Psilocybin Produced in Yeast(phys.org)
phys.org
Psilocybin Produced in Yeast
https://phys.org/news/2020-04-psychedelic-compound-magic-mushrooms-yeast.html
213 comments
There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin.
Dosage is important. There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose.
Argument fallacies:
* your anecdotal positive experiences
* suggesting superiority because something is "from nature"
* referring to "mistakes from the past" without naming any
* suggesting superiority that "has been (done) for thousands of years"
Think about why these kinds of arguments are made on different topics which you disagree with and then rethink why you are making them here.
Dosage is important. There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose.
Argument fallacies:
* your anecdotal positive experiences
* suggesting superiority because something is "from nature"
* referring to "mistakes from the past" without naming any
* suggesting superiority that "has been (done) for thousands of years"
Think about why these kinds of arguments are made on different topics which you disagree with and then rethink why you are making them here.
> There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin.
> referring to ["mistakes from the past"] without naming any
You just did the same, didn't you?
> Dosage is important. There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose.
Of course there is. You just have to mix the mushrooms well and then measure potency of a sample.
That's equivalent to how drugs are produced by the way. They produce the drug and then mix it with something inert fx.
> your anecdotal positive experiences
He transparently identifies his a.p.ex. as such. Then it's not a fallacy ... It's an experience. And I like to read about those and do not appreciate condescending replies like yours OTOH.
> referring to ["mistakes from the past"] without naming any
You just did the same, didn't you?
> Dosage is important. There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose.
Of course there is. You just have to mix the mushrooms well and then measure potency of a sample.
That's equivalent to how drugs are produced by the way. They produce the drug and then mix it with something inert fx.
> your anecdotal positive experiences
He transparently identifies his a.p.ex. as such. Then it's not a fallacy ... It's an experience. And I like to read about those and do not appreciate condescending replies like yours OTOH.
>You just did the same, didn't you?
No, the side effects are readily available and specific factual data. If you asked ten people to figure out what they were you'd get ten very similar answers.
"Mistakes from the past" on the other hand was completely without context that would point anyone to do better than guess what was being referenced.
No, the side effects are readily available and specific factual data. If you asked ten people to figure out what they were you'd get ten very similar answers.
"Mistakes from the past" on the other hand was completely without context that would point anyone to do better than guess what was being referenced.
> There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin.
You're still owing at least one example for this statement.
What side effects do you get from shrooms that you don't get from pure psilocin or one of its prodrugs?
You're still owing at least one example for this statement.
What side effects do you get from shrooms that you don't get from pure psilocin or one of its prodrugs?
Haven't tried pure psilocybin but I occasionally have gut discomfort which I think comes from the fibers, rather than the psilocybin.
There are various ways to ingest mushrooms. Having said that - let me assure you, the problem is not just from the fibers it's very well the substance itself. One reason is the activation of serotonin receptors of which there are huge numbers in your gut.
Interesting. I think LSD works on Serotonin too? But it has much less body load in my experience (at least, the unpleasant kind I associate with psilocybin).
Yes, absolutely. LSD shows mostly a higher binding affinity to the various 5HT-receptors.
https://psychedelicreview.com/the-serotonin-receptors-compar...
https://psychedelicreview.com/the-serotonin-receptors-compar...
I have heard that LSD can cause stomach cramping with people who already are prone to stomach issues/IBS/etc. Not something I've personally experienced.
You'll find nausea and vomiting in just about every discussion about consuming psilocybin mushrooms.
But not just mushrooms - also from psilocin prodrugs like 4-Aco-DMT (also psilocybin is such a prodrug):
https://www.reddit.com/r/researchchemicals/comments/51sbpf/h...
Just google "4 aco dmt nausea" and you'll find more reports than Anne Jones can read in a week.
If you want to learn more about the reasons then serotonin receptors and their distribution in your body would be a place to start your investigation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/researchchemicals/comments/51sbpf/h...
Just google "4 aco dmt nausea" and you'll find more reports than Anne Jones can read in a week.
If you want to learn more about the reasons then serotonin receptors and their distribution in your body would be a place to start your investigation.
I know this statement is false, because I've read thousands of discussions.
I challenge you to attempt to prove your assertion with evidence. If you make an attempt, you will quickly realize that you are objectively incorrect.
And then, in light of that realization, perhaps there may be value in reviewing and contemplating, at length, your earlier statement:
> Think about why these kinds of arguments are made on different topics which you disagree with and then rethink why you are making them here.
I challenge you to attempt to prove your assertion with evidence. If you make an attempt, you will quickly realize that you are objectively incorrect.
And then, in light of that realization, perhaps there may be value in reviewing and contemplating, at length, your earlier statement:
> Think about why these kinds of arguments are made on different topics which you disagree with and then rethink why you are making them here.
https://psychedelicreview.com/why-do-magic-mushrooms-cause-n...
It would seem that at least some people think Nausea is a problem.
It would seem that at least some people think Nausea is a problem.
Claim: "You'll find nausea and vomiting in just about every discussion about consuming psilocybin mushrooms.
Challenge: "I know this statement is false, because I've read thousands of discussions. I challenge you to attempt to prove your assertion with evidence. If you make an attempt, you will quickly realize that you are objectively incorrect."
Response (from the claimant, thus far): <null>
Reply (third party): "It would seem that at least some people think Nausea is a problem."
Key distinguishing phrases: "just about every", "some"
Result: Downvote the person who speaks precisely, and objectively correctly.
To those who disagree, first consider how one might physically implement a test of the initial assertion: "You will find <x> or <y> in ~every <discussion about consuming psilocybin mushrooms>".
Might this work: [CountOf forum posts for <DateRange>] - [CountOf forum posts containing keywords for <DateRange>]
Does it seem likely that CountOfKeywordHits / CountOfTotalPosts is going to be up in the range of ~"just about every"? I'm guessing no.
Consequence: Here is where my point lies. If people on HN can't be bothered to not only speak/read accurately and precisely, but punish (downvote, vilify, throttle, stonewall) those who do so (or advocate for such ideas), what might be the general quality of ideas that get persisted in people's minds as a consequence of reading the information that exists in such an environment?
And if this is happening on HN, imagine what the state of affairs is on other platforms (Reddit, Facebook, the media, etc). Now, compare this idea ("facts" that people consume are often literally incorrect) to the current level of ~"general understanding" the broader public seems to exhibit when it comes to the "accurate understanding of relevant facts related to what is going on", across a wide range of important topics (something that seems to come up in discussion, now and then). Might some correlations appear?
And if we looked a bit harder, might a plausibly causative relationship be observable, to some degree? Does the idea that people's internal mental model is affected by the quality of information they consume seem implausible, or controversial? Or, does this perhaps vary based on which (out)group of people we're talking about?
But wait...how true is "facts that people consume are often literally incorrect"? This seems like a rather extraordinary claim. And you know what they say about extraordinary claims!
Again, consider how one might physically implement a test of this extraordinary assertion? Not so simple as doing a keyword search this time. I know of no AI that could do it. Maybe it would require a manual analysis. So, here's an interesting idea: let's say one was to go through this entire thread, and tag each post with a boolean or score indicating the epistemic soundness of claims made within it.
Heck, while we're at it, what others dimensions might yield some interesting output? And if we're going to do one thread, why not do 5 or 10, picking topics from a variety of subject areas, including ones that are bound to be controversial, but are simultaneously extremely important public matters (environment, pandemics, politics, tax policy, etc), where the concerns of people who advocate for old-fashioned ideas like high quality discourse, precision in speech and interpretation, and intellectual honesty, can't be so easily dismissed/framed as stupid, a waste of time, invoking flame wars, "gish-galloping", etc.
So, considering this scenario, what would an analysis of actual written words, consistently interpreted in accordance with the HN guidelines, reveal to us of what is going on in our community? If we did the same thing in other communities, what might we find there? How confident is everyone here that our sense-making is so much superior to that of the <various outgroups> that are commonly mocked for their "lack of intelligence", and tendency to "believe whatever they uncritically read online"? I for one would like to find this out. I wonder if anyone else would. I wonder if anyone cares.
But enough gish-galloping for one day. I imagine I'm just concerned about nothing, things are really not all that bad out in the real world. Most likely, everything is not only mostly under control, but getting better on a daily basis. And besides, it's not like any of this is our responsibility. No, every problem that does exist in the world is someone else's fault. The world isn't what we make of it, it is what the others make of it. As it has always been, and as it will always be.
Challenge: "I know this statement is false, because I've read thousands of discussions. I challenge you to attempt to prove your assertion with evidence. If you make an attempt, you will quickly realize that you are objectively incorrect."
Response (from the claimant, thus far): <null>
Reply (third party): "It would seem that at least some people think Nausea is a problem."
Key distinguishing phrases: "just about every", "some"
Result: Downvote the person who speaks precisely, and objectively correctly.
To those who disagree, first consider how one might physically implement a test of the initial assertion: "You will find <x> or <y> in ~every <discussion about consuming psilocybin mushrooms>".
Might this work: [CountOf forum posts for <DateRange>] - [CountOf forum posts containing keywords for <DateRange>]
Does it seem likely that CountOfKeywordHits / CountOfTotalPosts is going to be up in the range of ~"just about every"? I'm guessing no.
Consequence: Here is where my point lies. If people on HN can't be bothered to not only speak/read accurately and precisely, but punish (downvote, vilify, throttle, stonewall) those who do so (or advocate for such ideas), what might be the general quality of ideas that get persisted in people's minds as a consequence of reading the information that exists in such an environment?
And if this is happening on HN, imagine what the state of affairs is on other platforms (Reddit, Facebook, the media, etc). Now, compare this idea ("facts" that people consume are often literally incorrect) to the current level of ~"general understanding" the broader public seems to exhibit when it comes to the "accurate understanding of relevant facts related to what is going on", across a wide range of important topics (something that seems to come up in discussion, now and then). Might some correlations appear?
And if we looked a bit harder, might a plausibly causative relationship be observable, to some degree? Does the idea that people's internal mental model is affected by the quality of information they consume seem implausible, or controversial? Or, does this perhaps vary based on which (out)group of people we're talking about?
But wait...how true is "facts that people consume are often literally incorrect"? This seems like a rather extraordinary claim. And you know what they say about extraordinary claims!
Again, consider how one might physically implement a test of this extraordinary assertion? Not so simple as doing a keyword search this time. I know of no AI that could do it. Maybe it would require a manual analysis. So, here's an interesting idea: let's say one was to go through this entire thread, and tag each post with a boolean or score indicating the epistemic soundness of claims made within it.
Heck, while we're at it, what others dimensions might yield some interesting output? And if we're going to do one thread, why not do 5 or 10, picking topics from a variety of subject areas, including ones that are bound to be controversial, but are simultaneously extremely important public matters (environment, pandemics, politics, tax policy, etc), where the concerns of people who advocate for old-fashioned ideas like high quality discourse, precision in speech and interpretation, and intellectual honesty, can't be so easily dismissed/framed as stupid, a waste of time, invoking flame wars, "gish-galloping", etc.
So, considering this scenario, what would an analysis of actual written words, consistently interpreted in accordance with the HN guidelines, reveal to us of what is going on in our community? If we did the same thing in other communities, what might we find there? How confident is everyone here that our sense-making is so much superior to that of the <various outgroups> that are commonly mocked for their "lack of intelligence", and tendency to "believe whatever they uncritically read online"? I for one would like to find this out. I wonder if anyone else would. I wonder if anyone cares.
But enough gish-galloping for one day. I imagine I'm just concerned about nothing, things are really not all that bad out in the real world. Most likely, everything is not only mostly under control, but getting better on a daily basis. And besides, it's not like any of this is our responsibility. No, every problem that does exist in the world is someone else's fault. The world isn't what we make of it, it is what the others make of it. As it has always been, and as it will always be.
You're right, the "just about every" is unproveable. But you can't win the argument that nausea and vomiting isn't a concern by saying that the use of "just about every discussion" is wrong, and if you've decided to focus on that aspect you've now switched the topic. I doubt very much the original author intended that to be a scientific fact, and more of a expression of its prevalence. Where some see accuracy others see pedantry and an attempt to exclude an otherwise point simply because of inaccurate language. Also, I didn't attempt to defend the "every", but instead re-frame the claim in more balanced terms, which proves that, at least for some, it's a concern.
> You're right, the "just about every" is unproveable.
(This looks like another assertion! But I digress.)
I don't recall saying that. In fact, my actual words convey the exact opposite meaning (at least to my interpretation):
>> I challenge you to attempt to [prove] your [assertion] with evidence. If you make an attempt, you will quickly realize that you are [objectively incorrect].
Perhaps something was lost in translation along the way? Having a very open mind, I am a big believer that such ambitious things (and many more!) are possible, but such optimistic ideas seem to not be very popular nowadays. Under certain scenarios at least.
But anyways....are you sure?
I can agree, at least not with the explicit specifications we currently have. But then again, it wasn't my assertion, so why is it I who must bear the burden of these shortcomings? Does that seems fair? Or, am I looking at it wrong?
Here is how I would approach this sort of a problem - I like to first put on my thinking cap, and think, much as one might do when writing code at work.
The assertion: "You'll [find] [nausea and vomiting] in [[just about] [every] [discussion]] [about consuming psilocybin mushrooms]."
I've added some highlights around words and phrases, in an attempt to facilitate more precise communication over this limited medium.
Let's try this:
Wait a minute. I've arbitrarily decided what the interpretation of "just about every" is. Who do I think I am!!!
We can't look it up, because there's no commonly accepted meaning. What to do!
Well, how about this:
Now, you and @colechristensen can decide among yourselves what an acceptable value is for [percentageCutoff] - I'm not concerned about that aspect of it.
> But you can't win the argument [that nausea and vomiting isn't a concern] by saying that the use of "just about every discussion" is wrong...
100% correct, and I am in complete agreement.
> ...and if you've decided to focus on that aspect [you've now switched the topic].
Oh? Is it I who've switched the topic? (Also...is this yet another assertion? Oh, never mind.)
By my reading of this thread, it seems to me that that assertion was higher up in the thread. Specifically, here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22921923
...and I addressed it here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22923036
(You may also note that I received no response to my rebuttal. But I did receive a downvote, so that's something!)
The assertion we are actually dealing with in this sub-thread, is: "You'll find nausea and vomiting in just about every discussion about consuming psilocybin mushrooms."
Perhaps I should have explicitly quoted the assertion so as to minimize that possibility for misinterpretation. I will try to be more precise in the future. But then on the other hand, being precise seems (as far as I can tell, which is not very well judging by voting and responses) to be not terribly popular around here, despite it being a forum consisting of a high concentration of developers.
> I doubt very much the original author intended that to be a scientific fact, and more of a expression of its prevalence.
Is this my fault as well? If no meaning can be accurately derived from a statement, and reasonable inferences are not allowed, then what is the point of engaging in conversations at all using this language? Just for fun? (And I mean that question literally.)
(This looks like another assertion! But I digress.)
