds. (Yeah, dude, it was totally like that for me, too!) I found psychedelics could cause the feeling of great significance in whatever is occurring, or whatever it is that you are thinking at the moment.
I can think of a lot of other things that do that. Swordplay does it--I remember surviving charge for the first time, and time slowing waaaay down, like it does on the movie 300. Then we were all laughing about it and telling increasingly-unrealistic stories all night. Hunting, too (though the real stories there don't NEED embellishment). A lot of my experiences that are similar to what you've described involve housework--and yes, even the "shared experience of surviving" part. At the point where the wall has a permanent bloodstain, "survived" is the proper term, and that was one of the less-damaging ones!

My point is, it sounds like the effect of these 'shrooms, assuming there is one, would be ecologically indistinguishable from the effect of any shared extreme experience. And if some middle class white boy from a small town can have enough of those to keep a camp entertained for a night, imagine how many more our ancestors, who hunted mammoths and ground sloths and short-faced bears and other monsters, must have had! The effect would be negligible from an ecological perspective--the sheer volume of story-telling and story-making would overwhelm it.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2012, 09:55 PM   #368
quarky
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,454
Glad I'm past my psychedelic days.
You guys don't sound like much fun.

Don't blame you, though.
quarky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2012, 11:15 PM   #369
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 11,386
Originally Posted by jond View Post
And, according to this article, Mckenna is responsible for the whole 12/21 nonsense:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mayan-apoca...130852054.html
Not surprising at all.
New Age jive is heady stuff.


Originally Posted by porch View Post
...Because to me, this narrative is getting eerily close to a classic cult narrative, i.e., deceive the initiates --> once they're around long enough to "level up", reveal that you have tricked them --> explain that they are special and wise enough to have the real truth revealed to them. --> They are now adepts. Make them complicit in deceiving new initiates. --> repeat. Ta-da! ...
Yes. The same happens in workshops designed open your 'third eye' and suchlike.



Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
...My point is, it sounds like the effect of these 'shrooms, assuming there is one, would be ecologically indistinguishable from the effect of any shared extreme experience. And if some middle class white boy from a small town can have enough of those to keep a camp entertained for a night, imagine how many more our ancestors, who hunted mammoths and ground sloths and short-faced bears and other monsters, must have had! The effect would be negligible from an ecological perspective--the sheer volume of story-telling and story-making would overwhelm it.
Sounds about right.
Brothers Grimm, anyone?
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2012, 11:46 PM   #370
asydhouse
Graduate Poster
 
asydhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Swansea in the UK
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by porch View Post
Any experiences from psychedelics in my past which remain meaningful to me to this day would be social experiences. Bonding over a crazy mutual mindwarp moment. Laughing and being silly together. The shared experience of surviving a trip in which a handful of hours simultaneously felt like years and seconds. (Yeah, dude, it was totally like that for me, too!) I found psychedelics could cause the feeling of great significance in whatever is occurring, or whatever it is that you are thinking at the moment. But in the end, sorry if I sound a bit saccharine, it's the people around you that matter more than some cosmic wizard thoughts in your head. There is no big secret to unlock.

Sorry for rambling and preaching. I'm getting pretty sleepy.
It's an experience of the sublime which can make you feel contented to be alive. If you can get that deeply satisfied feeling from dropping a trip rather than pursuing ascetic manipulations of your biochemistry, I say why not? The realisation that you are literally part of the consciousness of your fellows, and they are part of yours, and the mutually interdependence of that... in an age where tribal affiliations are not what they used to be, and yet our need to work out our cultural differences and capacity to screw up are greater than ever, that connectivity-learning is more important than ever.

Dinwar's point that any shared experience (the hunting stories is a very good point!) brings out that type of stimulation to the sort of mind we have, is of course true. But the experience of tripping really is of a different order to those outwardly-orientated shared activities. No other shared drug experiences are like tripping either.

You really do have to do it before you can talk about it... because talking about it is not easy! You know how difficult it is to communicate about anything, generally? Orders of magnitude more difficult to communicate if one hasn't tripped.

(Obviously the chemistry, biology etc are open to anyone to deal with... it's the psychological journey that needs experience in order to share knowledge.)
asydhouse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2012, 12:04 AM   #371
cosmicaug
Critical Thinker
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Plausibility doesn't mean it happened. Lots of things could have happened--and many are even more plausible than this. Yet they didn't. Evolutionary history is dominated by chance events, and to pretend to do an evolutionary analysis without taking into account that fact is folly.
I am not addressing any of the latter. I was responding to your question of how do we know they ate that. In this case plausibility does mean it happened. Someone is going to have tried it at some point no matter what (which doesn't mean it has any significance whatsoever).

The rest is irrelevant. Or rather it is very relevant but we know nothing about how to explore this issue so it might as well be irrelevant. As I have repeatedly stated, this is, as far as I can tell, a completely unfalsifiable hypothesis. I also agree with the poster who pointed out how it is a solution in search of a problem.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Humans COULD have invented metal smelting any time after we discovered fire. They had all the materials, after all. Yet it was a surprisingly long time between the invention of fire and the use of metal tools. By your logic, we should be looking for Neanderthals with copper axes (I chose that metal very carefully, by the way).
Not at all. The analogous statement would be suggesting that we don't know if they ever had ore bearing rocks in a fire. My claim would be that it would be extraordinary if this never happened by chance. Copper smelting (or, in the case of the original "stoned ape" proposition, such things as incorporating psilocybian mushroom use into religious rituals, for instance) would be a separate issue.

