.

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Back to the topic

Post by _Some Schmo »

Ezias wrote:So, ANYWAY, back to the subject.

Are Entheogens/Psychedelics specifically against the Word of Wisdom (meaning in the temple recommend interview when asked if a member lives the WoW they would have to say "no" if they had used entheogens), or is is a judgment call on the part of the member?


Are you serious?

If the question is "should they be" then you have a discussion, but if the question is "are they" then the question's been answered. They absolutely are against the WoW.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Ezias
_Emeritus
Posts: 1148
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:40 am

.

Post by _Ezias »

.
Last edited by Rikiti on Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Back to the topic

Post by _harmony »

Ezias wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:
Ezias wrote:So, ANYWAY, back to the subject.

Are Entheogens/Psychedelics specifically against the Word of Wisdom (meaning in the temple recommend interview when asked if a member lives the WoW they would have to say "no" if they had used entheogens), or is is a judgment call on the part of the member?


Are you serious?

If the question is "should they be" then you have a discussion, but if the question is "are they" then the question's been answered. They absolutely are against the WoW.


Ok, so far nobody had provided any doctrinal ground for your statement. All I have seen on this thread are opinions. Many people have your opinion. Why? Is it doctrine or is it Mormon culture? How do you explain the WoW doctrinally to a shaman convert in a country with no stigmatism against entheogens? No "60's" in their history or government anti-drug propoganda or similar brainwashing?

Shamans don't abuse their entheogens. They use them for spiritual purposes.


Shamans don't hold the priesthood. Ask your bishop and see how far you get.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Back to the topic

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Ezias wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:
Ezias wrote:So, ANYWAY, back to the subject.

Are Entheogens/Psychedelics specifically against the Word of Wisdom (meaning in the temple recommend interview when asked if a member lives the WoW they would have to say "no" if they had used entheogens), or is is a judgment call on the part of the member?


Are you serious?

If the question is "should they be" then you have a discussion, but if the question is "are they" then the question's been answered. They absolutely are against the WoW.


Ok, so far nobody had provided any doctrinal ground for your statement. All I have seen on this thread are opinions. Many people have your opinion. Why? Is it doctrine or is it Mormon culture?


Doctrine and Mormon Culture are frequently the same thing.

How do you explain the WoW doctrinally to a shaman convert in a country with no stigmatism against entheogens? No "60's" in their history or government anti-drug propoganda or similar brainwashing?


Easy: you tell him that the entheogens are verboten.

Shamans don't abuse their entheogens. They use them for spiritual purposes.


Right. And some people drink wine for health reasons. It does not change the fact that it is considered to be against the WoW.
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

Some Schmo wrote:Oh really? Well then, clearly, you either don't know how to read, or you are so blusteringly stubborn in your own limited world view that you can't see the forest for the trees. Either way, it matters little to me.


Yes, I do know how to read. No, I am not 'so blusteringly stubborn in your own limited world view that you can't see the forest for the trees'. The argument originally made regarding certain alleged benefits of LSD was found wanting. It was found wanting through negative evidence, and lack of positive evidence. To date, nothing has been presented which supports the original argument. The original argument has now been largely abandoned.

Everything you've accused me of here could easily be said about you ("empty chest beating" particularly), and it wouldn't make a bit of difference, would it?


It couldn't be said about me, because I've been presenting a rational argument which I constructed myself, citing recognised facts.

by the way, for a person who claims faith, you'd do well to not accuse others of not demonstrating "any particular independence of thought" Mr. Bible literalist. Faith and thought are mutually exclusive. Just a heads up for you there.


Firstly, I am not a 'Bible literalist'. Secondly, faith and thought are not mutually exclusive.

Oh, and your signature is pretty funny. I can only imagine the pseudo-criteria you've used to accumulate those "statistics."


You must have missed the relevant thread. Ask Mr Coffee about his regular requests that I updated his score.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Re: Evidence

Post by _Fortigurn »

Ezias wrote:Like I said, read up on the subject (I have already provided a few refferences) to find your evidence. Have you read this http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_re ... 11_06.html ?