I don't recall saying that. In fact, my actual words convey the exact opposite meaning (at least to my interpretation):
>> I challenge you to attempt to [prove] your [assertion] with evidence. If you make an attempt, you will quickly realize that you are [objectively incorrect].
Perhaps something was lost in translation along the way? Having a very open mind, I am a big believer that such ambitious things (and many more!) are possible, but such optimistic ideas seem to not be very popular nowadays. Under certain scenarios at least.
But anyways....are you sure?
I can agree, at least not with the explicit specifications we currently have. But then again, it wasn't my assertion, so why is it I who must bear the burden of these shortcomings? Does that seems fair? Or, am I looking at it wrong?
Here is how I would approach this sort of a problem - I like to first put on my thinking cap, and think, much as one might do when writing code at work.
The assertion: "You'll [find] [nausea and vomiting] in [[just about] [every] [discussion]] [about consuming psilocybin mushrooms]."
I've added some highlights around words and phrases, in an attempt to facilitate more precise communication over this limited medium.
Let's try this:
private bool isJustAboutEvery (int subjectHitCount, int totalDiscussionCount ) {
return ( (subjectHitCount / totalDiscussionCount) > .8 );
}
Wait a minute. I've arbitrarily decided what the interpretation of "just about every" is. Who do I think I am!!!
We can't look it up, because there's no commonly accepted meaning. What to do!
Well, how about this:
private bool isJustAboutEvery (int subjectHitCount, int totalDiscussionCount, int percentageCutoff ) {
return ( (subjectHitCount / totalDiscussionCount) > ( percentageCutoff / 100 );
}
Now, you and @colechristensen can decide among yourselves what an acceptable value is for [percentageCutoff] - I'm not concerned about that aspect of it.
> But you can't win the argument [that nausea and vomiting isn't a concern] by saying that the use of "just about every discussion" is wrong...
100% correct, and I am in complete agreement.
> ...and if you've decided to focus on that aspect [you've now switched the topic].
Oh? Is it I who've switched the topic? (Also...is this yet another assertion? Oh, never mind.)
By my reading of this thread, it seems to me that that assertion was higher up in the thread. Specifically, here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22921923
...and I addressed it here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22923036
(You may also note that I received no response to my rebuttal. But I did receive a downvote, so that's something!)
The assertion we are actually dealing with in this sub-thread, is: "You'll find nausea and vomiting in just about every discussion about consuming psilocybin mushrooms."
Perhaps I should have explicitly quoted the assertion so as to minimize that possibility for misinterpretation. I will try to be more precise in the future. But then on the other hand, being precise seems (as far as I can tell, which is not very well judging by voting and responses) to be not terribly popular around here, despite it being a forum consisting of a high concentration of developers.
> I doubt very much the original author intended that to be a scientific fact, and more of a expression of its prevalence.
Is this my fault as well? If no meaning can be accurately derived from a statement, and reasonable inferences are not allowed, then what is the point of engaging in conversations at all using this language? Just for fun? (And I mean that question literally.)
> He transparently identifies his a.p.ex. as such. Then it's not a fallacy ... It's an experience.
It's an experience which we have no reason to think is representative.
> Of course there is. You just have to mix the mushrooms well and then measure potency of a sample.
How is this highly artificial process any better than making a pill?
I can tell you one way it's worse: What else is in the mushrooms? How do you know what else is in the mushrooms?
It's an experience which we have no reason to think is representative.
> Of course there is. You just have to mix the mushrooms well and then measure potency of a sample.
How is this highly artificial process any better than making a pill?
I can tell you one way it's worse: What else is in the mushrooms? How do you know what else is in the mushrooms?
> It's an experience which we have no reason to think is representative.
That's the very nature of "experiences" and some might argue precisely the point of describing those.
> How is this highly artificial process any better than making a pill?
Never said that. Do you even know what you mean by "pill" in this context?
> I can tell you one way it's worse: What else is in the mushrooms? How do you know what else is in the mushrooms?
Maybe you should read the article first?
"Psilocybin mushrooms have been found to have minimal harmful effects and could potentially benefit those with depression."
They want to reproduce a mushroom trip - not a trip based on individual psychoactive substances.
That's the very nature of "experiences" and some might argue precisely the point of describing those.
> How is this highly artificial process any better than making a pill?
Never said that. Do you even know what you mean by "pill" in this context?
> I can tell you one way it's worse: What else is in the mushrooms? How do you know what else is in the mushrooms?
Maybe you should read the article first?
"Psilocybin mushrooms have been found to have minimal harmful effects and could potentially benefit those with depression."
They want to reproduce a mushroom trip - not a trip based on individual psychoactive substances.
> That's the very nature of "experiences" and some might argue precisely the point of describing those.
It's also why we need controlled experiments.
> Never said that. Do you even know what you mean by "pill" in this context?
Of course I do: A pill with a controlled amount of the active ingredients and a neutral binder.
> Maybe you should read the article first?
Maybe you should stop trying to condescend to me and answer the question?
> They want to reproduce a mushroom trip
Obviously not. They want to treat mental disorders.
It's also why we need controlled experiments.
> Never said that. Do you even know what you mean by "pill" in this context?
Of course I do: A pill with a controlled amount of the active ingredients and a neutral binder.
> Maybe you should read the article first?
Maybe you should stop trying to condescend to me and answer the question?
> They want to reproduce a mushroom trip
Obviously not. They want to treat mental disorders.
>There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin.
Such as? It tastes bad? Mild gastrointestinal effects (which can happen with various psychedelic substances even without ingesting the fungus scaffolding)?
> suggesting superiority because something is "from nature"
Obviously something being natural does not make it better. Neither does something synthetic mean it's superior. Additionally, this probably comes from marinol/dronabinol - while marijuana has one of the best safety profiles of any substances, extracted THC does not.
Organic magic mushrooms have an exceptionally high (physical) safety profile (see Nutt et al, the Lancet 2007) whereas the same is not true for extracted psilocin. It's a bit ironic you're calling him out for fallacies while committing some yourself.
Such as? It tastes bad? Mild gastrointestinal effects (which can happen with various psychedelic substances even without ingesting the fungus scaffolding)?
> suggesting superiority because something is "from nature"
Obviously something being natural does not make it better. Neither does something synthetic mean it's superior. Additionally, this probably comes from marinol/dronabinol - while marijuana has one of the best safety profiles of any substances, extracted THC does not.
Organic magic mushrooms have an exceptionally high (physical) safety profile (see Nutt et al, the Lancet 2007) whereas the same is not true for extracted psilocin. It's a bit ironic you're calling him out for fallacies while committing some yourself.
Couldn’t dosage be averaged out by simply drying, “powdering”, and mixing the mushrooms as batches? I think similar is used in winemaking.
This is what people do exactly.
That would ensure the amount of psilocybin is more evenly distributed across the material, but you still wouldn’t know exactly how much psilocybin you’re getting per dose.
How is that highly artificial process any better than making a pill?
Plus, how do you know what other ingredients are in the mushrooms?
Plus, how do you know what other ingredients are in the mushrooms?
The cannabis industry has learned that "what other ingredients" are in the cannabis has a significant effect on the high produced by THC. This is known as the entourage effect. You simply do not get the full benefits with THC alone.
Amen. Legal in Canada so I've messed around with a few different types of edible solutions. The whole extract (i.e. using butter and then making brownies) hits way differently than isolated chemicals.
We'll need to figure out what those ingredients are, and how they work, and what negative effects they have.
Otherwise, we're being extremely unwise, and setting ourselves up for serious problems later.
Otherwise, we're being extremely unwise, and setting ourselves up for serious problems later.
Or you could just do longitudinal studies on the thousands of people who voluntarily consume these things without apparent ill effect. They don’t appear to be immediately toxic so any risk here is fairly long term. Lots of anecdata self-reporting on Erowid.
Your argument is logical I guess, but we are not logical creatures and I prefer to make the choice to live in a more magical/spiritual world. Why wouldn't you? We end up in the dirt either way.
kaolti(1)
>> Why over complicate it by trying to “extract” the psilocybin instead of treating it like marijuana and growing the mushrooms in highly controlled settings and then testing for potency?!
> There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin.
True. However, are these negative side effects significant enough that purified psilocybin is a necessity, in all cases?
If so, what are these negative side effects, and is there significant net evidence (that includes degree of ~harm) sufficient to form a strong conclusion that purified psilocybin is a necessity, that does not also include personal opinions/judgements of persons other than an informed patient?
> Dosage is important.
Sure, to a degree.
However, is there sufficient net evidence that dosage precision (above that which can be achieved via simpler approaches) necessitates the usage of purified psilocybin?
If so, can you link this evidence?
> There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose.
See above.
> Argument fallacies:
> * your anecdotal positive experiences
When dealing with compounds whose effects are extremely phenomenological and inconsistent/variable between applications, anecdotal experiences seem not only valid, but mandatory for proper scientific study.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_experience#Basic_p...
> * suggesting superiority because something is "from nature"
Framing advocacy for traditional, simple, affordable, and well-tested approaches as ~"illogical appeals to nature" is also a fallacy, and can be worse. (Not saying you're personally doing this, just as you aren't accusing anyone in particular for the fallacies you have listed).
> * referring to "mistakes from the past" without naming any
Perfectly fine. But let's not pretend all sides in debates aren't often guilty of this sort of behavior.
> * suggesting superiority that "has been (done) for thousands of years"
Implying that a long track record of success is irrelevant is also a fallacy, as is framing a reference to this track record as "fallacious".
> Think about why these kinds of arguments are made on different topics which you disagree with and then rethink why you are making them here.
I would suggest you rethink whether that accusation is objectively true, based on the literal words written, as opposed to your subconscious mind's interpretation of the words.
I would also suggest you rethink the quality and validity of your ~rejection of the parent's relatively innocuous suggestion, and also contemplate whether this level of thinking and discourse is appropriate for the gravity of the topic being discussed, and consistent with the principles of objective rationality and truthfulness this forum proclaims to uphold.
> There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin.
True. However, are these negative side effects significant enough that purified psilocybin is a necessity, in all cases?
If so, what are these negative side effects, and is there significant net evidence (that includes degree of ~harm) sufficient to form a strong conclusion that purified psilocybin is a necessity, that does not also include personal opinions/judgements of persons other than an informed patient?
> Dosage is important.
Sure, to a degree.
However, is there sufficient net evidence that dosage precision (above that which can be achieved via simpler approaches) necessitates the usage of purified psilocybin?
If so, can you link this evidence?
> There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose.
See above.
> Argument fallacies:
> * your anecdotal positive experiences
When dealing with compounds whose effects are extremely phenomenological and inconsistent/variable between applications, anecdotal experiences seem not only valid, but mandatory for proper scientific study.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_experience#Basic_p...
> * suggesting superiority because something is "from nature"
Framing advocacy for traditional, simple, affordable, and well-tested approaches as ~"illogical appeals to nature" is also a fallacy, and can be worse. (Not saying you're personally doing this, just as you aren't accusing anyone in particular for the fallacies you have listed).
> * referring to "mistakes from the past" without naming any
Perfectly fine. But let's not pretend all sides in debates aren't often guilty of this sort of behavior.
> * suggesting superiority that "has been (done) for thousands of years"
Implying that a long track record of success is irrelevant is also a fallacy, as is framing a reference to this track record as "fallacious".
> Think about why these kinds of arguments are made on different topics which you disagree with and then rethink why you are making them here.
I would suggest you rethink whether that accusation is objectively true, based on the literal words written, as opposed to your subconscious mind's interpretation of the words.
I would also suggest you rethink the quality and validity of your ~rejection of the parent's relatively innocuous suggestion, and also contemplate whether this level of thinking and discourse is appropriate for the gravity of the topic being discussed, and consistent with the principles of objective rationality and truthfulness this forum proclaims to uphold.
Fair you pointed out but with no implied criticism, those are the exact arguments one should expect from a psilocybin user.
Why is that? Do you think they are less sensical than non-users? Or are you implying that the author was under the influence at the time of writing?
There seem to be a specific cluster of personality traits found frequently in hallucinogen users. Whether a selection of who takes the drugs, who talks about it after, or a common effect of the drugs and how they're taken. Someone presently under the influence would probably say something stranger.
What seems likely is that they're very potent tools to change how the mind works, possibly for the better if used in the right way.
What seems likely is that they're very potent tools to change how the mind works, possibly for the better if used in the right way.
> There seem to be a specific cluster of personality traits found frequently in hallucinogen users.
Upon what specific past information consumption activities, and in what quantities, do you base this claim (and others)?
I pose this question literally, not rhetorically. You've exhibited significant self-confidence and strong judgement of others, it seems fair that you are held to the same standard.
I have a feeling you have less knowledge in this domain than you think.
Upon what specific past information consumption activities, and in what quantities, do you base this claim (and others)?
I pose this question literally, not rhetorically. You've exhibited significant self-confidence and strong judgement of others, it seems fair that you are held to the same standard.
I have a feeling you have less knowledge in this domain than you think.
Thank you, clearly a more competent way to say what i meant.
None of the two, psychedelics are known for the spiritual/naturism effects so no wonder users advocate for a "down to earth" approach. Seems to me that you wouldn't get a similar response from a meth user.
I think that was just a free dunk on drug users. Sorry for being uncharitable here.
Sorry for being too dry, i elaborated a little bit under the parent comment. I have no interest in dunking anyone
Hey, drug on wars still exists in the world. You can get excessive jail time just for having some (regardless of quantity) marijuana on you - and that is in "western" country. It was not so long ago that "marijuana had no possible medical application" and was scheduled as a class A drug in UK (and I think, still is). There is a lot of stigma, and decades of bad science, propaganda, and manufactured hatred run deep. Research is difficult, if at all possible because excessively harsh legislation. And who benefits?.. criminal cartels and enforcement agencies. This is also why scientists go such extreme lengths to create psychoactive mimics ("legal highs") - so they can research the stuff that is at least similar without going to jail. It's a fucked up world, my friend.
It's not the scientists' approach that is wrong, it's the legislators...
It's not the scientists' approach that is wrong, it's the legislators...
Cannabis was downgraded from class A to a class C drug in the UK in 2004, but was upgraded to class B five years later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drugs_controlled_by_the_UK_Mis...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drugs_controlled_by_the_UK_Mis...
It was downgraded from class B. It was never class A. The next government returned it to class B because "drugs bad".
You are of course right.
[deleted]
You can go to jail for alcohol too. Just depends where you are.
[deleted]
Which western country is that? AFAIK even most islamist states allow alcohol for non-muslims.
Australia:
To use a still of any capacity to distil alcohol such as spirits, you must have an excise manufacturer licence.
Severe penalties apply for manufacturing spirits without an excise manufacturer licence.[1]
Although, in practice, I can’t say I’ve ever heard of a case of someone being fined for making spirits at home, and you’d probably have to repeatedly offend that particular law in order to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
1. https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Excise-and-excise-equivalent...
To use a still of any capacity to distil alcohol such as spirits, you must have an excise manufacturer licence.