We can say the first almost certainly happened.
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2012, 12:07 AM   #372
cosmicaug
Critical Thinker
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Thisty one you are.

I'm sure Lamarckian inheritance (LamarckismWP) and epigenetic inheritance of behavioral traits is more than capable of explaining how the psychological effects of psychedelics has been inherited down the aeons of human evolution.

You might like my threads on the topic:

The Central Dogma
Epigentics
I did not like those threads in the topic the first time I read them. Your misunderstandings on the topic are great, is what I remember from those threads (strong Dunning-Kruger effectWP at play on that thread).
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2012, 12:12 AM   #373
asydhouse
Graduate Poster
 
asydhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Swansea in the UK
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by porch View Post
Thanks, asydhouse. Of course the truth about McKenna must not have been so simple as either/or between benign and malicious. I'm guessing there was a great deal of self-deception involved. But really I'm just making this stuff up on the fly. The information Bakers brought to the table was all news to me, and tied in with some suspicious feelings I had about McKenna from when I read his book a long time ago. I haven't really researched him.

When I read FOTG I was under the impression, for some reason, that McKenna was a prof. By the end of the book, I vaguely wondered what his university thought of his delving into biology without any expertise in, or even much regard for, the field. I was pretty disappointed that he wasn't able to make his main points about mushrooms and evolution clear to me. I tried reading over the key parts a few times, and I just didn't get how the mushrooms led to genetic change in the population. I really suspected that he didn't either. Maybe I can credit the book for turning me off of any quest for meaning through drugs once and for all.

Any experiences from psychedelics in my past which remain meaningful to me to this day would be social experiences. Bonding over a crazy mutual mindwarp moment. Laughing and being silly together. The shared experience of surviving a trip in which a handful of hours simultaneously felt like years and seconds. (Yeah, dude, it was totally like that for me, too!) I found psychedelics could cause the feeling of great significance in whatever is occurring, or whatever it is that you are thinking at the moment. But in the end, sorry if I sound a bit saccharine, it's the people around you that matter more than some cosmic wizard thoughts in your head. There is no big secret to unlock.

Sorry for rambling and preaching. I'm getting pretty sleepy.
That's why we need science, and why we need good critical skeptical thinkers with experience of psychedelics to shine a light on the path of sound reasoning, so some of the hapless "victims" of people like McKenna may be able to find their way out to the daylight of reality and a sound mind! Psychedelics have helped me overcome post traumatic stress which haunted me for decades, and which was brought about by the kind of "open-minded" naive thinking that so many science-ignorant people thoughtlessly espouse. (Which helped get me into trouble combined with long periods of poor diet and paranoia surrounding illegality of drug use and being immersed in a long journey in India, a very trippy place for a naive young westerner!) But first I had to do a lot of work to learn to be less gullible (more skeptical) and less trusting (more critical) of anecdotal "new information".... not always easy in the social context of a lot of the people one meets at certain festivals etc.

And I don't feel you were preaching, porch. Your conclusions are your wisdom, and I'm happy to concur!
asydhouse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2012, 12:43 AM   #374
quarky
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,454
Taking half a milligram of lsd, in the right setting, is like discovering a parallel universe.
I'm not advocating it, but how can we speak of it, without being astounded by the findings?

These days, I'm too scared to trip, and I've become an alcoholic.
I'm not breaking any laws, but I'm rather ashamed.
I used to have the guts for radical experiments.
Lots of them, actually.

Never cared for the McKenna brothers myself.
I was more into John Lily...probably because I got to hang out with dolphins.

An encounter with mammals that have a larger, more sophisticated brain, is something hard to shake. It's quite beyond big-foot.
It's the alien encounter of the real variety.

Yet, I've gone off topic.

Perhaps a new thread to address this subject?
It would need to be in R&P.
Even if it is science.

If any others here have hung out with dolphins, please pm me, so I can figure out a decent way to describe something incredible.
quarky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2012, 06:14 AM   #375
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,665
Originally Posted by cosmicaug
In this case plausibility does mean it happened.
Nope. Plausibility means that someone COULD HAVE done it. To say that they DID is a leap that's unjustified by the data at hand. Weirder things have happened.

I'm not saying that it's not likely that humans ate some mind-altering chemicals early in our evolution; I'll certainly agree to that. I'm just saying that if you want to go as far as saying that we did you need evidence that we did. It's not enough to say we could have. Paleontology and archaeology have gotten into a great deal of trouble making that error in the past, and I see no reason to ignore those lessons.

See, the problem isn't necessarily that what you're arguing is implausible. The problem is that it's speculative. Then other people will use your conclusion to fuel their own speculations, and others will use those speculations to fuel further speculations, until we have an entire history of life that's got no solid evidence to support it. This has happened before in these fields--check out early discussions for why most tetrapods have five digits on each limb to see examples of it. We can only go so far as the data will take us if we wish to avoid that sort of thing, and right now the data take us to "It's not unlikely to have happened" and no further.