I'm sorry, but that doesn't actually address what I asked for. It's a study of how certain hallucinogens can create a 'spiritual' experience in certain people (and of course, the people chosen were those who 'all had active spiritual practices', so that they were able to contextualize their experience).

I noted this:

All of the study’s authors caution about substantial risks of taking psilocybin under conditions not appropriately supervised. “Even in this study, where we greatly controlled conditions to minimize adverse effects, about a third of subjects reported significant fear, with some also reporting transient feelings of paranoia,” says Griffiths. “Under unmonitored conditions, it’s not hard to imagine those emotions escalating to panic and dangerous behavior.”


This doesn't convince me that psilocybin and other hallucinogens are harmless 'warm fuzzy' recreational drugs which are only demonized because the facist industro-militarist system doesn't want people to enjoy themselves.

I'm looking for evidence of the specific claims made for them, and evidence that the 'insightful and mind amplifying effects' specifically enhance the cognitive processes in the manner under discussion. I want to see repeatable evidence that the use of hallucinogens specifically enhance the cognitive processes in the manner under discussion. You have actually acknowledged the inherently unrepeatable nature of hallucinogenic experiences, which substantiates my argument.

I don't think you know what I mean by mind amplifying.


It seems most people have forgotten the original claims made for hallucinogens in this thread. I'm talking about these claims:

Ezias wrote:One theory by Harvard professor Lester Grinspoon is that psychedelic drugs allow human consiousness to grasp a reality that is always there but beyond our normal physical senses.


Ezias wrote:There are many ideas about the structure of the universe in quantum physics that are very similar to what some have "realized" during drug trips. Perhaps, in an altered mental state, the mind has an ability to sense and percieve what science is just starting to scratch the surface of.


I responded:

Fortigurn wrote:A list of quantum physics experts who recognise that drug trips are a much faster way of getting to the truth of quantum physics than the dumb boring old way of using maths, science, and physical observation of our universe, would also be useful. I'm sure that they'd be very happy if they could bypass three years of painstaking and expensive research with a few hours a week flying high as a kite.


To date, no evidence has been provided to support these claims. I'm still waiting for this evidence to be provided.

I mean that things in the mind that are normally hidden from consciousness (subconscious) are brought to the surface. Psychedelics can amplify fear, or joy, or normally idle thoughts. They can also amplify latent mental illness (which is a bad thing).


There's no doubt about this. That is not the issue under discussion. It has never been contested that hallucinogens alter perception, amplify emotions, and trawl up subconscious thoughts and feelings to the conscious level. But that's not the issue under contention. All you've provided so far is evidence that hallucinogens are like someone walking through a room and turning it upside down in a totally random way.

They can also alter the perception of a problem and help a user think outside the box (a good thing).


Can they be used to do so reliably and in an effective manner? This gets back to the claims earlier, and the fact that I'm still waiting for evidence for these claims.

They are a controlled substance because they are so powerfull, and can be abused, not because the side effects outwiegh the benefits.


What do you mean 'they are so powerfull and can be abused'? Could you provide evidence that they are controlled because 'they are so powerfull and can be abused, not because the side effects outweigh the benefits'? The article to which you linked appears to state the opposite.

Psychedelics are unique because they do not always produce the same results that can be repeated. This is because the results are affected by the setting and the mental state of the user. Can you control your wandering subconscious mind? If not, how would you think this would affect the experience of having that mind amlified to the forefront of consciiousness?


Well that's exactly my point. You can't claim that hallucinogens can be used for X, Y and Z if those results cannot be repeated. The effects are unpredictable, uncontrollable, unrepeatable, and to all intents and purposes totally random.

The most which can be said at present is this:

“I had a healthy skepticism going into this,” says Griffiths, “and that finding alone was a surprise.” But, as important, he says, “is that, under very defined conditions, with careful preparation, you can safely and fairly reliably occasion what’s called a primary mystical experience that may lead to positive changes in a person. It’s an early step in what we hope will be a large body of scientific work that will ultimately help people.”


Emphasis mine.

Say you wanted to see if psychedelics could consistently provide more mental clarity. What if the user was in a confused state of mind before taking the drug? It would likely end up in a confusing experience.


I agree entirely.

If the user had a clear state of mind before the trip, this would also likely be amplified, resulting in more insights into ideas the mind is considering.


