Any given document, or event in reality, can be read (interpreted) from a wide variety of perspectives, often with completely contradictory conclusions.
Individuals reading this article from a purely logical, scientific materialist perspective, may form drastically different conclusions than those reading from the wide variety of different possible perspectives. And that's fine, it is the nature of humanity. But it seems very plausible to me that an inability (or unwillingness) of people to interpret ideas from multiple perspectives, is not fine.
There are many problems in the world (yes, I know, this has always been the case...from a binary perspective, but that is only one perspective on it). The world is complex, and getting more complex. Perhaps the manner in which we currently evaluate the world lacks the dimensional complexity required to manage it in a reasonably optimum way?
If(!) this was the case, what might that look like? What would discussions about reality look like? Is it possible that we might be in a situation similar to this? How might we know?
What that I've written is offensive or incorrect downvoters? You have a sense of righteousness, but do you have any courage? How do you know your ideas are correct if you never put them to the test? Hiding in a mob seems like a waste of something precious.
I'm curious, how is your comment related to the article? Or in other words, don't you think your comment could be posted in any other entry and would be equally (ir)relevant? It's not that it's incorrect, more like it's kind of non-sequitur-ish, as if you omitted a part of it that connects the comment to what it's commenting on.
My comment could indeed be posted in many other threads and be relevant, but not equally relevant.
I felt this article did a well above-average job communicating details about what alternate states of consciousness are like, and how it can fundamentally change your thinking, in at least a semi-permanent manner. However, most of the comments on the article seem to be written very much from a scientific materialist perspectives, and are often utterly lacking in epistemic humility.
Take the very first sentence from the top voted comment in the thread:
> I did a bunch of ketamine and mdma in the early 2000s. They’re miracle substances and they changed my life in positive ways that I can’t even begin to talk about, but they are not cures for depression. Eventually the effect wears off and all of the stuff that bothered you before will start bothering you again.
This is fairly representative of many comments. Some obvious questions:
- how does he know this to be true?
- it may be pedantically true that they aren't 100% cures on their own for every single person, but might they get us 75% or more of the way there for most people?
- it's true that the effect diminishes over time, but do you completely revert to the previous state? Can the improved state be maintained with ongoing usage (something which is rarely disputed for mainstream pharmaceuticals, but often seems to be considered unacceptable for psychedelics)
> If you don’t figure out how to give your life meaning, the drugs aren’t going to do it for you.
This is another one of those comments that may be pedentically technically true, if read very generously, but also very misleading. Might the subconscious mind choose casual expressions like "do it for you" to maximize persuasion, while minimizing opportunity for criticism ("hey, I was speaking colloquially, man"). The next sentence appears to undo much of the harm, but what impression is left in the mind of an unknowing reader? Who knows. Does it matter? I think it probably does, and maybe a lot.
I would argue that result of this style of speaking is a kind of epistemological chaos - we are discussing substances that may finally offer at least a partial solutions for much of what ails the world, but the status quo aggregate opinion (~nothing particularly noteworthy to be seen here, just woo woo, move along citizen) in most threads like this seems completely incorrect to me. At least, there is a serious lack of epistemic humility - strong, conclusive opinions, on topics where the facts are currently unknown - literally. And no one can admit it (that such things are unknown). To me, this is a utterly surreal state of affairs, and it is incredibly frustrating to experience this, and then open the next thread on HN and hear people complaining about problem-of-the-day that could be fixed if group <x> would "just" stop being "stupid". The irony is bitter sweet.
> Someone I’m sure is going to say that it’s a medicine and not a party drug now because a nurse is giving it and someone wrote a prescription, but it’s the same drug with the same effect.
Again, pedentically technically true as written (maybe, if read generously), but completely overlooks the essentially undisputed (among knowledgeable people) notion of the importance of set and setting. Ignorant and misleading comments like "not a party drug now because a nurse is giving it and someone wrote a prescription" getting heavily upvoted kind of disgusts me to be honest. I am of the opinion that that thinking like this, and the people that support it, are preventing the world from improving. And most likely, many of the people complaining about faults in the world are the very same people who refuse to consider alternative ways of thinking about issues, and downvote anyone who makes such a suggestion.