Quote:
The analogous statement would be suggesting that we don't know if they ever had ore bearing rocks in a fire.
You missed why I picked copper.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2012, 07:52 AM   #376
cosmicaug
Critical Thinker
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Nope. Plausibility means that someone COULD HAVE done it. To say that they DID is a leap that's unjustified by the data at hand. Weirder things have happened.
I'm not merely saying it's plausible that someone could have done it but that it is implausible that no ancestor between a couple of hundred thousand years ago and a few million years ago never did. It's not merely plausible, it's extremely plausible and its converse is extremely implausible. I can say it with a hell of a lot more justification than people who look at !Kung, or the hunter gatherer group of the week, to speculate what earlier societies might have been like. The reason I can justify this is because the nature of the beast has not changed that much in all this time. We know that we'll eat anything we can get our hands on and there's no reason to think that it hasn't been the case for at least 200000 years.

It's just like I can assert, without archaeological evidence, that at some point one of our ancestors probably stuck a finger in their butt.

What Zeuzzz probably does not understand (and maybe you) is that this is an assertion without consequences. It has no implications. I might just as well have made no assertion at all for all it matters.

If it were the case that consuming these things had the significance assigned to it by the, so called, stoned ape hypothesis (which I agree seems highly unlikely) it would only be the case if a certain implausibly extraordinary context was able to develop around the consumption of these things. Such does not automatically follow from the consuming of these things (just like accidentally having ore bearing rock in a fire does not create copper smelting technology). The assumption that it does is the extraordinary claim here which requires justification.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
I'm not saying that it's not likely that humans ate some mind-altering chemicals early in our evolution; I'll certainly agree to that. I'm just saying that if you want to go as far as saying that we did you need evidence that we did. It's not enough to say we could have. Paleontology and archaeology have gotten into a great deal of trouble making that error in the past, and I see no reason to ignore those lessons.
Again, nothing follows from the fact that it would be extraordinarily unlikely that all of our not so distant ancestor never consumed a psilocybin containing mushroom.

Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
See, the problem isn't necessarily that what you're arguing is implausible. The problem is that it's speculative. Then other people will use your conclusion to fuel their own speculations, and others will use those speculations to fuel further speculations, until we have an entire history of life that's got no solid evidence to support it. This has happened before in these fields--check out early discussions for why most tetrapods have five digits on each limb to see examples of it. We can only go so far as the data will take us if we wish to avoid that sort of thing, and right now the data take us to "It's not unlikely to have happened" and no further.

You missed why I picked copper.
Yes, I readily admit that I totally missed it. But it's irrelevant that I missed it because my point was not that copper would surely be smelted by accident in a campfire but, if anything, that copper smelting technology would not automatically develop if the right kind of rock got dropped in a campfire (even though it is almost certain that, at some point, the right kind of rock did get dropped in a campfire). In the same way, one of our ancestors eating one of these fungi is not significant in and of itself (no matter what McKenna might have suggested) and is thus nothing like smelting copper (which is the case that Zeuzzz is trying to make*) but more like copper bearing ore being thrown into a campfire. It takes more than trowing the right rock at a fire to smelt copper but to suppose that the right rock was never thrown at a fire by chance alone is not parsimonious. Of course, the obstacle to copper smelting does not lie there (just like our ancestors never running into psilocybin containing fungi is not an obstacle to the stoned ape hypothesis --there are many obstacles to it, just not that one).




* In fact, his seems to be a stronger claim which seems to be that running into psilocybin containing fungi (or other psychedelics) would have been a lot more significant than a mere technological advance like copper smelting and that he has proof because no one can't prove that it didn't happen therefore it did (it sounds like I am making a straw man out of Zeuzzz's position but I do not believe that I am). And here you might jump in and suggest that I am doing exactly the same thing that Zeuzzz is doing but I will continue to maintain that I am not. There is a huge difference involved here. Zeuzzz is proposing an extraordinary claim which has never been observed to happen. I am proposing that something we presently see every day (which is one reason why we have a whole category of products for child-proofing our homes) also happened 200000 years ago.
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2012, 08:26 AM   #377
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,665
Originally Posted by cosmicaug
I can say it with a hell of a lot more justification than people who look at !Kung, or the hunter gatherer group of the week, to speculate what earlier societies might have been like.
What on Earth made you think I don't criticize the rest of archaeology this way?

Quote:
We know that we'll eat anything we can get our hands on
No, as a matter of fact we DON'T know that. For example, my grandfather once offered a friend some fried pumpkin blossoms. The friend thought my grandfather was trying to poison him. My family has always enjoyed eating them, though--they were among my favorite foods growing up. Most people won't eat opposum, not even red-necks. Many won't eat squirel. When The Hunger Games movie came out I got involved in a discussion to that effect--I argued that the characters didn't show the starvation that was supposed to be going on, and someone responded "They're eating squirrel! They MUST be despirate!" (paraphrased, obviously) Then there are things like Hallal and kosher. Foods considered edible have always been a function of the society in question as much as anything else, so it's just as reasonable to assume that ancient man follows in the pattern every other culture we know of has followed as it is to say they didn't.

Quote:
Again, nothing follows from the fact that it would be extraordinarily unlikely that all of our not so distant ancestor never consumed a psilocybin containing mushroom.
This entire thread is supported by this notion. If we were having a different discussion, sure, I'd be willing to grant you the point--but considering that your line of reasoning is the ONLY THING supporting this thread it must necessarily be held to a higher standard. Again, I'm more than happy to grant that it's extremely likely that humans ate plants that messed with our minds, but Zeuzzz and his sources are taking that and constructing an entire evolutionary history off of that likelyhood. In such cases probability simply isn't good enough.