Severe penalties apply for manufacturing spirits without an excise manufacturer licence.[1]
Although, in practice, I can’t say I’ve ever heard of a case of someone being fined for making spirits at home, and you’d probably have to repeatedly offend that particular law in order to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
1. https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Excise-and-excise-equivalent...
For personal use, sure, you'll probably get away with it. Try selling it and see what happens.
Yeah nah.
Distillation on home premises without proper safety procedures is a recipe for explosions and for contaminated/weird distillation products.
I'm a home-brewer, and have cold-distilled a couple of things (you can get up to about 22% that way IIRC), but I'm good with it being a little difficult to get started distilling, from a safety standpoint.
I'm a home-brewer, and have cold-distilled a couple of things (you can get up to about 22% that way IIRC), but I'm good with it being a little difficult to get started distilling, from a safety standpoint.
"I'm good with it being a little difficult to get started distilling, from a safety standpoint."
If you screw up home canning, you can get botulism, which can very easily kill you and anyone else who consumes it. Same if you simply store some home-made garlic olive oil in your refrigerator.
Cook beans wrong and you could get very sick or even die. Cooking on a gas stove could result in your house catching on fire, or at least you could severely burn yourself or someone else.
Use power tools wrong and you could get maimed or killed, or maim or kill someone else.
Climb a ladder or walk in to a shower and you can fall and die.
Riding a bike wrong could result in yourself or others getting killed.
Yet few would argue that any of these things be made illegal to be done by amateurs at home because of the risks they pose and the fact that people have killed themselves or others doing them.
Why should making alcohol or any other drug be any different?
If you screw up home canning, you can get botulism, which can very easily kill you and anyone else who consumes it. Same if you simply store some home-made garlic olive oil in your refrigerator.
Cook beans wrong and you could get very sick or even die. Cooking on a gas stove could result in your house catching on fire, or at least you could severely burn yourself or someone else.
Use power tools wrong and you could get maimed or killed, or maim or kill someone else.
Climb a ladder or walk in to a shower and you can fall and die.
Riding a bike wrong could result in yourself or others getting killed.
Yet few would argue that any of these things be made illegal to be done by amateurs at home because of the risks they pose and the fact that people have killed themselves or others doing them.
Why should making alcohol or any other drug be any different?
Harming or offing yourself isn't as a big of deal as being a food/beverage producer and handing what you make to others (even free). Distillation is one such bulk method.
Distilled alcohol with a cut of methanol will make for a very sad day for anyone who imbibes.
Distilled alcohol with a cut of methanol will make for a very sad day for anyone who imbibes.
Few of these involve the possibility of significant explosion, which is one way in which they are different.
Only kidney beans though
Isn't that because of taxation? It is that way in Czechia as well, purely because of that; it is OK to make spirits at home though (up to some - albeit pretty large - amount).
Sorry but it is not allowed to make spirits at home in Czech Republic.
You can use certified distillery to make spirit from home grown fruit and pay taxes (although not as much as for commercial alcohol). This spirit is used for personal use only and could not be sold.
You can use certified distillery to make spirit from home grown fruit and pay taxes (although not as much as for commercial alcohol). This spirit is used for personal use only and could not be sold.
> This spirit is used for personal use only and could not be sold.
Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry I wasn't clear.
Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry I wasn't clear.
I’m honestly not sure I know what the original motivations for that law is, but I always assumed it’s due to taxation and licensing reasons.
In Norway you can get up to 6 months in prison for selling alcohol that is over 60% ethanol by volume. Up to 2 years if the offense is "particularly serious".
Selling is a different story from possession. I think most countries require a license to sell alcohol.
Oh yeah, I forgot about Norway. I have a (Czech) friend there, they have to pull down the sunblinds when they want to drink a beer. Seems insane to me, also a Czech guy.
As a Norwegian I can tell you that your friend is pulling your leg. You are free to drink on private property. I have never heard about anyone being arrested for responsible drinking in public parks, beaches and places like that.
It's not allowed to serve people that is "visibly intoxicated" but almost no one cares. At a normal Friday and Saturday night, Oslo is a battlefield of shitfaced people.
It's not allowed to serve people that is "visibly intoxicated" but almost no one cares. At a normal Friday and Saturday night, Oslo is a battlefield of shitfaced people.
Oslo is very liberal when it comes to public drinking. It's not uncommon to get fined for drinking in parks in other cities in Norway. I've only heard of someone getting arrested for it once though, and that was because he refused to pour out the beer when requested by a police officer and chugged it instead.
>It's not allowed to serve people that is "visibly intoxicated" but almost no one cares. At a normal Friday and Saturday night, Oslo is a battlefield of shitfaced people.
Strictly speaking the same is true in the UK, but lol.
Section 141 of the Licensing Act 2003:
"(1) A person [...] commits an offence if, on relevant premises, he knowingly—
(a) sells or attempts to sell alcohol to a person who is drunk, or
(b) allows alcohol to be sold to such a person.
[...]
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."
Where "level 3 on the standard scale" is £1,000.
Strictly speaking the same is true in the UK, but lol.
Section 141 of the Licensing Act 2003:
"(1) A person [...] commits an offence if, on relevant premises, he knowingly—
(a) sells or attempts to sell alcohol to a person who is drunk, or
(b) allows alcohol to be sold to such a person.
[...]
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."
Where "level 3 on the standard scale" is £1,000.
That doesn't sound right. You are allowed to drink beer on your own property, or in bars. You are not allowed to drink beer in public spaces, but the police will enforce that differently depending on the region.
As far as I understand it's too inconsistent, i.e. very unevenly distributed within one fruiting body. Not sure if that's the reason, but: if you ever bought mushrooms/truffles in the Netherlands, there is no psylocibin content on the box. And if you try googling, the estimates vary pretty wildly (although it's possible that it's just a lack or proper research)
Also not everyone enjoys the taste of mushrooms or truffles. And psychedelic entities don't care whether they are coming from naturally occurring or synthesized psylocibin ;)
Also, humility and appreciation come in different shapes: for example I recall that Shulgin never consumed his pure psychedelics with juice because he could distinguish 'chemical' tastes and had appreciation for that
Also not everyone enjoys the taste of mushrooms or truffles. And psychedelic entities don't care whether they are coming from naturally occurring or synthesized psylocibin ;)
Also, humility and appreciation come in different shapes: for example I recall that Shulgin never consumed his pure psychedelics with juice because he could distinguish 'chemical' tastes and had appreciation for that
With regards to the taste, grinding them up and mixing them into melted chocolate will negate all taste issues (or consistency, I find the getting bits stuck in your teeth is what really sucks).
Doesn't work with me, unfortunately.
Last time I did this, I could barely hold it down long enough to have some effects. I felt 100x better when it exited my body, but I only had some mild "breathing walls" effects.
It doesn't help that I tell restaurants I'm allergic to mushrooms because I really, REALLY hate them, and they won't take me seriously otherwise. (And they're in almost everything, especially "vegan" stuff (which I like, without being vegan))
I have been blessed with a good source on.. ahem.. another source of psilocybin, without any taste. That works!
Last time I did this, I could barely hold it down long enough to have some effects. I felt 100x better when it exited my body, but I only had some mild "breathing walls" effects.
It doesn't help that I tell restaurants I'm allergic to mushrooms because I really, REALLY hate them, and they won't take me seriously otherwise. (And they're in almost everything, especially "vegan" stuff (which I like, without being vegan))
I have been blessed with a good source on.. ahem.. another source of psilocybin, without any taste. That works!
It might not help enough if you have some specific reactions to all mushrooms, but letting ground up mushrooms sit in citric acid (from lemons or similar) for 10-15 minutes can help break down the fibers that can cause upset stomachs.
Nutella is a real blessing here.
Freshly picked Psilocybe are tasty. At least, those grown on rice. Not so much when grown on cow patties, however ;)
Growing it in yeast would be great if you are trying to get a consistent quantity of the drug. You could do vats at a time all genetically identical and producing the same yield batch over batch, and can scale up and down your operation for as much as you have vats and yeast food.
This is something you want if you are going to press this into pills at a certain dose and give to people for psychiatric disorders, not for people looking to go on spiritual journeys or see a phish concert.
This is something you want if you are going to press this into pills at a certain dose and give to people for psychiatric disorders, not for people looking to go on spiritual journeys or see a phish concert.
Also if you want a consistent, reproducible dosage to do reasonable controlled medical-grade studies.
People with psychiatric disorders need spiritual journeys. Spiritual journeys heal and cleanse the mind, heal and cleanse the soul. Do not try to strip that away.
The commodification of medicine troubles me--I prefer the perspective of sacred medicine. It goes roughly definitionally / tautologically: if something heals you, is it not sacred? And likewise, if something is sacred, it heals you. By definition. The idea of medicine as a mechanism has really lost something intimate and special, compared to the idea of medicine as divine.
The commodification of medicine troubles me--I prefer the perspective of sacred medicine. It goes roughly definitionally / tautologically: if something heals you, is it not sacred? And likewise, if something is sacred, it heals you. By definition. The idea of medicine as a mechanism has really lost something intimate and special, compared to the idea of medicine as divine.
> if something heals you, is it not sacred? And likewise, if something is sacred, it heals you.
Let me explain in two different ways why this is wrong.
First, because we are after all a site full of programmers, let me put this in terms of prepositional logic: A => B is different from B => A. If I tell you "all doctors are humans" (let's assume this is true, for the sake of the example), accepting that proposition does not then imply "all humans are doctors".
Second, from a philosophical/rhetorical perspective: you are using two different definitions of "sacred" and acting like they're the same. There's the one by which, if something heals you it is sacred (a consequential reading, where "sacredness" has to do with the value of healing). Then there's the one where if something is sacred it heals you (a deontological/aesthetic reading, where "sacredness" is an attribute inherent to an act regardless of its consequences). Acting like the two are the same leads you into a trap of assuming that because something is moral/sacred/good, its consequences must also be good. This is not so.
Let me explain in two different ways why this is wrong.
First, because we are after all a site full of programmers, let me put this in terms of prepositional logic: A => B is different from B => A. If I tell you "all doctors are humans" (let's assume this is true, for the sake of the example), accepting that proposition does not then imply "all humans are doctors".
Second, from a philosophical/rhetorical perspective: you are using two different definitions of "sacred" and acting like they're the same. There's the one by which, if something heals you it is sacred (a consequential reading, where "sacredness" has to do with the value of healing). Then there's the one where if something is sacred it heals you (a deontological/aesthetic reading, where "sacredness" is an attribute inherent to an act regardless of its consequences). Acting like the two are the same leads you into a trap of assuming that because something is moral/sacred/good, its consequences must also be good. This is not so.
I appreciate the effort you've put in to "refute" me, but I do not think that you've actually put much thought into it.
I'm aware of how logic works, I have a degree in mathematics. I did not intend to use A=>B as a reason that B=>A; I was using both as self-evidential statements.
I'm talking about a completely different premise / system of thinking about medicine that I learned from several Indian / Native American tribal attitudes. In this way of thinking, there is no medicine that is not sacred. This operates more or less as an axiom, though they would probably not describe it that way. Because axiom implies an inflexibility and rigidity not intended... I don't think "sacred medicine" means "You can use however much of this substance in whatever fashion you choose and always have positive results." There are additional rules, guidelines, and best practices to consider, always. But if something brings you connection, warmth, healing, new awareness, humility, love for others, rapport with the Earth, insight into your life, etc, then we generally call that "sacred", and we also call it "medicine", even if the thing in question is just having a conversation, watching a dog play in the sunshine, or smelling the scents on the breeze. Sacred medicine.
If you're already formulating your rebuttal, please arrest the thought because I haven't really made any point yet. I'm just laying out the groundwork, describing how other cultures think about life.
I guess the one question I would ask you relates to your final statement.
>trap of assuming that because something is moral/sacred/good, its consequences must also be good. This is not so.
I find this silly. Of course you can have too much of a good thing, or use a good thing in a way that is ignorant of the larger system around it and end up doing harm. But are you sure you're not really trying to "refute" the existence of the spiritual, or of the sacred? If you refuse to believe in those things, or refuse to conceptually work with things you've never personally experienced, that is your choice. But I think you should identify that bias as driving your argumentation, and maybe take a step back if you have not had an experience in this realm. You wouldn't try to describe Italy if you'd never set foot in Italy, would you?
I'm aware of how logic works, I have a degree in mathematics. I did not intend to use A=>B as a reason that B=>A; I was using both as self-evidential statements.
I'm talking about a completely different premise / system of thinking about medicine that I learned from several Indian / Native American tribal attitudes. In this way of thinking, there is no medicine that is not sacred. This operates more or less as an axiom, though they would probably not describe it that way. Because axiom implies an inflexibility and rigidity not intended... I don't think "sacred medicine" means "You can use however much of this substance in whatever fashion you choose and always have positive results." There are additional rules, guidelines, and best practices to consider, always. But if something brings you connection, warmth, healing, new awareness, humility, love for others, rapport with the Earth, insight into your life, etc, then we generally call that "sacred", and we also call it "medicine", even if the thing in question is just having a conversation, watching a dog play in the sunshine, or smelling the scents on the breeze. Sacred medicine.
If you're already formulating your rebuttal, please arrest the thought because I haven't really made any point yet. I'm just laying out the groundwork, describing how other cultures think about life.
I guess the one question I would ask you relates to your final statement.
>trap of assuming that because something is moral/sacred/good, its consequences must also be good. This is not so.
I find this silly. Of course you can have too much of a good thing, or use a good thing in a way that is ignorant of the larger system around it and end up doing harm. But are you sure you're not really trying to "refute" the existence of the spiritual, or of the sacred? If you refuse to believe in those things, or refuse to conceptually work with things you've never personally experienced, that is your choice. But I think you should identify that bias as driving your argumentation, and maybe take a step back if you have not had an experience in this realm. You wouldn't try to describe Italy if you'd never set foot in Italy, would you?
> I was using both as self-evidential statements.
They are not.
> I'm talking about a completely different premise / system of thinking about medicine that I learned from several Indian / Native American tribal attitudes.
This is the whitest sentence I have ever read on this website. And it's a very white website.
> I don't think "sacred medicine" means "You can use however much of this substance in whatever fashion you choose and always have positive results." There are additional rules, guidelines, and best practices to consider, always. But if something brings you connection, warmth, healing, new awareness, humility, love for others, rapport with the Earth, insight into your life, etc, then we generally call that "sacred", and we also call it "medicine", even if the thing in question is just having a conversation, watching a dog play in the sunshine, or smelling the scents on the breeze. Sacred medicine.
Okay. And what are those rules, guidelines, and best practices for magic mushrooms? Because let me tell you, most people's experience of grabbing a shroom or two and eating them does not come with the kinds of structure you see in, say, ayahuasca practices.
You're acting like the preliminary scientific results - of improvement in mental health - come from following a centuries-long native tradition. They don't. They come from the haphazard practices of white California hippies over the last 80 years or so.
