= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
mtraven comments on Is it rational to take psilocybin? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (50)
If you are at all interested in how the mind works, you ought to have at least a cursory exposure to psychedelics and other psychoactive drugs.
On the other hand, if you are the kind of person who organizes their life around maximizing a utility function, then you probably shouldn't.
Isn't that a little bit like saying that you should have at least a few concussions to better appreciate how a damaged brain alters experience?
No.
The analogy with a trip to India is not a bad one. You can read all you like about India, but it won't be the same as actually going to Mumbai and experiencing it first-hand. Presumably nobody would claim to be an expert on India without visiting it, seeing as it isn't that hard, and while it is not without risks the experience is worth it.
I disagree here. I think that Annoyance's analogy was apt in that it is the same sort of decision, but with a different cost/benefit analysis. Clearly in both cases (and in the India case) you "should" take the action (get a concussion, take some drugs) if you think that the cost of taking the action is less than the potential benefit.
I do agree with you, however, in the sense that I imagine that most people consider the net benefit of taking drugs at least once to be more in line with a trip to India than with a damaged brain.
I still think it's the same basic framework. "Benefits" is a highly subjective term. I think you are still making the same essential decision - is it worth risk X for new experience Y. I agree with you in the sense that I think very few people would actually decide to take a concussion just to experience an altered brain, but that doesn't mean it's not the same type of decision.
And to be fair to your point, although I think his analogy is apt, it is rhetorically misleading in that the implication is that you wouldn't want the concussions so you shouldn't want the drugs. In fact, I think that the asymmetry between his analogy and the drugs analogy serve to best demonstrate that the question isn't black-and-white and that it would be hasty to jump to the conclusion that everyone interested in brain function should rationally take mushrooms.
Although it is known that concussions cause lasting harms, those harms aren't always noticeable. Our brains have a limited capacity to repair themselves, and that capacity is slowly expended when it's used, which is one of the reasons why people who have had many concussions (playing youth sports, for example) are more likely to have detectable neurological damage in old age. There's less reserve capacity and thus more vulnerability.
I can easily imagine a person who decides that the loss of some of this reserve capacity is worth gaining the insight into what it's like to be in a concussion-induced altered state of consciousness. I don't say I understand or empathize with that decision, but that isn't the point.
Aldous Huxley once identified "professors" as the category of people most llikely to benefit. His reasoniing involved the effect on shaking up their views of the world and seeing things from another perspective.
See interview with him here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnUsawVbRvo
I would nominate Dawkins as the man most likely to benefit. Hallucinogens often produce mystical experiences indistinguishable from religious revelations - c.f. "The Miracle of Marsh Chapel". Dawkins is a seeker - see "God on the brain" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_-txbHNyOY He should probably take some of the classical god medicine. At the moment, he hasn't witnessed what he is talking about. Maybe Sam Harris will turn him on.