Basically, my point is, and continues to be, that for the OP's claims to be true it must be demonstrated that humans ate psychoactive compounds. It doesn't matter if it's likely that we did--if there's no evidence that we did, we cannot accept the OP's claims. There's simply not sufficient evidence to support them. You can certainly disagree and claim that my standards of evidence are too high, but I think that when you have a single datum that you're building an entire theoretical framework on, that datum should be extremely well-supported.

Quote:
But it's irrelevant that I missed it because my point was not that copper would surely be smelted by accident in a campfire but, if anything, that copper smelting technology would not automatically develop if the right kind of rock got dropped in a campfire
You're still missing the point: Copper is not infrequently found in native form. Meaning that it's not dropping the right kind of rock into a camp fire, it's using a material that's already available. Copper nuggets and sheets of various sizes have been found throughout history (iron too, by the way--bogs do weird things to redox potential). It's simply a matter of making it into a useful shape, which wouldn't be too hard. Largest native copper nugget I've seen is a few hundred pounds, by the way--enough to make a fair number of tools.

Quote:
just like our ancestors never running into psilocybin containing fungi is not an obstacle to the stoned ape hypothesis --there are many obstacles to it, just not that one
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If our ancestors didn't live in an area where the appropriate mushroom grew it's proof that they didn't eat the mushroom. There may be other reasons to reject the idea, but that alone would be entirely sufficient. And anything that completely disproves a hypothesis certainly qualifies as an obstical!

This is why I don't like the emphasis on statistics that a lot of scientists have. You're approaching this from the perspective of a statistician, when it's unnecessary. Simple logic is entirely sufficient. If the mushrooms weren't available they couldn't have been consumed. Consumption of the mushrooms is necessary for the idea to hold true. Thus, if the mushrooms weren't available the idea is wrong. Other lines of reasoning may reach the same conclusion, but none make it any more likely to be true. It's already certain. This is why I've preferred Strong Inferrence for a long time--it allows one to be able to dismiss ideas that aren't true without wasting time trying to calculate the probability of an idea that cannot be true being false.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2012, 08:45 AM   #378
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,589
Originally Posted by porch View Post
Oh my, that is big!
That's what she said.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2012, 09:47 AM   #379
cosmicaug
Critical Thinker
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If our ancestors didn't live in an area where the appropriate mushroom grew it's proof that they didn't eat the mushroom. There may be other reasons to reject the idea, but that alone would be entirely sufficient. And anything that completely disproves a hypothesis certainly qualifies as an obstical!
That is definitely true but, as I (and maybe others) have pointed out, I do not believe that that is a statement you can validly make (to attempt to support that statement you trotted out a current range* of a single species of mushroom which proves pretty much nothing). You can neither tell me where we were (what's our fossil record of the relevant time period? Hundreds of specimens or is even that a gross overestimate?) nor what the range of the relevant mushrooms was back then (only that the range is wide at the present).

Zeuzzz has not even defined what an "ape" means in the current context so we can't even be sure if we are talking about apes in the savannah. I am guessing that it has to mean something other than modern human making it a time period no more recent than 200000 years ago (which is why I keep wondering why he persists in bringing up recent finds) but that's as much as I know.



* This map is probably not even a compilation of comprehensive surveys. The data appears to have been drawn from the book I referenced earlier. I am guessing that the map creator just colored the appropriate politically defined geographic boundaries corresponding to any references to P. cubensis found in that book.
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2012, 10:20 AM   #380
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,665
Originally Posted by cosmicaug
to attempt to support that statement you trotted out a current range* of a single species of mushroom which proves pretty much nothing
Let's be clear here: I NEVER intended that map to be taken as support of my statement. I posted it as an example of the type of thing Zeuzzz should provide to support HIS research. It was illustrative, not demonstrative. OF COURSE it proves nothing in regards to what humans ate! It wasn't intended to, and your criticism is the equivalent of saying that the Mona Lisa is a horrible painting because it doesn't have a high octain raiting.

I've explained that before, and it's rather irksome to have you continue to argue against a position I never held. I posted those maps to show Zeuzzz what kind of data I'd find acceptable, not to do his research for him.

Quote:
That is definitely true but, as I (and maybe others) have pointed out, I do not believe that that is a statement you can validly make
Of course I can. I can't say "Our ancestors didn't live in an area where these mushrooms grow" but, despite what you seem to think, I never said that so it's irrelevant. I CAN say "IF we lived in an area where these mushrooms didn't grow, THEN we couldn't have eaten them", and I will stick by that until you can demonstrate large-scale trade sufficient to carry edible mushrooms long distances in operation at the time in question (which is required in order to eat something that doesn't grow where you live). (And yes, I understand that the time in question isn't pinned down. Doesn't matter, really--pick a time, and if there's no large-scale trade sufficient to carry edible mushrooms long distances humans would still have been limited to what was grown more or less locally.)

What you're ignoring is that I'm not actually proposing a hypothesis about the ranges of humans or mushrooms here. Zeuzzz and I had a brief side-discussion on whether it's necessary for people to provide an alternative hypothesis in order to reject his hypothesis, and I maintain that it is not. I'm criticizing a line of reasoning, which is completely different from offering an alternative hypothesis. It's Zeuzzz's responsibility to demonstrate that our ancestors ate the mushrooms. He needs to provide geographic ranges for the species involved (to the best of our ability; I'll be the first to admit paleogeographic range data is a bit sketchy at times). Until he does that we can't conclude that anything built upon that foundation is right--and that means that my position, which has always been and continues to be "Not enough evidence", is the correct one.

Quote:
You can neither tell me where we were (what's our fossil record of the relevant time period? Hundreds of specimens or is even that a gross overestimate?)
Oh, no, it's a LOT more. Add to that the archaeological evidence and you can get an extremely good picture of where humans were when.

Quote:
nor what the range of the relevant mushrooms was back then (only that the range is wide at the present).
True enough, though I suspect it's partially due to the fact that I never attempted to do so. Fortunately for me, I don't need to. Because my position is not "Zeuzzz is wrong" but rather "There is insufficient data to accept Zeuzzz's conclusions", the fact that no one has provided any such maps is evidence in my favor. Those maps are the first step in providing enough data to accept or reject Zeuzzz's idea--without them, this idea doesn't rise to the level of being wrong.

My position is simple: The burdon of proof is on Zeuzzz and his ilk. Until they provide some evidence for their ideas, it's mere speculation and can be dismissed as such. I don't NEED to provide data about mushrooms; Zeuzzz does. He hasn't, so his idea lacks evidence to support it, so the idea can be dismissed.

I NEVER said that it was proven that humans didn't eat magic mushrooms. I said that Zeuzzz has offered no proof that we did. There is an enormous difference between those two statements. Even if Zeuzzz is right he hasn't given us enough data to honestly agree with him.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2012, 11:43 AM   #381
Bakers
New Blood
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13
(porch: "... I'm even more curious now as to where this event took place, where he felt safe enough in his position that he could come out as a liar. Because to me, this narrative is getting eerily close to a classic cult narrative ...")


porch – quick report. I was struck by your precision-point question about the occasion of that TM-Confidential vid. Yes - what considerations or conditions provide for ‘just us fringies’ covert security. I took up and followed your line of inquiry...

BTW, standing ovation for the ‘classic cult narrative’ analogy you drew, noting nuances - like complicity. You put your finger slam on key details, and issues inherent - like gearworks of indoctrination. Easily overlooked in their murkiness and nuance, and seldom zeroed in on. And that’s where the action is, I find. High five that.

Now I wonder about your background, specs. I’ve got Comparative Religion, Anthropology degrees etc. – some study advantages. Few folks are adequately informed about cults, thought control, etc, to know such stuff on sight, by its distinguishing features. Unlike yourself I gather. Bravo. My compliments on awesome critical analysis and question - highly perceptive and right on target.

So; I asked youtube uploader PRXVI, that question you realized. He kindly replied: “thanks. i don't know what the event was. a google search revealed nothing. if you find out, let me know.”

Now, I’m wondering what PRXVI’s source was for the place and date he gave for the vid (Boulder CO, 1992) – without citation. I conclude he didn’t record it himself; nor was there in person. I trust you’re well aware (correct me) - tracing info to its source is crucial to assess accuracy, reliability.

Neopsychedelia has a mirrored maze ‘funhouse’ laid out – helluva case in point. Job one turns out to be just double-checking facts to firmly establish them; not be duped. There’s enough tomfoolery to choke a horse. Chain of custody issues and forgeries of many types abound. With charming consequences up to and including injury and serious death, some cases.

Unreal how much purported ‘info’ turns out phoney, under x-ray, microscope etc. (not to mention polygraph) - especially stuff kindly served on silver platter, for our edification. All friendly - with every air of ‘no, really’ sincerity. And able to get well-meaning, perfectly intelligent folks going ‘back and forth’ pointlessly, not even realizing.

As Ruppelt said of ET-contactee Adamski – “he had the most honest pair of eyes you’ve ever seen” (1960, THE REPORT ON FLYING SAUCERS, 2nd ed.). But Ruppelt never met Terence.

1950’s, what a key decade. Social psychology, WHEN PROPHECY FAILS, cognitive dissonance etc (Festinger, 1956). And events like Korean POW surprises, that first made brain-washing a hot topic.

Commendation, porch. Yours presents a veritable model of acuity. Exactly the kind of pointed ‘devil in the details’ question-in-evidence, and inquiring mind it takes, to trace the outline of what’s what. And what isn’t.

Your question about how TM handles criticism is also deadly bullseye, squarely in evidence. Some sources on that you might find real inneresting – for starters, an article at Reality Sandwich called “2012 and the Watkins Objection to Terence McKenna’s Timewave Theory” – I’m confident your eye for detail, and spidey sense comprehension, will find it richly informative. The artful play-along he got from
TM, with various twists and turns - unreal (And followup, a podcast this past July called “Deep Dive” citing ‘vicious personal attacks’ on Watkins, for his questioning)

If acydhouse’s cool idea of a “Shroom” thread hatches out – I hope you’ll be party to it. My best to that guy too (will post reply, with thanks).
Bakers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 02:10 AM   #382
asydhouse
Graduate Poster
 
asydhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Swansea in the UK
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
I'm not merely saying it's plausible that someone could have done it but that it is implausible that no ancestor between a couple of hundred thousand years ago and a few million years ago never did. It's not merely plausible, it's extremely plausible and its converse is extremely implausible. I can say it with a hell of a lot more justification than people who look at !Kung, or the hunter gatherer group of the week, to speculate what earlier societies might have been like. The reason I can justify this is because the nature of the beast has not changed that much in all this time. We know that we'll eat anything we can get our hands on and there's no reason to think that it hasn't been the case for at least 200000 years.
And that's how we learned what was poison, and to avoid. In the context of survival, you wouldn't incapacitate yourself through ingesting that plant again, even if it wore off after a few hours and left you feeling strangely refreshed, the onset would not be a price worth paying.

This is in the context of our brains having yet to enlarge and complexify into what they are today, so primitive species might not even have properly tripped, but just got weird and deranged etc (not to mention the heaviness of digesting those mushrooms while they are coming on... it's heavy!)

Dr Letcher recounts the story in Shroom of a fellow in Victorian times who wrote an account of the effects he received from eating some wild mushrooms, which sound like the effects of psilocybin coming on viewed through the lens of someone who believes they are experiencing poison.... he was not happy, and did not go on to "peak" and wander in the Elysian fields of glory we think of as "tripping". To him, he was relieved to have recovered.

I suspect that would be the more likely response of our ancestors.
asydhouse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 02:54 AM   #383
asydhouse
Graduate Poster
 
asydhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Swansea in the UK
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by Bakers View Post

...

Neopsychedelia has a mirrored maze ‘funhouse’ laid out – helluva case in point. Job one turns out to be just double-checking facts to firmly establish them; not be duped. There’s enough tomfoolery to choke a horse. Chain of custody issues and forgeries of many types abound. With charming consequences up to and including injury and serious death, some cases.
At first glance "injury and serious death" is a humorous typo-type flummox, but on reflection, dying from ingesting psychedelic plants, while tripping.... that's a serious death. I've been over to Reality Sandwich following the link provided by Dancing Dave, and read your article there. I've read a couple of the comments pages, and oh boy! some fanatical raging going on! I had no idea such people were claiming the psychedelic "kingdom" for their own! A far cry from the 60s noble ideal of freeing the minds and spreading love and enlightenment.

This is what we get from the Establishment politicians banning psychedelics. Now the disenfranchised are automatically "Us" and the "Them" is anyone not our narrow "Us". I call it disg'us'ting! (Oops). But a natural result of being criminalised.

But what I wanted to say was that you handle them well, and to me you are clearly saying that honesty and integrity (and care) are the ground on which we need to stand in order to make sound progress. To my mind, any self-respecting psychedelic warrior should stand up for that!

Originally Posted by Bakers View Post
Unreal how much purported ‘info’ turns out phoney, under x-ray, microscope etc. (not to mention polygraph) - especially stuff kindly served on silver platter, for our edification. All friendly - with every air of ‘no, really’ sincerity. And able to get well-meaning, perfectly intelligent folks going ‘back and forth’ pointlessly, not even realizing.

As Ruppelt said of ET-contactee Adamski – “he had the most honest pair of eyes you’ve ever seen” (1960, THE REPORT ON FLYING SAUCERS, 2nd ed.). But Ruppelt never met Terence.
That naivety about how people look reflecting their inner mind has been the worm in many heavens... the most beatific, lovely looking "hippie" I ever met, with deep soulful "acid eyes", ripped off our entire squat and disappeared, even though many of us had known him for ages. There are many such tales I could tell!

Originally Posted by Bakers View Post

...

If acydhouse’s cool idea of a “Shroom” thread hatches out – I hope you’ll be party to it. My best to that guy too (will post reply, with thanks).
I hadn't actually proposed starting a thread, just asked if anyone had any thoughts about it.... but I guess a thread would be appropriate, as it's a slightly different subject to this particular thread. I don't feel like being the OP for such a thread though, as I'm about to have less time to spend around here over the next two months or so. Anyone else?
asydhouse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 04:48 AM   #384
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 35,746
Datura is more widespread and has a more widespread use amongst existing peoples. And made Bill gates along with Al Gore invent the internet.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 05:15 AM   #385
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,240
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Datura is more widespread and has a more widespread use amongst existing peoples. And made Bill gates along with Al Gore invent the internet.



Come again?

You do know the effect profile of deliriants like datura, don't you?
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 07:34 AM   #386
quarky
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,454
You wake up naked, miles from home.
quarky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 07:59 AM   #387
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland)
Posts: 10,319
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
I have a question. Do psychoactive chemicals cause genetic mutation in offspring?

Apologies if this has already been answered.
Some psychoactives are mutagenic or teratogenic, the effects aren't specifically linked.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 08:35 AM   #388
Bakers
New Blood
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13
(zzzzzzz: "Come again? You do know the effect profile of deliriants like datura, don't you?")

Sounds like someone is really working hard to duck, dodge, and avoid at all cost - the issue of stoned apes being a tissue of fabrications, i.e. deliberate deceit. For example the OP 'visual acuity from psilocybin' as faithfully recited, complete with citation to Fischer.

Newsflash: I think everybody knows stoned apes is a crass contrivance, false and misleading by intent, and effect (on True Believers). Cat's out of the bag - and while you're talking 'this and that' in high gear, it seems to have your tongue on this little matter of 'truth or consequences.'

I'm not saying don't act as if ... Show must go on; there's a sucker born every minute. Right? And if you have to try and change the subject, hurl yourself at that with all your might ... hey go ahead. Not saying you can't. All's I'm saying is - question: what do you hope to gain by transparent "look over there!" evasion?

I'm not complaining or criticizing, your choice is yours. I defend as such. I'm just asking - is this a fly paper thing - you're stuck, can't get off? Or are you a robot, programmed and unable to 'respond in that category'?

If stoned apes is so interesting, seems to me you'd be addressing its core issue -- deception and manipulation, psychologically driven. Wouldn't you? It seems instead, you're in 'bad acting' mode, seeking recourse in whatever else, affecting an air of nonchalance every step - seems kind of precious.

I assume you're basically just running away from any honesty or integrity of discussion as fast as you can. True, you can run from it, as we see. But do you figure you can hide? If so - where? Under the Brugmansia tree?

Not to unmask anything. Nor harm in you being told, direct and on the level, that I feel you're acting out in a very manipulative way, for purposes that you're not up front about. And I find they're not consistent or compliant with the purposes of this discussion forum, as set forth in the terms of registration. Glad we're having this little talk.
Bakers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 09:01 AM   #389
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by quarky View Post
You wake up naked, miles from home.
That really happened to friend of mine who was crazy enough to try Datura. He ended up in a police cell
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 10:17 AM   #390
porch
Muse
 
porch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 529
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post


Come again?
I'm glad that the truth came out about McKenna's intentions. At the same time, I almost regret that the conversation went from science to social studies, as it were. After all, a theory should stand on its own merit, right? It shouldn't matter if the originator of an idea made it all up as a deceit for personal gain, or whatever scenario we may like to imagine.

All this to say that, if you wish to continue to play it straight, I would like for you to answer the questions that have been proposed to you multiple times about the evidence for the geography having the right conditions at the right times for any of this to be even possible. And the conversation that was being held about how to determine the diets of the dead seemed interesting as well, and I don't think there's a need for it to stop.
porch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 12:54 PM   #391
cosmicaug
Critical Thinker
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by porch View Post
I'm glad that the truth came out about McKenna's intentions. At the same time, I almost regret that the conversation went from science to social studies, as it were. After all, a theory should stand on its own merit, right? It shouldn't matter if the originator of an idea made it all up as a deceit for personal gain, or whatever scenario we may like to imagine.
It really is irrelevant. All hypothesis are "made up". The problem here is, as has been pointed out repeatedly, that this one isn't even wrong.
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 01:04 PM   #392
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,665
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
It really is irrelevant. All hypothesis are "made up". The problem here is, as has been pointed out repeatedly, that this one isn't even wrong.
I disagree.

The issue here is the trustworthyness of the evidence. Scientists take fraud extremely seriously because science is based on providing high-quality evidence. No one can run every table-top physics experiment ever conducted for themselves, let alone multi-generational biological experiments or those involving multinational supercolliders or the like. We NEED to rely upon scientists presenting factual data, and when they don't we come down on them as hard as we possibly can. May not do any good to the perpetrator, but the fact that their lives are now ruined certainly acts as incentive to keep the less moral scientists from acting out their less noble fantasies.

In that light, the origin of this concept is completely relevant. It demonstrates that there is a definite bias, often to the point of fabricating data (or at the very least twisting it to the point where it's no longer recognizable). This, in turn, casts doubt upon the whole line of reasoning that the author quoted in the OP presents. Even if the conclusion is right THIS CHAIN OF REASONING is hopelessly flawed. And since it's the only one presented, we can dismiss the argument. When someone comes back with some good data, we can re-open the discussion.

That said, I agree that it's touched on some really interesting fields, and those certainly ARE worthy of discussion (and are the subject of active research).
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 01:17 PM   #393
quarky
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,454
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
That really happened to friend of mine who was crazy enough to try Datura. He ended up in a police cell
Hell, it really happened to every fool I know that tried it.
Jimson weed is a pernicious and plentiful plant where I live.
I pull it from my garden regularly, along with morning glories, and several other psychotropic plants.
We are surrounded with plants that have mind-altering alkaloids.
They are extremely common, and tough. Generally, the alkaloids in said plants, are there for protection against insect predation. Mostly, they aren't 'edible'.

Which is why I mentioned a realm of plant matter that won't quite kill you.
Some mushrooms definitely will. They grow in my yard. Some won't
quarky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 01:51 PM   #394
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 35,746
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post


Come again?

You do know the effect profile of deliriants like datura, don't you?
I wonder why it was called loco weed?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 04:37 PM   #395
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,856
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
I wonder why it was called loco weed?
Something to do with trains, probably
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 04:39 PM   #396
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,856
Originally Posted by Bakers View Post
...
I'm not saying don't act as if ... Show must go on; there's a sucker born every minute. Right? And if you have to try and change the subject, hurl yourself at that with all your might ... hey go ahead. Not saying you can't. All's I'm saying is - question: what do you hope to gain by transparent "look over there!" evasion?
...
It's his Standard Operating Procedure. Happens all the time.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2012, 04:53 PM   #397
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,240
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
I wonder why it was called loco weed?

I wonder why too.

An explanation, as it relates to Gates et al, would be great.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 02:32 AM   #398
asydhouse
Graduate Poster
 
asydhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Swansea in the UK
Posts: 1,201
Why aren't you conversing with Bakers, Zeuzzz?
asydhouse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 05:52 AM   #399
Bakers
New Blood
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13
asydhouse – hailing frequencies and high regards. May I first say thank you for a kind affirmation - your take on my animal-handling in the RS lion’s den. That's a welcome note of recognition, amid the territorial aggression tinged with fanaticism - as you note. Indeed that spectacle, per your reflection, poses a startling discrepancy from high ideals of 1960’s psychedelia.