Evidence please.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Post by _Some Schmo »

Fortigurn wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:Oh really? Well then, clearly, you either don't know how to read, or you are so blusteringly stubborn in your own limited world view that you can't see the forest for the trees. Either way, it matters little to me.


Yes, I do know how to read. No, I am not 'so blusteringly stubborn in your own limited world view that you can't see the forest for the trees'. The argument originally made regarding certain alleged benefits of LSD was found wanting. It was found wanting through negative evidence, and lack of positive evidence. To date, nothing has been presented which supports the original argument. The original argument has now been largely abandoned.

Everything you've accused me of here could easily be said about you ("empty chest beating" particularly), and it wouldn't make a bit of difference, would it?


It couldn't be said about me, because I've been presenting a rational argument which I constructed myself, citing recognised facts.

by the way, for a person who claims faith, you'd do well to not accuse others of not demonstrating "any particular independence of thought" Mr. Bible literalist. Faith and thought are mutually exclusive. Just a heads up for you there.


Firstly, I am not a 'Bible literalist'. Secondly, faith and thought are not mutually exclusive.

Oh, and your signature is pretty funny. I can only imagine the pseudo-criteria you've used to accumulate those "statistics."


You must have missed the relevant thread. Ask Mr Coffee about his regular requests that I updated his score.


Well, again, we find ourselves talking about two entirely separate issues, and although I've addressed the one you're talking about, you refuse to acknowledge what I've been saying, which is that you're likely against drugs based on stuff you've read rather than stuff you really could know about through practical experience. Given that we've been talking about separate things, the rest of this post is largely irrelevant.

And yes, faith and though are mutually exclusive, which is to say, to have faith in the invisible/supernatural, you need to abandon (at least, rational) thought.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

Some Schmo wrote:Well, again, we find ourselves talking about two entirely separate issues, and although I've addressed the one you're talking about, you refuse to acknowledge what I've been saying, which is that you're likely against drugs based on stuff you've read rather than stuff you really could know about through practical experience. Given that we've been talking about separate things, the rest of this post is largely irrelevant.


We haven't quite been talking about two entirely separate issues. I've addressed both the issue which Ezias raised, and the issue which you raised. You are demonstrating an unfortunate prejudice by assuming I am 'against drugs', and further assuming I am 'against drug based on stuff [I]'ve read rather than stuff [I] really could know about through practical experience'.

You have little or no knowledge of my personal background (other than that you know I haven't ever taken LSD), and simply on the basis of my comments on the lack of evidence for the claims made for LSD, you assume that I am generally 'against drugs'.

And yes, faith and though are mutually exclusive, which is to say, to have faith in the invisible/supernatural, you need to abandon (at least, rational) thought.


No you do not. Christianity has enjoyed a long tradition of producing individuals who contributed significantly to scientific achievement and advancement, arguably more than any other religion on this planet, despite being repeatedly stigmatized as the religion of the ignorant, the unenlightened, and those incapable of irrational thought.

Let's remember that it took Christians to drag science out of the stagnant quagmire of Aristotelian thought, when John Philoponus successfully overturned the Aristotelian cosmology (which was hopelessly flawed guesswork), using the cosmology of the Bible, as early as the 6th century AD. The Greeks were good thinkers, but just couldn't make it past Aristotle, and Greek science had been in a dead end for centuries before Philoponus corrected it (you can thank him for the space age). The Romans weren't much help either, because although they were great engineers and practical systematizers, they just weren't that good with science.

It may come as a surprise to you, but if your cosmology involves the sun being pulled across the sky by a chariot, or pushed by a giant dungbeetle, or the planets moved around by little elves, you're never going to get anywhere serious with physics and astronomy.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the stars and planets are inanimate objects which move in regular patterns according to predictable and unchanging impersonal forces and laws established at the moment the universe was created, then you're already halfway there.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
_Ezias
_Emeritus
Posts: 1148
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:40 am

.

Post by _Ezias »

.
Last edited by Rikiti on Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Ezias
_Emeritus
Posts: 1148
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:40 am

.

Post by _Ezias »

.
Last edited by Rikiti on Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply