For a fun logical proof that proves why you can't use logical proofs for philosophical questions, see the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" by Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Spoiler: logic is inherently limited by language. To quote Russell,
"In order to understand Mr Wittgenstein’s book, it is necessary to realize what is the problem with which he is concerned. In the part of his theory which deals with Symbolism he is concerned with the conditions which would have to be fulfilled by a logically perfect language. There are various problems as regards language. First, there is the problem what actually occurs in our minds when we use language with the intention of meaning something by it; this problem belongs to psychology. Secondly, there is the problem as to what is the relation subsisting between thoughts, words, or sentences, and that which they refer to or mean; this problem belongs to epistemology. Thirdly, there is the problem of using sentences so as to convey truth rather than falsehood; this belongs to the special sciences dealing with the subject-matter of the sentences in question. Fourthly, there is the question: what relation must one fact(such as a sentence) have to another in order to be capable of being a symbol for that other? This last is a logical question, and is the one with which Mr Wittgenstein is concerned. He is concerned with the conditions for accurate Symbolism, i.e. for Symbolism in which a sentence “means” something quite definite. In practice, language is always more or less vague, so that what we assert is never quite precise."
First of all, whether "getting high", as you put it, is or is not the best "available" therapy for depression is debatable, and not known at this time. Ketamine has definitely shown to be much more effective against certain kinds of depression than therapy, and much quicker acting, and I wouldn't doubt that psilocybin might also be.
But more to the point, you were asserting that the effects of the drugs were secondary to the therapy associated with them, to which I strongly disagree with. The action of the drug itself is main driver of its therapeutic potential, specifically that of "breaking" normal heuristic patterns of activity, suppressing others, and allowing more inter-region connections and plasticity to flourish where non existed before. Most people can't do that very easily, if at all , with just therapy, meditation, diet, and exercise or whatever. However, I -CAN- do that, quite easily and without effort, without the guidance of a therapist or anything else, by simply eating some mushrooms and letting them do their thing.
You realize that drug tests don't detect psychedelics. And it's ridiculously easy to grow your own psilocybin mushrooms (the spores for which are legal to purchase in all states except California, Georgia, and Idaho) if you're worried about the supply chain.
Seriously, the responses in this thread are just embarrassing. It's like listening to purity-ring wearing adolescent virgins talk about sex.
Most of the people I know wouldn't think twice about dropping some l or shrooms on a weekend with some ketamine and a hit of DMT, and we all have respectable jobs and families. It's just not that big of a deal.
I'm Garrett. As stated in my quote, I was already in the library all day for the air-conditioning, and thought this would be a fun way to waste some time. My submission was the "Internet based resource retrieval system (No. 8996546)" highlighted in the article. It was honestly shocking how obvious of a patent it was, it basically just described an online yellow pages. I could find one of those before 2004, easy. Internet Archive wayback machine, away!
I -really- could have used the winnings back then, (I made my submission ~4 years ago), but hey, it all worked out in the end. I'm an SRE living in SF now, with my own apartment in a nice neighborhood. Still no AC though.
I'm one of the bigger winners, for the "Internet based resource retrieval system (No. 8996546)" patent they highlighted in the article. Probably one of the coolest things I've ever participated in; special thanks to Cloudfare for organizing such a clever competition for a such a worthy cause. I hope other companies are able to follow their example to leverage the community to help solve these kinds of problems. For generous rewards, of course ;-p
Practice meditation long enough and you will know what a shitshow the mind is at any given second. Go even further, and you'll start to pick up on the shit-tornado the subconscious mind is.
I thought part of the fun of having a cat is the claws. I really don't understand how people could mutilate their supposed loved ones like this, it's barbaric.
It's a nitpick, but also a deal killer for me. The way Firefox behaves when you click the address bar on Android absolutely infuriates me. The way chrome immediately clears the address, and gives you buttons to either copy the current address to clipboard, share, or edit, is brilliant and makes it a joy to use. Therefore I use chrome.
I use a dot grid bullet journal with multiple colored fountain pens. I find it addresses most of your concerns whilst being flexible enough to accommodate any deviation you can dream of, without any dependencies on technological solutions. It's dated, organized, consolidated, efficient, flexible, portable, with room for artistic expression, and it gets you away from your monitor and keyboard and phone.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5740/5740-pdf.pdf Introduction by Bertrand Russell
Spoiler: logic is inherently limited by language. To quote Russell, "In order to understand Mr Wittgenstein’s book, it is necessary to realize what is the problem with which he is concerned. In the part of his theory which deals with Symbolism he is concerned with the conditions which would have to be fulfilled by a logically perfect language. There are various problems as regards language. First, there is the problem what actually occurs in our minds when we use language with the intention of meaning something by it; this problem belongs to psychology. Secondly, there is the problem as to what is the relation subsisting between thoughts, words, or sentences, and that which they refer to or mean; this problem belongs to epistemology. Thirdly, there is the problem of using sentences so as to convey truth rather than falsehood; this belongs to the special sciences dealing with the subject-matter of the sentences in question. Fourthly, there is the question: what relation must one fact(such as a sentence) have to another in order to be capable of being a symbol for that other? This last is a logical question, and is the one with which Mr Wittgenstein is concerned. He is concerned with the conditions for accurate Symbolism, i.e. for Symbolism in which a sentence “means” something quite definite. In practice, language is always more or less vague, so that what we assert is never quite precise."