And as I find - this cult-like post-Terence devolution in neopsychedelia seems a little-noticed lesion breaking out in our midst. Critically, I knew what situation was going in with that article, so it couldn’t catch me unprepared. Still, to glove up and deal with that bedlam isn’t gingerbread houses on Lollipop Lane. More like some psychotoxic Hazmat cleanup. Best know what you’re dealing with; use protective gear, sound procedures, etc.

The combo of anti-social schizoidy and glaring psychopathy I find under the wide-eyed mask of pseudopsychedelic bs ‘theorizing’ is quite an eye-opening pattern. It feeds on alienation and runs on cunning in large part - all strategy and stealth. Its avoided detection for the most part, so far; as I think reflects in your surprise to encounter it.

TM put a lot into his sheep skin ‘intellectual-theorizing’ costume (as FOTG well reflects). Just this fall TMism was on the march, making friends in academia - at a psychedelic conference at UPenn – quietly imitating study and inquiry. The exact trojan horse stunt McKenna brags about in that vid.

So if I may - a laurel for keen ethical awareness you express. It takes conscience to note, and moral integrity to remark on that fanatic-like aspect as overarching issue. When values are being implicitly confused - its time to expressly clarify them. Yet in our milieu, voices of ethical clarity and purpose are seldom heard. Maybe its always been thus? But when intelligent, seemingly well-meaning interest can be so easily exploited, obligingly misdirected to false premises with ulterior intent - I start to wonder if I’m in the Twilight Zone.

I question sharply whether con art and fraud have any respectable business with genuine pursuit of broader understanding. Whether a fake Picasso or Piltdown fossil, seems to me counterfeits need to be understood for what they are, and issues they pose realized clearly, even urgently sometimes. I don’t care how good a price I'm offered on Brooklyn Bridge, or how friendly its realtor. Deception and manipulation are not values, nor are their solicitations intellectual discussion, even if they try to mimic it.

So, applause for your ‘moral street smarts’ and standard of integrity. A salute for putting honesty first explicitly, when issue comes crawling - be it stoned apes, sci crea, ID, whatever. You set a refreshing exception, and admirable, by upholding principle, against attempts to erode it.

I gather you’ve had some enlightening experiences. A penny for any anecdotes and or reflections - whenever. I’d like to meet this (former) ‘friend’ of yours; sounds like quite a guy - not exactly exceptional. Seems to fit pattern; sheep clothing.

The whole big psychedelic-related magilla seems to harbor, in fact conceal I find, a thousand subjects for inquiring perspectives. From psychedelics per se to the larger social and cultural, expansively broader human dimensions. Whether “Letcher factor” or whatever, I’m good any angle. Its not often I meet up with informed interest not reeled into the ‘movement’ as its devolved, recent decades. Like porch too; exceptional. Mostly it seems those who’ve read FOTG, are its enraptured, all reeled in and now in turn casting its lines wherever fishing looks good (like here at JREF).

Cool crossing paths here with some folks who know of and about this stuff; maybe even perceive some web it weaves – especially with psychedelia now spun up into it, caught in its beam; like this 2012 thing – another ‘contribution’ of Terence (great – thanks a lot).

I hope that two-month circumstance you allude to is of good fortune. Rather than - whatever else life and the world holds; all surprises great and ... not so great.

PS – regards to dlorde – OP / SOP – the profile of TMism is strategic, operational tactics top to bottom. Study of technical intelligence (covert operations, ploys etc) proves as important as anthro, archeo, myco and botany – all the stuff it codes it messages in. I’ve find forensic-like approach needed - saavy in archeo, anthro, myco and botany – for a ‘theory’ smells like a crime scene in crafty disguise.

Hey zzzzzz – I’d like know too, how come you’re not answering question about your purpose in broadcasting that ‘stoned apes’ gospel, and not correcting gross misinfo you’re standing on? If you’re not here to discuss this “stoned apes” thing, why do you bring it here for discussion? Just wonderin’ – could theorize, but rather ask. Inquiring mind here, wants to know, straight from trojan horse’s mouth – does cat have its tongue?

Last edited by Bakers; 15th December 2012 at 06:41 AM. Reason: spelling
Bakers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 06:20 AM   #400
Bakers
New Blood
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 13
Hear hear, Dinwar.

I appreciate the emphasis and questioning you take up. We do adduce hypotheses, i.e. 'make them up' but - not any old way. And certainly not from counterfeit data, or 'whole cloth.' The observations and evidence can't be fake.

What a scenario, when critical validity and authenticity are in crosshairs, targeted for elimination as obstacles to a purpose. Like, a predator wanting into a herd so it can get right up close for easy pickins ...

porch, I hope the sense of 'almost regret' doesn't weigh too heavily. It is indeed a disappointment, I've felt it. I don't know why a guy interested in natural and social sciences, as methods of inquiry, for tools and theoretical frameworks they provide - should end up having to study intel/cointel, and crime scene investigation ... just to get to to bottom of a 'theory.'

Subtle twist consideration, from my pov - I might submit for your approval: a theory right or wrong, needs to be a theory not a 'theory' (baited decoy) - demanding attention like its entitled, owed - maybe wanting in on textbooks and curricula, etc. Otherwise we inherit an erosion of intellectual integrity and authenticity of inquiry - TM's dread nemesis, the "paradigm of Western civilization" - a harvest of rotten fruit. Best regards.
Bakers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.