These substances, and articles like this, are finally giving us some new insights into possible underlying reasons of why people behave like they do, and believe the things they do (anti-vaxx, climate change deniers, I have no reason to be happy, etc), in spite of overwhelming and "obvious" (or so it seems) evidence to the contrary.
And it seems if you try to point this possibility out to people, they will get angry at you. What could explain these effects (of the substances), and this behavior (~refusal to even consider certain possibilites)? How about this: the human ego. The human ego often doesn't like to be disagreed with. This is clear as day, if one is willing to look. But it seems like the ego will only allow this on certain topics, almost as kind of a self-defense mechanism.
It's not that it's incorrect, more like it's kind of non-sequitur-ish, as if you omitted a part of it that connects the comment to what it's commenting on.
I don't think it's so much that it's a non-sequitur (it isn't), but perhaps that it seems (but actually isn't, if one is willing to think, which is my point) irrelevant (or blatantly obvious) to the degree that it is considered useless. With any topic, if people refuse to use their minds (and that very much is the case), there's a good chance they won't understand the material. Mocking various out-groups for refusing to acknowledge facts and think properly is a popular pastime on HN, but rare is the individual who is able to even consider the possibility that they suffer from the very same psychological affliction.
Trust me, without reading this last comment, I couldn't have known what you meant with the original comment. I tend to fall in the same trap, thinking that people understand what I have in mind with minimal explanation.
I wonder how often this is the case, where the shortcomings of language, the medium, and many other things, result in incorrect perceptions of disagreement, where none actually exists.
That's the kind of thing I wish people would be able to take away from essays like this.
> ...and began to understand, on an emotional plane that overshoots the academic level at which I’d only previously understood this— that all that’s come today comes from all that’s come before, and as all things must pass, so must we always find ourselves fighting the same battles forever and ever, until the lesson is learned.
> I emerged from that realization inspired, empowered and with a newfound sense of gravitas where rage and anger once resided. Where we are, now, as a human collective, is further along on the continuum of progress, yet no closer to achieving it. The moral arc of the universe is long, and bends toward justice, but that bend is fraught with fractious regressions, pauses, and misfires.
> ...continuing for the next several paragraphs.
> I began to confront things I felt I had forgotten. People I’d hurt. People I’d wronged. People who’d hurt me. People who’d wronged me. Traumas of every degree, gradient, and sub-genre stretching as far back as preschool. My brother who severed contact with me five years ago. Friends I’d let down. Bosses who’d fired me. Drugs I wished I’d never done. Drinks I wished I’d never drank. Decisions I made and regretted. Decisions I never made and regretted not making.
> I was not scared — I gazed at them right in the eyes, and forgave them right in the moment. I forgave myself, too. “It’s okay,” I told them. “You are free.” And then they would leave, or I would leave. Determining who “leaves” during a ketamine trip is a bit like trying to choose which half of the car you want to drive while the other half is a boat. I rose in a grain elevator I didn’t willingly enter, and I escaped the minus-world as it crumbled and roared behind me. Safe.
And so on.
These sorts of sentiments seems potentially more productive than the "You're wrong, no you're wrong, and stupid..." mode that much of humanity seems stubbornly dedicated to currently, but then it doesn't seem clear to me that everyone experiences these things in the same way, and many seem(!) opposed to the very idea.
This place seems a little less infuriating taken into context, much in the "zen" spirit of the article that you quote.
Ten years ago I used to find tech news from other forums. The two more popular were Reddit and Slashdot. Both had unfortunate trends that made discusion tiresome to follow. Reddit had those pun threads in which everybody seemed to compete to be the funniest guy in the room while Slashdot was the church of the Free Software and Saint IGNUtius.