> I find this silly. Of course you can have too much of a good thing, or use a good thing in a way that is ignorant of the larger system around it and end up doing harm. But are you sure you're not really trying to "refute" the existence of the spiritual, or of the sacred?
I'm not trying to refute the existence of the spiritual. I'm trying to refute your very specific loading in this thread of a wide variety of psilocybin practices, mostly arrived at for convenience in the last several decades, with sacredness and with traditional imprimatur.
They are not.
> I'm talking about a completely different premise / system of thinking about medicine that I learned from several Indian / Native American tribal attitudes.
This is the whitest sentence I have ever read on this website. And it's a very white website.
> I don't think "sacred medicine" means "You can use however much of this substance in whatever fashion you choose and always have positive results." There are additional rules, guidelines, and best practices to consider, always. But if something brings you connection, warmth, healing, new awareness, humility, love for others, rapport with the Earth, insight into your life, etc, then we generally call that "sacred", and we also call it "medicine", even if the thing in question is just having a conversation, watching a dog play in the sunshine, or smelling the scents on the breeze. Sacred medicine.
Okay. And what are those rules, guidelines, and best practices for magic mushrooms? Because let me tell you, most people's experience of grabbing a shroom or two and eating them does not come with the kinds of structure you see in, say, ayahuasca practices.
You're acting like the preliminary scientific results - of improvement in mental health - come from following a centuries-long native tradition. They don't. They come from the haphazard practices of white California hippies over the last 80 years or so.
> I find this silly. Of course you can have too much of a good thing, or use a good thing in a way that is ignorant of the larger system around it and end up doing harm. But are you sure you're not really trying to "refute" the existence of the spiritual, or of the sacred?
I'm not trying to refute the existence of the spiritual. I'm trying to refute your very specific loading in this thread of a wide variety of psilocybin practices, mostly arrived at for convenience in the last several decades, with sacredness and with traditional imprimatur.
Hey have a nice day
> People with psychiatric disorders need spiritual journeys. Spiritual journeys heal and cleanse the mind, heal and cleanse the soul. Do not try to strip that away.
No opinion on the article or yours but where are you getting this opinion? Why or how, do psychiatric disorders need spiritual journeys.
Not all people believe in spiritual journeys or are capable of it. There is noting scientific about what you're suggesting that I'm aware about as well.
No opinion on the article or yours but where are you getting this opinion? Why or how, do psychiatric disorders need spiritual journeys.
Not all people believe in spiritual journeys or are capable of it. There is noting scientific about what you're suggesting that I'm aware about as well.
Note what I did and didn't say. I did NOT say: "People with psychiatric disorders will be cured by spiritual experiences."
Having a mental disorder is a pretty miserable existence, in several different ways. Anything that could reasonably be described as a spiritual experience will bring you a sense of wonder, fun, release, enlightenment, excitement, new perspective, added insight about your life, and a sense of connection to others or the Earth or the cosmos. I have difficulty believing that those things will not help people with psychiatric disorders. Everyone needs those things and I cannot take seriously any assertions to the contrary.
I also have difficulty accepting your statement that "not all people believe in spiritual journeys or are capable of it." Some people don't believe in fun? Some people don't believe in healing, in excitement? I have met some of those people but I do not think we should consider that level of disconnection with life as anything but a terrible tragedy. And that we should try to find ways to connect with those people, bring a little fun and joy into those people's lives if we feel able and willing to do so.
It's kind of like, not all people believe in eating food, and those people are in serious danger and need our help.
Having a mental disorder is a pretty miserable existence, in several different ways. Anything that could reasonably be described as a spiritual experience will bring you a sense of wonder, fun, release, enlightenment, excitement, new perspective, added insight about your life, and a sense of connection to others or the Earth or the cosmos. I have difficulty believing that those things will not help people with psychiatric disorders. Everyone needs those things and I cannot take seriously any assertions to the contrary.
I also have difficulty accepting your statement that "not all people believe in spiritual journeys or are capable of it." Some people don't believe in fun? Some people don't believe in healing, in excitement? I have met some of those people but I do not think we should consider that level of disconnection with life as anything but a terrible tragedy. And that we should try to find ways to connect with those people, bring a little fun and joy into those people's lives if we feel able and willing to do so.
It's kind of like, not all people believe in eating food, and those people are in serious danger and need our help.
Many (most?) people taking this substance report having some sort of mystical/spiritual experience. I doubt they are actually convening with the divine, but whether/how/why the substance causes that affect in people is certainly a part of "science".
I also don't think the spiritual journey aspect should be dismissed so lightly. Its being investigated to help depression. Perhaps inducing a "spiritual" state in people is part of the cause of action of the drug.
I also don't think the spiritual journey aspect should be dismissed so lightly. Its being investigated to help depression. Perhaps inducing a "spiritual" state in people is part of the cause of action of the drug.
>I doubt they are actually convening with the divine.
I appreciated your comment overall but this statement stood out to me. May I ask what guided this choice of words? Why would you have an opinion on it one way or the other?
I appreciated your comment overall but this statement stood out to me. May I ask what guided this choice of words? Why would you have an opinion on it one way or the other?
Its based on my personal beliefs. I don't have much to back it up one way or another (maybe occam's razor at most). Metaphysical claims usually come down to i believe what i believe because i believe it, and i am no exception.
The main reason i included it was because psybin's comment which i was responding to was very dismissive of "spirituality", and i think there is still valid things to talk about related to spiritual "journeys" regardless of if you think there is some metaphysical force you are connecting to, or if you believe its simply a drug-induced altered state.
The main reason i included it was because psybin's comment which i was responding to was very dismissive of "spirituality", and i think there is still valid things to talk about related to spiritual "journeys" regardless of if you think there is some metaphysical force you are connecting to, or if you believe its simply a drug-induced altered state.
Please can you provide sources?
A source that people believe that psilocybin helps them achieve a mystical state? Or a source about something else?
Isn't the defining feature of a mystical experience that the participant feels that they had one (its a concept about subjective internal states, not an objective thing to measure beyond i guess self-reported surveys). Given that its going to be self reported anyways, i think the general acedotes about psilocybin inducing spirtual "states" is pretty compelling.
Anyways, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5772431/ is a study on the effect of psilocybin induced mystical experiences.
Isn't the defining feature of a mystical experience that the participant feels that they had one (its a concept about subjective internal states, not an objective thing to measure beyond i guess self-reported surveys). Given that its going to be self reported anyways, i think the general acedotes about psilocybin inducing spirtual "states" is pretty compelling.
Anyways, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5772431/ is a study on the effect of psilocybin induced mystical experiences.
I'm interested in a scientific study of how it was somehow linked to spiritual. I'm aware of drugs in general changing mental states of people that suffer from different illnesses. I've tried shrooms before and the high was similar to cannabis for me. I'm not a spiritual person at all and maybe that is why I didn't really care for it. I can imagine psilocybin helping a person in general from the effects but I just don't understand why someone would link it to spiritual unless they were deluded.
Johns Hopkins research has shown a single dose having clinically significant improvement in depression for at least 6 months in 80% of participants; such results are unprecedented in psychiatry:
https://youtu.be/81-v8ePXPd4
See also, Marsh Chapel Experiment:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment
https://youtu.be/81-v8ePXPd4
See also, Marsh Chapel Experiment:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment
"Spiritual awakening" is a keystone of 12-Step programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous, whether effective or not, it is the de facto official treatment for substance use disorders.
"Religious delusions" are a frequent component of schizophrenia.
Clearly more research is needed in this space if we are ever to reason about it in a scientific context.
"Religious delusions" are a frequent component of schizophrenia.
Clearly more research is needed in this space if we are ever to reason about it in a scientific context.
Drug in question used to be a treatment for alcoholism before the drug war began.
Quick Qwant search should turn up loads.
Quick Qwant search should turn up loads.
I wonder if this type of thinking is a side effect of dmt et al. Perhaps they aren't as safe as is believed.
> I wonder if this type of thinking is a side effect of dmt et al.
Based on extensive reading in the community, I would say overwhelmingly yes. To what degree this derives directly from the substance, versus an "unlocking" of thinking modalities that already exist but are dormant (or not normally consciously perrceivable) is interesting and worth study, but disciplined, logical thinking is not something you'll find much of in the scene. And that's ok, but only to a degree.
> Perhaps they aren't as safe as is believed.
What most anyone believes about safety or any other attributes seems almost certainly to be quite far off the mark.
Based on extensive reading in the community, I would say overwhelmingly yes. To what degree this derives directly from the substance, versus an "unlocking" of thinking modalities that already exist but are dormant (or not normally consciously perrceivable) is interesting and worth study, but disciplined, logical thinking is not something you'll find much of in the scene. And that's ok, but only to a degree.
> Perhaps they aren't as safe as is believed.
What most anyone believes about safety or any other attributes seems almost certainly to be quite far off the mark.
My educational background is in mathematics and physics. I think you'll find I can give disciplined, logical thinking a run for your money. Logic after all is only an adherence to predetermined axioms in a consistent fashion, not an algorithm for which axioms you should and shouldn't adopt to begin with.
Just like science cannot claim to hold an opinion on a phenomenon it has not studied, logic should have no opinion on the great sea of life that happens outside formal systems. Should I spend my time by the river or walking among the trees? There's no strictly logical general answer. You can say, "It's thunderstorming, you shouldn't be outside at all," but that presupposes that I care about surviving. If I do not share that axiom ie I want to live as the wild, and brave the storm with my body in danger, that's not strictly speaking illogical. It's just not your logic. The logic does not share the same axioms but may be perfectly consistent unto itself.
Just like science cannot claim to hold an opinion on a phenomenon it has not studied, logic should have no opinion on the great sea of life that happens outside formal systems. Should I spend my time by the river or walking among the trees? There's no strictly logical general answer. You can say, "It's thunderstorming, you shouldn't be outside at all," but that presupposes that I care about surviving. If I do not share that axiom ie I want to live as the wild, and brave the storm with my body in danger, that's not strictly speaking illogical. It's just not your logic. The logic does not share the same axioms but may be perfectly consistent unto itself.
> Logic after all is only an adherence to predetermined axioms in a consistent fashion, not an algorithm for which axioms you should and shouldn't adopt to begin with.
I couldn't agree more, particularly the highlighted part. When one gets into these realms, logic is not only not very useful, it is often extremely harmful, because it too will provide answers that are (to my way of thinking anyways), objectively incorrect. To a person using strictly logic (or so they think, unaware of their hidden axioms, or even what an axiom is), their beliefs appear to be facts, and perfectly logical ones at that. Examples are things like the "right" political system, the "right" economic system, the "right" way to raise a child, the "right" way to distribute income, and so on.
And it's hard to blame people if you spend some time seriously thinking about it - almost from the day a child is born, it is subjected to massive amounts of psychological influence (training their mental model): beliefs forced upon them by their parents, their culture, their religion, their teachers, their friends, etc. As they grow older, eventually they enter the adult world where there are also career pressures, relationship pressures, consumption of massive amounts of propaganda ("facts" to non-crazy people) via multiple different (but coordinated) channels, typically repeating and reinforcing all these prior beliefs, driving the "hooks" deeper and deeper into their mind. It's no wonder the world seems like a madhouse right now, and how it is so difficult to get someone to break through the walls that have been built around their mind. It can be done, but logic is not the tool for the job. As the saying goes, you can't change someone's beliefs using logic, if logic was not used to form those beliefs.
As far as axioms (and likely even logic) go, I bet you and I are quite highly aligned. And where we're not, I doubt we'd have much trouble seeing each other's point of view. But that's just my intuition!
How do misunderstandings such as this one arise? In this case, my guess would be:
- in this community, I speak almost exclusively using logic, and "extremist" logic at that (I believe there is a time and place for it) - assuming this is my only mode is perfectly natural (logical).
- my above comments regarding "I wonder if this type of thinking[1] is a side effect of dmt et al" could very easily be misinterpreted negatively. And I guess, parts of them are. In my experience in various plant medicine and spiritualist communities, there seems to be an excess of conformist, woo woo, excessively optimistic thinking (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil). When a rationalist is exposed to this the first time, it can be quite a shock. But as I spent more time and got to know several people closely, you start to find out what the real deal is (again, in my experiences). Much of it can be posing, conformity, hypocritical, and various other negative behaviors, which are completely counter to anything I've ever heard from the true gurus, who advise having an open and free mind, etc. So this would be one negative opinion I hold on the community as it practices, as opposed to what the "proper" principles are.
I believe that if we are ever to sort out the mess we've created on this planet, a way must be found for these people to communicate with each other. Sure, many people can do this already, but not very many, and certainly not enough to do the trick. I see this as the problem of the 21st, before all others, because it is a root cause of all the other problems that get attention on TV. Whether this ongoing and growing disharmony is completely accidental is a very controversial question, something only a "conspiracy theorist" would believe so they say, but I am a proud, card carrying member of the camp that believes no, this amount of consistent disharmony is not accidental, not at all. How would one ever learn that answer to a question such as that? Any ideas?
[1] Examples from the grandparent comment: "Spiritual journeys heal and cleanse the mind, heal and cleanse the soul", "If something heals you, is it not sacred? And likewise, if something is sacred, it heals you. By definition."
I couldn't agree more, particularly the highlighted part. When one gets into these realms, logic is not only not very useful, it is often extremely harmful, because it too will provide answers that are (to my way of thinking anyways), objectively incorrect. To a person using strictly logic (or so they think, unaware of their hidden axioms, or even what an axiom is), their beliefs appear to be facts, and perfectly logical ones at that. Examples are things like the "right" political system, the "right" economic system, the "right" way to raise a child, the "right" way to distribute income, and so on.
And it's hard to blame people if you spend some time seriously thinking about it - almost from the day a child is born, it is subjected to massive amounts of psychological influence (training their mental model): beliefs forced upon them by their parents, their culture, their religion, their teachers, their friends, etc. As they grow older, eventually they enter the adult world where there are also career pressures, relationship pressures, consumption of massive amounts of propaganda ("facts" to non-crazy people) via multiple different (but coordinated) channels, typically repeating and reinforcing all these prior beliefs, driving the "hooks" deeper and deeper into their mind. It's no wonder the world seems like a madhouse right now, and how it is so difficult to get someone to break through the walls that have been built around their mind. It can be done, but logic is not the tool for the job. As the saying goes, you can't change someone's beliefs using logic, if logic was not used to form those beliefs.
As far as axioms (and likely even logic) go, I bet you and I are quite highly aligned. And where we're not, I doubt we'd have much trouble seeing each other's point of view. But that's just my intuition!
How do misunderstandings such as this one arise? In this case, my guess would be:
- in this community, I speak almost exclusively using logic, and "extremist" logic at that (I believe there is a time and place for it) - assuming this is my only mode is perfectly natural (logical).
- my above comments regarding "I wonder if this type of thinking[1] is a side effect of dmt et al" could very easily be misinterpreted negatively. And I guess, parts of them are. In my experience in various plant medicine and spiritualist communities, there seems to be an excess of conformist, woo woo, excessively optimistic thinking (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil). When a rationalist is exposed to this the first time, it can be quite a shock. But as I spent more time and got to know several people closely, you start to find out what the real deal is (again, in my experiences). Much of it can be posing, conformity, hypocritical, and various other negative behaviors, which are completely counter to anything I've ever heard from the true gurus, who advise having an open and free mind, etc. So this would be one negative opinion I hold on the community as it practices, as opposed to what the "proper" principles are.
I believe that if we are ever to sort out the mess we've created on this planet, a way must be found for these people to communicate with each other. Sure, many people can do this already, but not very many, and certainly not enough to do the trick. I see this as the problem of the 21st, before all others, because it is a root cause of all the other problems that get attention on TV. Whether this ongoing and growing disharmony is completely accidental is a very controversial question, something only a "conspiracy theorist" would believe so they say, but I am a proud, card carrying member of the camp that believes no, this amount of consistent disharmony is not accidental, not at all. How would one ever learn that answer to a question such as that? Any ideas?
[1] Examples from the grandparent comment: "Spiritual journeys heal and cleanse the mind, heal and cleanse the soul", "If something heals you, is it not sacred? And likewise, if something is sacred, it heals you. By definition."
Do you mean to imply that my "type" of thinking is bad / wrong / unsafe?
Sorry if it came off that way. Consider the inverse: if your type of thinking was changed to my type of thinking by a drug you might think twice about how safe that drug is, wouldn't you?
Why can't science be spiritual?
Because HN is primarily the realm of scientism : science as a religion. Anything that deviates from that will be -4'ed within an hour. And it even appears that discussing such will also incur the wrath of non-comment -1 voters. Without requiring a justified reason of a downvote, I don't expect this to be fixed in any reasonable timeframe.
It's an emperor's new clothes problem.
It's an emperor's new clothes problem.
I like the idea of requiring a response in order to downvote.
This is not a well-formed question.
How about we don't do that either . Psilocybin doesn't have any effect on the human body afaik before breaking down to psilocin . 4-aco-dmt is easy to make and readily breaks down to psilocin .
Why are trials and research concentrating on this prodrug like it's necessary is beyond my understanding . It's a waste of money and time
Why are trials and research concentrating on this prodrug like it's necessary is beyond my understanding . It's a waste of money and time
(Mu)Shrooms contain more more psychoactive substances and prodrugs to such than psilocybin. There is a reason why psychonauts debate differences between trips induced by Shrooms vs 4-Aco-DMT. But of course it would make sense to simplify the approach by starting with synthetic prodrugs.
Someone more knowledgeable please step in to correct me but: I think what can be desirable from this process is the lack of variability in the product when you produce it at scale.
Grind it, blend it, test it. It's how loads of other naturally variable stuff is done eg: flour, whiskey, wine, juice
Standardized total extracts of natural sources are pretty standard in the pharmacopeia, so what you're saying makes total sense. Making sure that the dosage is standardized is a solved problem.
Unfortunately this type of drug preparation is not that fashionable. One example of this is the total extract of St. John's Wort, which is superior to synthetic antidepressants in many cases, but doctors often prefer to prescribe the latter (presumably because a plant based medicine doesn't sound as powerful?).
Unfortunately this type of drug preparation is not that fashionable. One example of this is the total extract of St. John's Wort, which is superior to synthetic antidepressants in many cases, but doctors often prefer to prescribe the latter (presumably because a plant based medicine doesn't sound as powerful?).
> St. John's Wort, which is superior to synthetic antidepressants in many cases,
Oh boy, yet another claim without references.
Oh boy, yet another claim without references.
"Several studies support the therapeutic benefit of St. John's wort in treating mild to moderate depression. In fact, some research has shown the supplement to be as effective as several prescription antidepressants."
(https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-st-johns-wort/a...)
Synthetic antidepressants are by no means completely benign drugs, so having something that can be as effective for mild to moderate depression with a different side effect profile is really useful.
Since you could easily have found this and many more sources, including all of the original studies, with a few Google searches, I'm taking your comment as further evidence of an irrational bias against phytopharmaceuticals.
(https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-st-johns-wort/a...)
Synthetic antidepressants are by no means completely benign drugs, so having something that can be as effective for mild to moderate depression with a different side effect profile is really useful.
Since you could easily have found this and many more sources, including all of the original studies, with a few Google searches, I'm taking your comment as further evidence of an irrational bias against phytopharmaceuticals.
You:
> which is superior to synthetic antidepressants in many cases
Then justify this with:
> some research has shown the supplement to be as effective as several prescription antidepressants
(X > Y) != (X = Y) or in plain English, what you cite does not support your claim.
> with a few Google searches
You make the claim, you provide the references.
> taking your comment as further evidence of an irrational bias against phytopharmaceuticals.
I support what works regardless of origin. No person who has experienced severe depression would discard something that worked. I don't have time for idiots who presume 'natural' = 'better' though.
> which is superior to synthetic antidepressants in many cases
Then justify this with:
> some research has shown the supplement to be as effective as several prescription antidepressants
(X > Y) != (X = Y) or in plain English, what you cite does not support your claim.
> with a few Google searches
You make the claim, you provide the references.
> taking your comment as further evidence of an irrational bias against phytopharmaceuticals.
I support what works regardless of origin. No person who has experienced severe depression would discard something that worked. I don't have time for idiots who presume 'natural' = 'better' though.
"Effective" in the context of the text I quoted refers to efficacy against depression, but you need to also take the side effects into account when deciding between drugs. Since those vary on a case by case basis and can be significant, there are many cases where St. John's wort is overall the better deal.
You are just dodging and fudging. Let me explain why reality matters.
Those like you who have the blessing of decent mental health and do not understand - seem quite unwilling to understand in many cases - that those such as me who have to deal with this shit for all their lives can be deeply and negatively affected by you lot posting garbage.
If it were a physical disease such as cancer you might be a lot less inclined to do it as you see the immediate link, from lack of proven efficacy to a fatal outcome.
Mental unhealth, though, seems fair game to you. You are insulated from the negative consequences of your idiotic prognostications so you posting crap is like giving a child matches to play with in someone else's house. Not your house, not your house fire, not your problem.
Please grow a little humanity and understanding; it's not a game for us, it can go from our lives made difficult, to our lives irretrievably wrecked.
Those like you who have the blessing of decent mental health and do not understand - seem quite unwilling to understand in many cases - that those such as me who have to deal with this shit for all their lives can be deeply and negatively affected by you lot posting garbage.
If it were a physical disease such as cancer you might be a lot less inclined to do it as you see the immediate link, from lack of proven efficacy to a fatal outcome.
Mental unhealth, though, seems fair game to you. You are insulated from the negative consequences of your idiotic prognostications so you posting crap is like giving a child matches to play with in someone else's house. Not your house, not your house fire, not your problem.
Please grow a little humanity and understanding; it's not a game for us, it can go from our lives made difficult, to our lives irretrievably wrecked.
I'm sorry that I seem to have offended you with what I wrote, but I honestly don't understand why. St. John's wort can be better in terms of side effects than synthetic antidepressants, with similar antidepressant effects, for some people. That's all I'm saying and that's an evidence based statement.
I started looking into St. John's wort more closely because I saw the positive experiences that people close to me had with it. It's not all just theory to me.
All that said, if you are really interested in the topic you should probably not listen to me but rather look at the actual studies that were done with it. I came away from that convinced that it's at least worth a shot for mild to medium cases of depression, and that it is underused relative to the synthetic alternatives.
I started looking into St. John's wort more closely because I saw the positive experiences that people close to me had with it. It's not all just theory to me.
All that said, if you are really interested in the topic you should probably not listen to me but rather look at the actual studies that were done with it. I came away from that convinced that it's at least worth a shot for mild to medium cases of depression, and that it is underused relative to the synthetic alternatives.
Your heart's in the right place but that's not enough.
Do this for me: suppose someone's taking prozac for depression. Given that St. John's Wort is also an antidepressant, how well would it work to have someone take both at the same time? How much will they complement each other?
Please answer that WITHOUT LOOKING IT UP, just based on common sense and logic. I'll explain why.
Do this for me: suppose someone's taking prozac for depression. Given that St. John's Wort is also an antidepressant, how well would it work to have someone take both at the same time? How much will they complement each other?
Please answer that WITHOUT LOOKING IT UP, just based on common sense and logic. I'll explain why.
Since they're both presumably SSRIs (in the case of St. John's wort this is not 100% clear, since it seems to have some dopaminergic and noradrenergic activity as well), the activity on serotonergic signaling would be enhanced, possibly up to the point where that becomes toxic (i.e., causes a serotonin syndrome) - that would depend on dosage. Additionally at least St. John's wort has IIRC some activity on CYP enzymes in the liver that could lead to interactions, but that one I would need to look up. Either way you probably shouldn't do it, but why would you?
You really didn't look that up? Ok, well done.
First the why would I. Because if you are in that state, anything's worth a try. My naive logic was if you stack antidepressants you get more effect. Yea, well, not the way I intended.
Prozac is an SSRI, StJW is an MAOI. SSRI + MAOI = serotonin event. I was lucky not to end up in hospital.
St. John's Wort has possible side effects including photosensitivity and eye problems (glaucoma or cataracts, can't remember). You can't say which is best or better, or even recommend anything except on an individual level. You can't talk about 'best' or 'better' except on an average level and you really need to understand what's appropriate for the individual patient. For example, if someone's struggling on prozac with the side effects then why not have them come off and try SJWort? What have they got to lose?
Quite a lot if things go wrong. The prozac has to clear from your system (weeks at least) and SJW may not work - so go back to prozac, no problem right?
But going back to prozac may not work - when you come off antidepressents and go back onto them, sometimes they don't work again. Unusual bit it happens. That is a really terrifying prospect if you have depression, so you may (as I did) choose to continue with bad side effects of prozac rather than take the chance (assuming the person is even aware this can happen). The alternative is too horrible.
So what I'm saying is I quite agree SJW may be a valid treatment but there's too much complexity involved for a layman to recommend anything. By all means suggest they talk to their doctor (or pharmacist) about it, and educate them as far as you can, but don't push any treatment, it's just too complex and risky a topic without decent knowledge.
First the why would I. Because if you are in that state, anything's worth a try. My naive logic was if you stack antidepressants you get more effect. Yea, well, not the way I intended.
Prozac is an SSRI, StJW is an MAOI. SSRI + MAOI = serotonin event. I was lucky not to end up in hospital.
St. John's Wort has possible side effects including photosensitivity and eye problems (glaucoma or cataracts, can't remember). You can't say which is best or better, or even recommend anything except on an individual level. You can't talk about 'best' or 'better' except on an average level and you really need to understand what's appropriate for the individual patient. For example, if someone's struggling on prozac with the side effects then why not have them come off and try SJWort? What have they got to lose?
Quite a lot if things go wrong. The prozac has to clear from your system (weeks at least) and SJW may not work - so go back to prozac, no problem right?
But going back to prozac may not work - when you come off antidepressents and go back onto them, sometimes they don't work again. Unusual bit it happens. That is a really terrifying prospect if you have depression, so you may (as I did) choose to continue with bad side effects of prozac rather than take the chance (assuming the person is even aware this can happen). The alternative is too horrible.
So what I'm saying is I quite agree SJW may be a valid treatment but there's too much complexity involved for a layman to recommend anything. By all means suggest they talk to their doctor (or pharmacist) about it, and educate them as far as you can, but don't push any treatment, it's just too complex and risky a topic without decent knowledge.
It can and is being done. It requires a lot of worker safety because toxic molds can grow in the environment as well. Cannabis now has the same worker safety so I'm confident higher standards can be brought to psilocybin production.
To those of you complaining about dosage you can take a representative sample of a batch, grind it up, and test it for potency via GC/MS. Same way it's done in cannabis. For cannabis edibles we have an allowable range of 4.9-5.1mg/dose on a serving labeled 5mg. I'm pretty sure we can nail 1000mg doses of psilocybin pretty accurately.
To those of you complaining about dosage you can take a representative sample of a batch, grind it up, and test it for potency via GC/MS. Same way it's done in cannabis. For cannabis edibles we have an allowable range of 4.9-5.1mg/dose on a serving labeled 5mg. I'm pretty sure we can nail 1000mg doses of psilocybin pretty accurately.
I like how mushrooms taste, but my sister doesn't. Her husband even insisted that we don't serve any mushrooms at their wedding.
(Granted, it's been years since I last ate magic mushrooms. I loved the way they tasted, but I don't think it's fair for someone who doesn't like they way they taste to have to gag them down just for a trip. I can still remember how they tasted, and the wonderful visions I had.)
Mushrooms also don't store well.
Extracting psilocybin so it can be served in a more palatable and easily stored form is a good thing.
(Granted, it's been years since I last ate magic mushrooms. I loved the way they tasted, but I don't think it's fair for someone who doesn't like they way they taste to have to gag them down just for a trip. I can still remember how they tasted, and the wonderful visions I had.)
Mushrooms also don't store well.
Extracting psilocybin so it can be served in a more palatable and easily stored form is a good thing.
Store as dried fruits with a dessicant packet and a hand warmer (oxygen scavenger) in freezer. Half of the weird mushroom flavor/odor is from it being improperly dried and stored. I dry mine to cracker-dry, and you really don't get a lot of flavor or texture from them.
If they're still hard to consume, shred them and extract into tea. Psilocybin is water soluble. Some like to add lemon juice, as it supposedly hurries the conversion of psilocybin to active psilocin (not sure how true this is). Tastes a little different but is relatively quite palatable.
If they're still hard to consume, shred them and extract into tea. Psilocybin is water soluble. Some like to add lemon juice, as it supposedly hurries the conversion of psilocybin to active psilocin (not sure how true this is). Tastes a little different but is relatively quite palatable.
I remember reading about growing these mushrooms online at some point. The article strongly cautionend against it unless you know very well what you are doing. Growing any kind of mushroom has the potential to also grow nasty and very unhealthy molds and bacteria. You can easily kill yourself by ingesting those, if you are not very careful to avoid contamination. This is absolutely not taken to be lightly and proper lab procedures would for example require you to perform the inoculation in a glove box.
Nature didn't give psilocybin to us as a "gift" in order to help us figure out the world. Just like everything else that can be used and consumed by humans, we co-opted this organism for our own purposes. Psilocybin was evolved by these mushrooms as a defense mechanism against animals trying to eat it, just like every other psychoactive drug. It's a poison, not a medicine. We just so happened to be big enough and our brains wired in a certain way wherein it doesn't kill us or make us feel awful, instead it has the opposite effect.
Yes, we absolutely SHOULD be extracting and studying psilocybin and all of the ways it interacts with our brain. With any luck, we can pinpoint the extremely beneficial parts of the drug and create new synthetic compounds that aren't rife with the normal side effects of a psychedelic experience. Perhaps we'll be able to give this new compound to people with mental disabilities or conditions which would prevent them from taking a psychedelic of kind. Or if it was safe enough, it might make an entire class of SSRIs obsolete as mushrooms have a beneficial effect on those of us with anxiety and depression. I have anxiety, and while micro-dosing every day would probably solve that problem, a whole host of side effects comes along for the ride that wouldn't really be great for things like my job, so the SSRI works for now. But if you told me I could take 1 pill of $SOME_SYNTHETIC_DERIVED_FROM_PSILOCYBIN every 2 weeks instead of 1 pill of lexapro every day, I'd sign up for that in a heartbeat, and I'm sure everyone else would too.
That doesn't mean 'shrooms would go away, far from it. In fact, I think the more research Big Pharma does on psychedelics, the easier it will be to obtain them. It's already pretty easy (and legal) if you know where to look for spores, and at that point it's just buying some equipment and waiting. I pine for the day that mushroom growing kits are sold that make it totally painless for people to grow their own.
Yes, we absolutely SHOULD be extracting and studying psilocybin and all of the ways it interacts with our brain. With any luck, we can pinpoint the extremely beneficial parts of the drug and create new synthetic compounds that aren't rife with the normal side effects of a psychedelic experience. Perhaps we'll be able to give this new compound to people with mental disabilities or conditions which would prevent them from taking a psychedelic of kind. Or if it was safe enough, it might make an entire class of SSRIs obsolete as mushrooms have a beneficial effect on those of us with anxiety and depression. I have anxiety, and while micro-dosing every day would probably solve that problem, a whole host of side effects comes along for the ride that wouldn't really be great for things like my job, so the SSRI works for now. But if you told me I could take 1 pill of $SOME_SYNTHETIC_DERIVED_FROM_PSILOCYBIN every 2 weeks instead of 1 pill of lexapro every day, I'd sign up for that in a heartbeat, and I'm sure everyone else would too.
That doesn't mean 'shrooms would go away, far from it. In fact, I think the more research Big Pharma does on psychedelics, the easier it will be to obtain them. It's already pretty easy (and legal) if you know where to look for spores, and at that point it's just buying some equipment and waiting. I pine for the day that mushroom growing kits are sold that make it totally painless for people to grow their own.
First, my choice to use the word gift is exactly that - a personal choice. If I believe that psilocybin is a gift, what authority do you have to say I am wrong? You may feel differently, and I would respect that, without pretending I know better than you on how to interpret such things.
Second, you say, "It's a poison, not a medicine" while following with several points supporting the clear medicinal values of the chemical. There is no concrete evidence suggesting psilocybin is a defense mechanism. That's one of the fascinating things about mycology - we know very little. Many mycologists believe that psilocybin may actually be used to attract animals, not repel them. There are several studies about the connection between mycelium and plants as well as theories that the mushroom's fruits bring animals into an ecosystem to disturb/fertilize the surrounding flora, as well as possibly assist with the germination of trees/plants that the fungi depend on.
Humans do not have a monopoly on ingesting these mushrooms - goats have been known to seek out psilocybe cubensis and many different animals seek plants/chemicals that bring on altered states of consciousness. Check out "Stealing Fire" if your interested in learning more about this.
It seems you may know very little on mirco-dosing. Many mirco-dosers take a pill every 3-4 days. One of the basic principles is that you do not have any perception of the chemical so no negative side effects. It should not inhibit job performance in any way, if done properly. And much of the research suggest micro-dosing has lasting benefits when a user ends their micro-doing after ~8 weeks. Since you'd "sign up in a heart beat" and know how easy it is to find mushrooms, my question is why do you choose to continue supporting big pharma with daily SSIs? I think it could be argued that the cost/known negative side effects of SSIs outweigh the potential (not confirmed) negatives of a properly regimented 6-8 week micro-dosing experiment. Just my thoughts. I also look forward to the day when growing kits are easily available.
Second, you say, "It's a poison, not a medicine" while following with several points supporting the clear medicinal values of the chemical. There is no concrete evidence suggesting psilocybin is a defense mechanism. That's one of the fascinating things about mycology - we know very little. Many mycologists believe that psilocybin may actually be used to attract animals, not repel them. There are several studies about the connection between mycelium and plants as well as theories that the mushroom's fruits bring animals into an ecosystem to disturb/fertilize the surrounding flora, as well as possibly assist with the germination of trees/plants that the fungi depend on.
Humans do not have a monopoly on ingesting these mushrooms - goats have been known to seek out psilocybe cubensis and many different animals seek plants/chemicals that bring on altered states of consciousness. Check out "Stealing Fire" if your interested in learning more about this.
It seems you may know very little on mirco-dosing. Many mirco-dosers take a pill every 3-4 days. One of the basic principles is that you do not have any perception of the chemical so no negative side effects. It should not inhibit job performance in any way, if done properly. And much of the research suggest micro-dosing has lasting benefits when a user ends their micro-doing after ~8 weeks. Since you'd "sign up in a heart beat" and know how easy it is to find mushrooms, my question is why do you choose to continue supporting big pharma with daily SSIs? I think it could be argued that the cost/known negative side effects of SSIs outweigh the potential (not confirmed) negatives of a properly regimented 6-8 week micro-dosing experiment. Just my thoughts. I also look forward to the day when growing kits are easily available.
Also, since we already have 4-aco-dmt (which is virtually identical to psilocybin), so there's no real reason to extract.
Having had countless cubensis trips and a handful of 4-aco-dmt ones, I didn't find them very similar (and found the latter to be uniquely unpleasant). Perhaps I have weird chemistry, but I'm not alone. I would hate for others to miss out.
I would second this. It might be, though, because it is much easier to overdose 4-Aco-DMT than shrooms. Even most milligram scales don't reliably differentiate between 30 and 50 mg but the trip on the latter would be immensely more intense. 4-Aco-DMT seems also to be much closer to DMT than, say, LSD.
Yes, I'd rather just eat the mushrooms. We used to grow them on autoclaved rice, in mason jars. Also, it's not at all obvious that psilocybin is the only active compound. And conversely, I wouldn't want to experiment with analogs that don't predominate in mushrooms.
[deleted]
I think you could make the same argument about.... everything? Farming and selective breeding vs. hunting and gathering? Inventing modern materials rather than using wood and stone and animal parts? Pretty much everything. "Mistakes from the past?" Which specific ones are you speaking of? I don't doubt there have been many, but if you are talking about choosing not to simply take things as nature gives them to us, well, I guess you want to return to the stone age or something, but the world doesn't support 7 billion people doing things that way.
Some examples that come to mind are pesticides/herbicides/synthetic fertilizers. The farming example is very on-point actually. Production agriculture has become synonomous with monocultures (growing one species) to maximize "yield", and it's having devastating consequences. We're killing micro organisms in the soil, which are necessary for nutrient exchange to the crops. Modern vegetables have 50-80% less nutrients than those of 50 years ago. The lack of diversity in plant species means a single predator/pest will not have any natural repellents, thus requiring pesticides. The soils, losing nutrients rapidly, now require additives in the form of synthetic fertilizers: nitrogen, prosperous, and potassium. We took a system that worked, tried to over engineer it, and created a whole mess of problems and additonal work/cost.
Another: We took cows, which have a special organ called a rumen that is specifically designed to extract nutrients from grasses, an abundant resource that many animals cannot use as a food source, and instead began feeding them diets of corn. The corn heavy diets is worse for the cows overall immune system, requiring the addition of antibiotics. Farmers who raise cows in balance with their natural state of a grass based diet will need little to no antibiotics.
Wood is making a massive comeback in the commercial construction industry because we realized it has some properties that we were too willing to dismiss, including it's flexibility and amazing strength-to-weight in relation to it's cost to produce.
I'm not anti-technology or anti-innovation, but I think it's also important to ask ourselves whether all this extra work we create for ourselves is actually necessary/beneficial. In the case of psilocybin synthesis/extracts, I'm a bit skeptical. I think we're trying to re-invent the wheel.
Another: We took cows, which have a special organ called a rumen that is specifically designed to extract nutrients from grasses, an abundant resource that many animals cannot use as a food source, and instead began feeding them diets of corn. The corn heavy diets is worse for the cows overall immune system, requiring the addition of antibiotics. Farmers who raise cows in balance with their natural state of a grass based diet will need little to no antibiotics.
Wood is making a massive comeback in the commercial construction industry because we realized it has some properties that we were too willing to dismiss, including it's flexibility and amazing strength-to-weight in relation to it's cost to produce.
I'm not anti-technology or anti-innovation, but I think it's also important to ask ourselves whether all this extra work we create for ourselves is actually necessary/beneficial. In the case of psilocybin synthesis/extracts, I'm a bit skeptical. I think we're trying to re-invent the wheel.
I do wonder what is lost, too. Some folks talk about "mushroom pills" (simply powdered, full spectrum mushrooms) and some talk about "psilocybin extract". It's my understanding that different psilocybe mushrooms species have different effects due to varying levels of not just psilocybin, but psilocin (psilocybin metabolizes to psilocin, but it is also in many species), baeocystin (mexicanas tend to be higher in this) and norbaeocystin.
It does a little bit cut into the organic/spiritual nature of the experience. If I am going to get high I have recently gone back to just smoking weed instead of eating a 'watermelon burst' gummy or something. Smoking with a pipe is timeless and the ritual, smell, taste are all a part of it for me.
Same thing with mushrooms, preparing the tea for me is a part of the experience.
Same thing with mushrooms, preparing the tea for me is a part of the experience.
Dosing is far easier in pill form regardless?
You can make capsules from ground up mushrooms very easily.
Grinding up a mushroom and putting it in a capsule seems unpredictable, dose-wise.
But a whole batch mixed together? It seems like that would be both testable and predictable. This is the way to go for sure.
But a whole batch mixed together? It seems like that would be both testable and predictable. This is the way to go for sure.
From what I remember from 14 years ago when I was more interested in this, psilocybic mushroom strains are, gram-for-gram, almost all equivalent in relative potency.
Drying them to cracker dry, then grinding them up, and encapsulating (optional), is a safe way to dose. It's not unpredictable.
> But a whole batch mixed together
Indeed. This is the right way to do it.
Making it in a test tube is fine, but it's really not needed. Mushrooms are very cheap to grow, and it's not like people need to take big doses daily to get the benefits.
Drying them to cracker dry, then grinding them up, and encapsulating (optional), is a safe way to dose. It's not unpredictable.
> But a whole batch mixed together
Indeed. This is the right way to do it.
Making it in a test tube is fine, but it's really not needed. Mushrooms are very cheap to grow, and it's not like people need to take big doses daily to get the benefits.
mushrooms aren't as cheap to grow as laboratory yeast cultures already set up to produce quantities of drug of interest.
> There is no reason That psilocybin shouldn’t be administered in its most common form, as it has been for thousands of years
They’re using very large doses in therapy, and there are a lot of unpleasant things that are going to happen already even at the minimum effective dose.
They’re using very large doses in therapy, and there are a lot of unpleasant things that are going to happen already even at the minimum effective dose.
It sounded equivalent to 3-4 grams of dried mushrooms, which is a moderately large dose (well that's what they described as a "sweet spot"), but not out of the ordinary. Trips are graded up to level 5 with is > 5g dried. Terrance McKenna talks a lot about 5g in silent darkness.
I doubt that they're "using very large doses in therapy". Compared to serious recreational users, that is. And in my experience, few if any "unpleasant things" occur with Psilocybe. What things were you thinking of?
What is the going price for 1 mg of psilocybin? I am seeing a site sell magic mushrooms (Psilocybe Aztecorum) with a psilocybin quantity of ~1g for $15. 7 g for $72. Is this the publicly available norm or does it seem cheap.
It’s not hard or expensive to turn brown rice flour and vermiculite into mushrooms. The bit about expensive to create a pharmaceutical compound growing from a mushroom is just silly. Extraction can’t be that expensive.
> Extraction can’t be that expensive.
From the article, apparently yes it can: "It's unfeasible and way too expensive to extract psilocybin from magic mushrooms"
From the article, apparently yes it can: "It's unfeasible and way too expensive to extract psilocybin from magic mushrooms"
It does say that.
It's wrong, what it says, but it definitely says it.
It's wrong, what it says, but it definitely says it.
Is there any pure psilocybin being sold?
My (entirely pop-culture based) impression is that "white powder" and similar processed substances of high purity are the dominant form for almost all drugs. Cocaine isn't sold as leaves, nor can you buy dried poppies.
Marijuana is an exception because it easier to smoke in its more natural state and, let's face it, because its users are hippies beholden to the naturalistic fallacy. But THC and that-other-stuff-I-cant-remember are available as concentrates.
Given these preferences, psilocybin is the outlier where, as far as I can tell, only the raw, natural form is available. Since the taste is so awful it's close to legendary, I think we can exclude market preference as a cause. That leaves the extraction being rather difficult as the most plausible explanation, doesn't it?
My (entirely pop-culture based) impression is that "white powder" and similar processed substances of high purity are the dominant form for almost all drugs. Cocaine isn't sold as leaves, nor can you buy dried poppies.
Marijuana is an exception because it easier to smoke in its more natural state and, let's face it, because its users are hippies beholden to the naturalistic fallacy. But THC and that-other-stuff-I-cant-remember are available as concentrates.
Given these preferences, psilocybin is the outlier where, as far as I can tell, only the raw, natural form is available. Since the taste is so awful it's close to legendary, I think we can exclude market preference as a cause. That leaves the extraction being rather difficult as the most plausible explanation, doesn't it?
Not to detract from your point, but there was a lovely, decade-long period where coca tea leaf, packaged in tea bags, was readily available online, including from Amazon.
I miss that, because I have no interest in cocaine powder whatsoever, but coca tea is a nice change of pace from caffeine-based natural stimulants.
With respect to psilo(cy)bin, there's a product one can find sometimes called 'tootsie roll', which is a concentrate of the alkaloids mixed with chocolate and other confectionary ingredients. A simple alcohol extraction will do the trick, and ordinary acid-base workup can get whatever degree of purity is desired.
The phosphoryl group is somewhat delicate, which means what you end up with using acid-base is mostly psilocin. But no one actually cares about that ;)
I miss that, because I have no interest in cocaine powder whatsoever, but coca tea is a nice change of pace from caffeine-based natural stimulants.
With respect to psilo(cy)bin, there's a product one can find sometimes called 'tootsie roll', which is a concentrate of the alkaloids mixed with chocolate and other confectionary ingredients. A simple alcohol extraction will do the trick, and ordinary acid-base workup can get whatever degree of purity is desired.
The phosphoryl group is somewhat delicate, which means what you end up with using acid-base is mostly psilocin. But no one actually cares about that ;)
Johns Hopkins trials administer a pill, so I assume it's available somewhere.
I don't think we can exclude market preference. Dried mushrooms are harder to fake than white powders, so it increases buyer's confidence that they're getting the real thing.
I'd love to hear more about this cheap, efficient extraction of psilocybin from mushrooms.
I'd love to hear someone actually quoting dollars per milligram, and do an actual cost-benefit comparison between the mushroom production pathway and this novel yeast pathway. You can produce mushroom juice in a H20 solution cheaply at home for about $0.1 per 10mg of psilocybin. If you want pure psilocybin, it needs to be extracted from such a solution, but I am sure some similar extraction is needed for yeast-produced psilocybin as well. Obtaining psilocybin from yeast sounds like a great technological breakthrough, but I'm highly skeptical of economic arguments where no actual numbers are presented.
They were doing it in Amsterdam for years for the recreational market, and still do with truffles. Is it just profit making motive that is coming into play here?
Not inducing extreme nausea seems like sufficient reason for a different process.
I think a lot of this discussion is missing the forest for the trees. Here we have people arguing whether it’s better to make powder out of these psychoactive mushrooms and use that as a drug vs extract pure psilocybin and use that as a drug.
I know little of pharmacology but I can see one use of pure compounds: further research. Analyzing how psilocybin affects serotonin receptors could potentially help design other drugs that act on those receptors without psychedelic side effects. It could also help with creating other psilocybin analogs with different effects. And of course having the ability to study in detail the effects that other substances in the psychoactive mushrooms have might help identify other areas of study.
As a software analogy, this is like the debate whether it’s better to have Google Maps vs mapping software and all the underlying data. Of course it’s better to have the latter even if some romanticize the former.
I know little of pharmacology but I can see one use of pure compounds: further research. Analyzing how psilocybin affects serotonin receptors could potentially help design other drugs that act on those receptors without psychedelic side effects. It could also help with creating other psilocybin analogs with different effects. And of course having the ability to study in detail the effects that other substances in the psychoactive mushrooms have might help identify other areas of study.
As a software analogy, this is like the debate whether it’s better to have Google Maps vs mapping software and all the underlying data. Of course it’s better to have the latter even if some romanticize the former.
When "researching cannabis", using just pure thc may not be optimal because cbd, cbn, and other chemicals produce a different kind of high and, if I recall correctly, especially cbd counters some of the most negative effects of thc, etc.
Similarily, people might be worrying about oversimplifying mushrooms to just psilocybin because mushrooms have more than one chemical in them and they might work in a synergistic way as well.
Similarily, people might be worrying about oversimplifying mushrooms to just psilocybin because mushrooms have more than one chemical in them and they might work in a synergistic way as well.
I think you are agreeing with my point: if you can synthesize pure THC you can compare its effects to the cocktail of substances that is cannabis and identify CBD as another active part of the equation. Once you synthesize both you can look for a third, and so on. You can then much more quickly study interactions and combinations. Waiting to genetically create a different combination of all these substances is going to be much slower. Also it allows you to combine them with other substances to study those interactions. Imagine a study of a combination of CBD, a beta blocker, and psilocybin. That would be a difficult thing to do if you start with just the plant material, but easier with pure substances.
> Of course it’s better to have the latter
All other things being equal.
All other things being equal.
Has OpenStreetMaps made Google Maps disappear?
I think we've had an unintended misunderstanding.
>> As a software analogy, this is like the debate whether it’s better to have Google Maps vs mapping software and all the underlying data. Of course it’s better to have the latter even if some romanticize the former.
> All other things being equal.
More explicitly, my point is that this is only true if all(!) other variables were equal. A variable from TFA that has significant variance is cost. If you're in a hypothetical scenario of choosing between Google Maps (free, or nominal) vs mapping software and all the underlying data ($420 zillion), even though the latter product is preferable, the difference in that one variable could be a deal breaker.
I have no idea what the actual numbers or other particulars are in the real world between OpenStreetMaps and Google Maps, but that they both exist suggests different customers have different requirements (and budgets), and choose the most appropriate technology accordingly.
>> As a software analogy, this is like the debate whether it’s better to have Google Maps vs mapping software and all the underlying data. Of course it’s better to have the latter even if some romanticize the former.
> All other things being equal.
More explicitly, my point is that this is only true if all(!) other variables were equal. A variable from TFA that has significant variance is cost. If you're in a hypothetical scenario of choosing between Google Maps (free, or nominal) vs mapping software and all the underlying data ($420 zillion), even though the latter product is preferable, the difference in that one variable could be a deal breaker.
I have no idea what the actual numbers or other particulars are in the real world between OpenStreetMaps and Google Maps, but that they both exist suggests different customers have different requirements (and budgets), and choose the most appropriate technology accordingly.
> the best chemical synthesis methods require expensive and difficult to source starting substrates
This type of thing always amazes me about nature -- obviously all the ingredients necessary exist in the soil the mushroom is grown in!
Yet the best we can do to mimic nature is get some hard-to-acquire substrates. It's so interesting how, given enough time, the universe can produce a self-replicating organism that can do something with basic building blocks that we can't do with current technology...
(okay, maybe this is a bit romantic, but it's still fun to think about)
This type of thing always amazes me about nature -- obviously all the ingredients necessary exist in the soil the mushroom is grown in!
Yet the best we can do to mimic nature is get some hard-to-acquire substrates. It's so interesting how, given enough time, the universe can produce a self-replicating organism that can do something with basic building blocks that we can't do with current technology...
(okay, maybe this is a bit romantic, but it's still fun to think about)
> all the ingredients necessary exist in the soil the mushroom is grown in
I can't speak for mushrooms, but for plants, the vast majority of the mass actually comes from carbon in the air (breathes in CO2, takes the carbon, breathes out O2) and obviously water.
I can't speak for mushrooms, but for plants, the vast majority of the mass actually comes from carbon in the air (breathes in CO2, takes the carbon, breathes out O2) and obviously water.
>Generally, plants make their food using the sun's energy (photosynthesis), while animals eat, then internally digest, their food. Fungi do neither: their mycelium grows into or around the food source, secretes enzymes that digest the food externally, and the mycelium then absorbs the digested nutrients.
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/publications/00029/mushwhat.ht...
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/publications/00029/mushwhat.ht...
The mail innovation to come out of 4 billion years of natural selection are essentially just really really really good catalysists: enzymes. They've got an admirable specificity and efficiency. We dont have 4 billion years to figure out how to do it as well, but we've gotten not that terrible in just a few thousand!
Psilocybin may be an underrated chemical precursor. 4-substituted indoles are notoriously difficult to synthesize. Psilocin is a rare example of a natural one. (LSD is another.) For example, a milliliter of 4-bromoindole costs a whopping $75:
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/524336?...
Presumably this technique could produce psilocybin for much less than $75 per milliliter.
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/524336?...
Presumably this technique could produce psilocybin for much less than $75 per milliliter.
Be careful thinking about potential cost of bringing a synthesis to market based on Sigma Aldrich catalog prices. SA is a supply house for research chemicals, prioritizing quantity of compounds offered and consistent, specified quality over price. The range of products they offer is insane, even considering the reactivity and instability of some of them.
If your commercialize a compound, you source these starting materials (eg. Bromoindole) directly through manufacturers. You will be able to buy in bulk at 10-1000x lower prices, sometimes. Of course you need to do judicious quality controls yourself, but you likely have the scaling benefits to do.
If your commercialize a compound, you source these starting materials (eg. Bromoindole) directly through manufacturers. You will be able to buy in bulk at 10-1000x lower prices, sometimes. Of course you need to do judicious quality controls yourself, but you likely have the scaling benefits to do.
Are you sure that these precursors aren't just expensive because so many of the compounds that go into them, or which come from them, are controlled substances?
There are a lot of bulk reactants that I'd like to buy for chemistry experiments, but can't (because they're controlled, because they can be used to make illegal things), so I have to make them myself from even earlier precursor chemicals; this adds (via labor costs) to the cost of making the final product. Presumably, even big producers like Sigma are in the same situation.
There are a lot of bulk reactants that I'd like to buy for chemistry experiments, but can't (because they're controlled, because they can be used to make illegal things), so I have to make them myself from even earlier precursor chemicals; this adds (via labor costs) to the cost of making the final product. Presumably, even big producers like Sigma are in the same situation.
If you're curious go search.
Sigma sells cocaine, heroin, and LSD, for example, nevermind precursors. They won't sell them to you, but they will sell them to organizations with the correct permissions to buy them. Regulatory compliance might add to the cost, but for a company like Sigma I'd expect doing things in-house to lower costs not raise them.
Sigma sells cocaine, heroin, and LSD, for example, nevermind precursors. They won't sell them to you, but they will sell them to organizations with the correct permissions to buy them. Regulatory compliance might add to the cost, but for a company like Sigma I'd expect doing things in-house to lower costs not raise them.
There's a long history of pairing entheogenic substances with yeast and its bi-products.
For around 1900 years a biannual event took place near Athens known as The Eleusinian Mysteries.[1] This was a real occurrence of which Plato, Socrates, Cicero, Marcus Aurelius and many others wrote about or attended in person. The event culminated in a secret ceremony in which participants invariably reported losing their fear of death [2] Much has been written on the topic, with growing speculation through the 20th century that the initiates took an entheogenic substance, such as psilocybin or ergotamine, from mushrooms, beer or barley. [3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusinian_Mysteries [2] https://www.ancient.eu/article/32/the-eleusinian-mysteries-t... [3] PDF https://www.mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/MedHistor/art...
For around 1900 years a biannual event took place near Athens known as The Eleusinian Mysteries.[1] This was a real occurrence of which Plato, Socrates, Cicero, Marcus Aurelius and many others wrote about or attended in person. The event culminated in a secret ceremony in which participants invariably reported losing their fear of death [2] Much has been written on the topic, with growing speculation through the 20th century that the initiates took an entheogenic substance, such as psilocybin or ergotamine, from mushrooms, beer or barley. [3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusinian_Mysteries [2] https://www.ancient.eu/article/32/the-eleusinian-mysteries-t... [3] PDF https://www.mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/MedHistor/art...
Realistically, I know this will be used to make pills.
But the first thing I thought when I saw the headline was, "Wow. That's some interesting beer."
But the first thing I thought when I saw the headline was, "Wow. That's some interesting beer."
Denmark is in general pretty well known for doing stuff with yeast. The yeast used in most of the worlds lager beer are all "descendants" of a yeast cultivated by the beer company Carlsberg which have been distributed around the world. And the pharma company Nova were among the first to produce human insulin with yeast.
I mean it sounds like if you could get your hands on this yeast you could actually make psychedelic beer (or bread).
I think the method uses some special enzymes that can only be really be used with yeast. So yeast is just a supporting role in the operation and the enzyme is the star.
They say they tried to get E. Coli to operate the enzyme (E. Coli is used often to make all kinds of drugs, like insulin) but it didn't work and got yeast to work with it.
They say they tried to get E. Coli to operate the enzyme (E. Coli is used often to make all kinds of drugs, like insulin) but it didn't work and got yeast to work with it.
That's not quite the right read - the previous work (I'm not even sure if it was that lab) was to engineer e. coli to make psilocybin, but e. coli was a bad factory because it still needed a very expensive to make/obtain chemical added as a feedstock.
So instead, they put the same genetic material into yeast which already had the necessary metabolic equipment to make the entire compound "de novo" (i.e. from scratch - just add sugar and yeast nutrients and it pumps out psilocybin). The downside is that the yeast's metabolic pathways chew up about half the product, so there is still work to do on making it more efficiently, but at yields of 600mg/L it's not exactly a bad start. (For reference, depression researchers tested the compound at dose of 30 mg for a 155lb man and it yielded psychoactive effects.)
So instead, they put the same genetic material into yeast which already had the necessary metabolic equipment to make the entire compound "de novo" (i.e. from scratch - just add sugar and yeast nutrients and it pumps out psilocybin). The downside is that the yeast's metabolic pathways chew up about half the product, so there is still work to do on making it more efficiently, but at yields of 600mg/L it's not exactly a bad start. (For reference, depression researchers tested the compound at dose of 30 mg for a 155lb man and it yielded psychoactive effects.)
By my reading the yeast does the whole job, short of purification, meaning getting the yeast, sugar, and alcohol out of it afterward.
Why even a 50% loss of product would be debilitating is a mystery. It's not like the yeast collects a salary, or like sugar is expensive. The author doesn't seem to realize how little of the stuff is needed for a dose.
Why even a 50% loss of product would be debilitating is a mystery. It's not like the yeast collects a salary, or like sugar is expensive. The author doesn't seem to realize how little of the stuff is needed for a dose.
Your sibling comment said a yield of 600mg/L, and that a 30mg dose has psychoactive effects. Seems like that works out to 20 doses/L, which is a better yield than beer!
> But the first thing I thought when I saw the headline was, "Wow. That's some interesting beer."
You know those researchers have already thought that one through. They've each probably got a brew going in their basements as we speak...
You know those researchers have already thought that one through. They've each probably got a brew going in their basements as we speak...
[deleted]
For those interested, here is a link to the paper referenced in the article:
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S109671761930401X?...
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S109671761930401X?...
It looks like this would be used for large scale synthesis of psilocybin.
Reminded me of a case of mass food poisoning related to bread making people delirious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Pont-Saint-Esprit_mass_po...
Psylocibin is already synthetically available as I understand - its a pill they get in Johns Hopkins trails for smoking cessation. Anyone know how that is produced?
Another point they make is about psylocin. As I understand, as soon as psylocibin hits your stomach acid it gets converted to psylocin anyway. People use lemon to do the process before ingesting in order for it to hit them faster.
Another point they make is about psylocin. As I understand, as soon as psylocibin hits your stomach acid it gets converted to psylocin anyway. People use lemon to do the process before ingesting in order for it to hit them faster.
Yeast is everywhere. I was recently reading about how to cultivate wild yeast in a jar left on your countertop for use in making sourdough bread.
What happens when some of the yeast you capture in the environment is producing psilocybin?
I saw no mention in the article of considerations to keep these genetic modifications contained within the psilocybin manufacturing process.
What happens when some of the yeast you capture in the environment is producing psilocybin?
I saw no mention in the article of considerations to keep these genetic modifications contained within the psilocybin manufacturing process.
Generally, most genetic modifications like these are harmful to the competitiveness of the microorganism in the wild. It's possible that producing psilocybin could help it be more competitive, but this would be the exception rather than the rule. Generally, the organism expends so much energy and material producing the engineered substance that it's worse at doing other things.
Is that why flour is flying off the shelves right now? ;)
The construction of the tripping factory.
Consciousness studies will be the next frontier and may bring our race further, faster, than space exploration. In my opinion.
I've never once heard a bit of insight from a psychonaut that was particularly game-changing. We're all connected, consciousness is an illusion, societal structures are somewhat arbitrarily defined, etc. These are the existential thoughts of teenagers. Life is just energy, energy is just vibrations, everything is a fractal, etc, these are just the existential speculations of people making baseless claims.
Consciousness as a useful frontier, in my opinion, will only have utility as it intersects with neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Producing consciousness with AI will be game-changing. Altering or affecting consciousness with neuroscience, or allowing consciousness to interact with neuroscience in such a way that interfaces with other technologies will be game-changing, sure.
But giving people psychedelics and having them explore their own consciousnesses is not going to catalyze our society forward by leaps and bounds, that has been done since at least the 60s. I obviously don't care if people do whatever they'd like, I just don't see the point in romanticizing them.
Consciousness as a useful frontier, in my opinion, will only have utility as it intersects with neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Producing consciousness with AI will be game-changing. Altering or affecting consciousness with neuroscience, or allowing consciousness to interact with neuroscience in such a way that interfaces with other technologies will be game-changing, sure.
But giving people psychedelics and having them explore their own consciousnesses is not going to catalyze our society forward by leaps and bounds, that has been done since at least the 60s. I obviously don't care if people do whatever they'd like, I just don't see the point in romanticizing them.
Clichés have this issue. They are the fruit of deep introspection by generations, but the end result feels so small that it can be easily ignored.
We are all connected. Love thy neighbor. Consciousness is an illusion. Yadda yadda. Boooring.
We hear them so much that we become numb and don't give them a second thought. Yeah, we are all connected. So what? I have more important things to do. And we do, of course. The rent is due, COVID-19, wars, and so on.
Then, at some point in people's lives, we stop and ask: why? What's the point in all of this? We get so lost in the day to day that it's hard to see the forest from the trees.
Psychedelics give you a different perspective. It's like going for a ride in your inner self. You might come out now just knowing these clichés, but feeling them. This difference is immense [1].
The same can be done via spirituality and meditation, but there are very few (if any) ways to experience these things as intensely and as quickly as with psychedelics. The challenge is applying these insights in your life, otherwise it's just a fun trip.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/world/americas/a-hallucin...
We are all connected. Love thy neighbor. Consciousness is an illusion. Yadda yadda. Boooring.
We hear them so much that we become numb and don't give them a second thought. Yeah, we are all connected. So what? I have more important things to do. And we do, of course. The rent is due, COVID-19, wars, and so on.
Then, at some point in people's lives, we stop and ask: why? What's the point in all of this? We get so lost in the day to day that it's hard to see the forest from the trees.
Psychedelics give you a different perspective. It's like going for a ride in your inner self. You might come out now just knowing these clichés, but feeling them. This difference is immense [1].
The same can be done via spirituality and meditation, but there are very few (if any) ways to experience these things as intensely and as quickly as with psychedelics. The challenge is applying these insights in your life, otherwise it's just a fun trip.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/world/americas/a-hallucin...
> Consciousness as a useful frontier, in my opinion, will only have utility as it intersects with neuroscience and artificial intelligence.
So by neuroscience and artificial intelligence I'm guessing we can assume you're just referring to western science.
How about the Buddhists? Or the shamans in tribal societies around the world? Was there no utility in their understanding and manipulation of consciousness (which was often achieved through the use of psychedelics)? In many ways the shamans and other spiritual practitioners are far ahead of western science in terms of understanding consciousness. However, that is rarely acknowledged in western society, especially among technical folks such as ourselves. Western science is not the only valid way to understand reality.
So by neuroscience and artificial intelligence I'm guessing we can assume you're just referring to western science.
How about the Buddhists? Or the shamans in tribal societies around the world? Was there no utility in their understanding and manipulation of consciousness (which was often achieved through the use of psychedelics)? In many ways the shamans and other spiritual practitioners are far ahead of western science in terms of understanding consciousness. However, that is rarely acknowledged in western society, especially among technical folks such as ourselves. Western science is not the only valid way to understand reality.
This is the thread I was pulling on.
Have you ever stopped to really ponder the literal awesome nature of dreaming? A relatively simple function we all practice, even our dogs.
When you're in a lucid dream, you have the ability to construct your reality with nothing more than intention. It's a higher fidelity experience for every sense than any virtual reality gear known to Silicon Valley could provide. The nature of lucid dreaming combined with a deeply introspective nature have certainly led me to believe there is a deep well of discovery when it comes to studying consciousness. Is it an emergent phenomenon? Is it something else entirely? Are we all just deterministic robotic meat-sacks? Are we truly just in a simulation?
> Western science is not the only valid way to understand reality.
"Dreams represent just one type of illusion. The whole universe arises and dissolves like a mirage. Everything about us, even the most enlightened qualities, are also dreamlike phenomena. There's nothing that is not encompassed within the dream of illusory being; so in going to sleep, you're just passing from one dream state to another."
Have you ever stopped to really ponder the literal awesome nature of dreaming? A relatively simple function we all practice, even our dogs.
When you're in a lucid dream, you have the ability to construct your reality with nothing more than intention. It's a higher fidelity experience for every sense than any virtual reality gear known to Silicon Valley could provide. The nature of lucid dreaming combined with a deeply introspective nature have certainly led me to believe there is a deep well of discovery when it comes to studying consciousness. Is it an emergent phenomenon? Is it something else entirely? Are we all just deterministic robotic meat-sacks? Are we truly just in a simulation?
> Western science is not the only valid way to understand reality.
"Dreams represent just one type of illusion. The whole universe arises and dissolves like a mirage. Everything about us, even the most enlightened qualities, are also dreamlike phenomena. There's nothing that is not encompassed within the dream of illusory being; so in going to sleep, you're just passing from one dream state to another."
> I've never once heard a bit of insight from a psychonaut that was particularly game-changing.
What is game changing is the experience - not reading or hearing about it.
What is game changing is the experience - not reading or hearing about it.
[deleted]
I think this is more or less obviously wrong. Imagine a primitive society inventing the microscope and then making it illegal, perhaps going so far as to make all types of lenses illegal even those used for eyeglasses. Now you might have small numbers of people willing to experiment with lenses and microscopy in secret but if the society wages a war on glass and actively persecutes and imprisons anyone involved in the lens business it's going to make it very difficult for anyone to make any progress and those that do are going to be people on the fringe with little ability to pursue their research or communicate it to others.
It seems possible to me that psychedelics may be a form of "microscope for the mind" that makes clear details and inner workings that we were not able to see otherwise. It won't revolutionize our understanding over night since we would still need to build a science around it just as we did with the microscope when we discovered a world we had only inklings of before.
It seems possible to me that psychedelics may be a form of "microscope for the mind" that makes clear details and inner workings that we were not able to see otherwise. It won't revolutionize our understanding over night since we would still need to build a science around it just as we did with the microscope when we discovered a world we had only inklings of before.
The microscope was a tool for observing a new layer of objective, real, reproducible phenomenon within a previously inaccessible layer of our universe. Now, considering the conversation we're having, feel free to take "objective and real" with a grain of salt, but what I mean is that they are internally consistent, verifiable, reproducible, etc.
Psychedelics have so far proven to be capable of temporarily rewiring our already highly flawed, subjective consciousness computers, in ways that can be potentially useful, but mostly seem to produce epiphanies that are rooted entirely in subjectivity, entirely fabricated. I don't really care at all if you had an experience that told you that all life existed on a 4 dimensional tetrahedron rotating through time. I do care, though, if you saw some behavior in a bacteria through a microscope which other people can observe and similarly draw their own judgements from.
That doesn't mean that I don't think that already intelligent people can't benefit from an occasional new perspective, potentially brought about by psychedelics in the same way that it could be brought on by a move to a new country, or a walk outside, but that doesn't mean that I think that psychedelics are the gateway to an entire frontier on consciousness.
Psychedelics have so far proven to be capable of temporarily rewiring our already highly flawed, subjective consciousness computers, in ways that can be potentially useful, but mostly seem to produce epiphanies that are rooted entirely in subjectivity, entirely fabricated. I don't really care at all if you had an experience that told you that all life existed on a 4 dimensional tetrahedron rotating through time. I do care, though, if you saw some behavior in a bacteria through a microscope which other people can observe and similarly draw their own judgements from.
That doesn't mean that I don't think that already intelligent people can't benefit from an occasional new perspective, potentially brought about by psychedelics in the same way that it could be brought on by a move to a new country, or a walk outside, but that doesn't mean that I think that psychedelics are the gateway to an entire frontier on consciousness.
My point was not about the validity of psychedelic experiences.
It was about the fact that we have outright banned all avenues of research into these alterations in consciousness so we can't even find out if there are reproducible effects across individuals. If you did care about scientific inquiry and reproducibility then you would also be against these absurd restrictions.
Because of this self-imposed ignorance we're just now beginning to see that psychedelics and other psychoactives can be used to treat a variety of psychological afflictions. I don't think you grasp how important it is to have access to compounds that can produce fundamental alterations to our conscious perception that take effect immediately, have few to no side effects and are completely reversible. Only TDCS and TMS have come anywhere close to that and their effects are nowhere near as powerful or significant.
This isn't about taking a break from reality, doing some yoga, and instagramming your latest shower thought. It's being able to pry open the black box of your own consciousness and poking around inside to see what happens without the necessity of brain surgery and risk of permanent physical or mental disability.
By the way "subjective consciousness computers" sounds about as accurate as "4 dimensional tetrahedron rotating through time". Both are little better than word salad with only tenuous connection to the things they're attempting to describe.
It was about the fact that we have outright banned all avenues of research into these alterations in consciousness so we can't even find out if there are reproducible effects across individuals. If you did care about scientific inquiry and reproducibility then you would also be against these absurd restrictions.
Because of this self-imposed ignorance we're just now beginning to see that psychedelics and other psychoactives can be used to treat a variety of psychological afflictions. I don't think you grasp how important it is to have access to compounds that can produce fundamental alterations to our conscious perception that take effect immediately, have few to no side effects and are completely reversible. Only TDCS and TMS have come anywhere close to that and their effects are nowhere near as powerful or significant.
This isn't about taking a break from reality, doing some yoga, and instagramming your latest shower thought. It's being able to pry open the black box of your own consciousness and poking around inside to see what happens without the necessity of brain surgery and risk of permanent physical or mental disability.
By the way "subjective consciousness computers" sounds about as accurate as "4 dimensional tetrahedron rotating through time". Both are little better than word salad with only tenuous connection to the things they're attempting to describe.
How is describing our brains as "consciousness computers" inaccurate? Our brains have so many analogous components to computers. Both have working memory, long term memory, both have processors proficient in either linear or parallel processing, and the way our neurons interact formed the basis for neutral networks in software.
You also seem to think that I believe it's a good thing that psychedelics are illegal, when I have explicitly said otherwise. I think people should be able to do with their body as they wish, and research into the effects could produce some utility. But what you're talking about here, having psychedelics help "treat a variety of psychological afflictions," isn't what I would consider to be pushing frontiers forwards further and faster than space exploration, although that's ultimately a matter of preference.
You also seem to think that I believe it's a good thing that psychedelics are illegal, when I have explicitly said otherwise. I think people should be able to do with their body as they wish, and research into the effects could produce some utility. But what you're talking about here, having psychedelics help "treat a variety of psychological afflictions," isn't what I would consider to be pushing frontiers forwards further and faster than space exploration, although that's ultimately a matter of preference.
Every era has attempted to explain the functions of the brain using metaphor, usually whatever technological apparatus most in vogue at the time. Hydraulic, mechanical, electrical, and now digital comparisons have all been made and they're all a very poor fit. You could just as easily make the same comparisons you gave to a piece of paper and a pencil. It has working memory where you write and erase lines, it has long term memory where you leave the written lines, and you can perform computations on it by writing them out long form. The comparison should seem absurd because the functions of memory and computation are not actually part of consciousness, they are things acted upon by consciousness.
This makes sense if you imaging 3 scenarios:
1) A person with no short term memory e.g. someone with acute dementia
2) No long term memory e.g. amnesia
3) No processing e.g. sensory deprivation
The third scenario is not perfect but depends entirely on how you define processing. Here I've defined it as operating on sensory input. If you want to define it as "thinking" then you will need to define what thinking is.
As for biological vs. artificial neural networks, yes it appears that a neural network is required for consciousness to exist given our single example of human consciousness. We don't know how this works so we can't even say for sure if the way we've implemented artificial neural networks would be capable of producing a form a consciousness. They can process and categorize data in ways that seem similar to what our brains do with sense perception but so far we haven't come anywhere close to simulating what we would call a conscious agent. Artificial NNs don't tie computers to the brain in a meaningful way because we are only using computers to simulate NNs. It would be better to just talk about the properties of NNs and leave computers out of it.
I apologize if I've made it seem like I'm accusing you of advocating for the illegality of psychedelics. I meant to criticize your opinion that they have little to no benefit since you were arguing that we could derive the same effects from going for a walk or moving to a different country.
"pushing frontiers forwards further and faster than space exploration" this wasn't from me and is not something I necessarily agree with
This makes sense if you imaging 3 scenarios:
1) A person with no short term memory e.g. someone with acute dementia
2) No long term memory e.g. amnesia
3) No processing e.g. sensory deprivation
The third scenario is not perfect but depends entirely on how you define processing. Here I've defined it as operating on sensory input. If you want to define it as "thinking" then you will need to define what thinking is.
As for biological vs. artificial neural networks, yes it appears that a neural network is required for consciousness to exist given our single example of human consciousness. We don't know how this works so we can't even say for sure if the way we've implemented artificial neural networks would be capable of producing a form a consciousness. They can process and categorize data in ways that seem similar to what our brains do with sense perception but so far we haven't come anywhere close to simulating what we would call a conscious agent. Artificial NNs don't tie computers to the brain in a meaningful way because we are only using computers to simulate NNs. It would be better to just talk about the properties of NNs and leave computers out of it.
I apologize if I've made it seem like I'm accusing you of advocating for the illegality of psychedelics. I meant to criticize your opinion that they have little to no benefit since you were arguing that we could derive the same effects from going for a walk or moving to a different country.
"pushing frontiers forwards further and faster than space exploration" this wasn't from me and is not something I necessarily agree with
Psychedelics maybe a useful instrument with which to prod at our psyches, though not what I was implying, by any means.
> useful frontier
I think it's useful if one is to gain deeper self-awareness and emotional discipline by exploring one's perception.
Remove mental obfuscations and negative emotions, let go of all perceived realities of samsara and you may approach self-enlightenment.
> useful frontier
I think it's useful if one is to gain deeper self-awareness and emotional discipline by exploring one's perception.
Remove mental obfuscations and negative emotions, let go of all perceived realities of samsara and you may approach self-enlightenment.
We were the final frontier all along.
A few comments:
- psilocybin is pretty easy to synthesize with the exception of the phosphorylation (can be hard to purify without degrading it)
- this is a research publication, so of course they put their findings in the best possible light (“finally the synthesis everyone has been waiting for”)
- psilocybin is pretty easy to synthesize with the exception of the phosphorylation (can be hard to purify without degrading it)
- this is a research publication, so of course they put their findings in the best possible light (“finally the synthesis everyone has been waiting for”)
This is one of those situations where I feel like we (humans) are approaching it all wrong. Why over complicate it by trying to “extract” the psilocybin instead of treating it like marijuana and growing the mushrooms in highly controlled settings and then testing for potency?!
As someone who’s recently had very positive experiences with both large/small doses of magic mushrooms, it’s disheartening to see us remake the mistakes of the past by trying to over-engineer something from nature. IMO, the optimum approach would be to have humility and simply be stewards of this wonderful gift. There is no reason That psilocybin shouldn’t be administered in its most common form, as it has been for thousands of years, other than it would be harder to profit off of.