It was as if in any conversation that you tried to have, a bunch of laughing teenagers making jokes, or a bunch of quasi-religious zealots took over. Hacker News on the other hand was the forum for YC startup founders, with a practical approach to the same subjects, so it was a welcome change.
Ten years later it has been slowly degrading. It's full of self-serious young people that instead of making tons of jokes, frown upon any attempt of humour and, instead of the classic FSF zealotry, we have the usual offline causes, trying to shame everybody into thinking "the right way". If you take this place as some kind of contest to defend the best ideas, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Such place doesn't exist. It's enough that there's a place where interesting ideas are at least presented as articles and some comments.
About the drugs discusion, there has been a couple of topics here that may explain the caution some of us have. One was modafinil. A few years ago a bunch of articles were posted telling wonders about it. A guy said that he had learnt quantum physics in an infamous article, other guy that his procrastination problems had disappeared thanks to the drug.
You'll see that recent comments that appear in the search were starting to be negative. Modify the search to show last years results. There is none. That was a fad, people spent their money because what do you expect in a site like this where everybody wants to be more creative, smart and procrastinate less?
Similar things are being said now about hallucinogens. Most repeated line is that the experience is life changing. I dropped an acid more than 30 years ago. It was spectacular, but I wouldn't call it "life changing" and I haven't had the desire to repeat since. I don't feel like I have the right to recommend against it because "do as I say, not as I did" doesn't seem like honest advice. But I wouldn't tell anybody to do it, specially after I've seen three acquitances to lose their minds because they abused LSD.
Ketamine seems very promising. But it's illegal, unless you want to spend big dollars in it. The problem I see is: should we recommend a drug that will probably be acquired illegally and taken in unknown sets to a bunch of people that might be desperate to find something to cure chronic depression, burnout or blocking? I'm sure you understand what could go wrong. I know what I would do, but I know myself, I don't know what's in the minds of everybody reading HN, so I would be very catious to create false hopes and real risks.
Comments
Any given document, or event in reality, can be read (interpreted) from a wide variety of perspectives, often with completely contradictory conclusions.
Individuals reading this article from a purely logical, scientific materialist perspective, may form drastically different conclusions than those reading from the wide variety of different possible perspectives. And that's fine, it is the nature of humanity. But it seems very plausible to me that an inability (or unwillingness) of people to interpret ideas from multiple perspectives, is not fine.
There are many problems in the world (yes, I know, this has always been the case...from a binary perspective, but that is only one perspective on it). The world is complex, and getting more complex. Perhaps the manner in which we currently evaluate the world lacks the dimensional complexity required to manage it in a reasonably optimum way?
If(!) this was the case, what might that look like? What would discussions about reality look like? Is it possible that we might be in a situation similar to this? How might we know?
What that I've written is offensive or incorrect downvoters? You have a sense of righteousness, but do you have any courage? How do you know your ideas are correct if you never put them to the test? Hiding in a mob seems like a waste of something precious.
I'm curious, how is your comment related to the article? Or in other words, don't you think your comment could be posted in any other entry and would be equally (ir)relevant? It's not that it's incorrect, more like it's kind of non-sequitur-ish, as if you omitted a part of it that connects the comment to what it's commenting on.
My comment could indeed be posted in many other threads and be relevant, but not equally relevant.
I felt this article did a well above-average job communicating details about what alternate states of consciousness are like, and how it can fundamentally change your thinking, in at least a semi-permanent manner. However, most of the comments on the article seem to be written very much from a scientific materialist perspectives, and are often utterly lacking in epistemic humility.
Take the very first sentence from the top voted comment in the thread:
This is fairly representative of many comments. Some obvious questions:
- how does he know this to be true?
- it may be pedantically true that they aren't 100% cures on their own for every single person, but might they get us 75% or more of the way there for most people?
- it's true that the effect diminishes over time, but do you completely revert to the previous state? Can the improved state be maintained with ongoing usage (something which is rarely disputed for mainstream pharmaceuticals, but often seems to be considered unacceptable for psychedelics)
This is another one of those comments that may be pedentically technically true, if read very generously, but also very misleading. Might the subconscious mind choose casual expressions like "do it for you" to maximize persuasion, while minimizing opportunity for criticism ("hey, I was speaking colloquially, man"). The next sentence appears to undo much of the harm, but what impression is left in the mind of an unknowing reader? Who knows. Does it matter? I think it probably does, and maybe a lot.
I would argue that result of this style of speaking is a kind of epistemological chaos - we are discussing substances that may finally offer at least a partial solutions for much of what ails the world, but the status quo aggregate opinion (~nothing particularly noteworthy to be seen here, just woo woo, move along citizen) in most threads like this seems completely incorrect to me. At least, there is a serious lack of epistemic humility - strong, conclusive opinions, on topics where the facts are currently unknown - literally. And no one can admit it (that such things are unknown). To me, this is a utterly surreal state of affairs, and it is incredibly frustrating to experience this, and then open the next thread on HN and hear people complaining about problem-of-the-day that could be fixed if group <x> would "just" stop being "stupid". The irony is bitter sweet.
Again, pedentically technically true as written (maybe, if read generously), but completely overlooks the essentially undisputed (among knowledgeable people) notion of the importance of set and setting. Ignorant and misleading comments like "not a party drug now because a nurse is giving it and someone wrote a prescription" getting heavily upvoted kind of disgusts me to be honest. I am of the opinion that that thinking like this, and the people that support it, are preventing the world from improving. And most likely, many of the people complaining about faults in the world are the very same people who refuse to consider alternative ways of thinking about issues, and downvote anyone who makes such a suggestion.
These substances, and articles like this, are finally giving us some new insights into possible underlying reasons of why people behave like they do, and believe the things they do (anti-vaxx, climate change deniers, I have no reason to be happy, etc), in spite of overwhelming and "obvious" (or so it seems) evidence to the contrary.
And it seems if you try to point this possibility out to people, they will get angry at you. What could explain these effects (of the substances), and this behavior (~refusal to even consider certain possibilites)? How about this: the human ego. The human ego often doesn't like to be disagreed with. This is clear as day, if one is willing to look. But it seems like the ego will only allow this on certain topics, almost as kind of a self-defense mechanism.
I don't think it's so much that it's a non-sequitur (it isn't), but perhaps that it seems (but actually isn't, if one is willing to think, which is my point) irrelevant (or blatantly obvious) to the degree that it is considered useless. With any topic, if people refuse to use their minds (and that very much is the case), there's a good chance they won't understand the material. Mocking various out-groups for refusing to acknowledge facts and think properly is a popular pastime on HN, but rare is the individual who is able to even consider the possibility that they suffer from the very same psychological affliction.
Trust me, without reading this last comment, I couldn't have known what you meant with the original comment. I tend to fall in the same trap, thinking that people understand what I have in mind with minimal explanation.
Ah, well thank you for your patience!
I wonder how often this is the case, where the shortcomings of language, the medium, and many other things, result in incorrect perceptions of disagreement, where none actually exists.
That's the kind of thing I wish people would be able to take away from essays like this.
And so on.
These sorts of sentiments seems potentially more productive than the "You're wrong, no you're wrong, and stupid..." mode that much of humanity seems stubbornly dedicated to currently, but then it doesn't seem clear to me that everyone experiences these things in the same way, and many seem(!) opposed to the very idea.
This place seems a little less infuriating taken into context, much in the "zen" spirit of the article that you quote.
Ten years ago I used to find tech news from other forums. The two more popular were Reddit and Slashdot. Both had unfortunate trends that made discusion tiresome to follow. Reddit had those pun threads in which everybody seemed to compete to be the funniest guy in the room while Slashdot was the church of the Free Software and Saint IGNUtius.
It was as if in any conversation that you tried to have, a bunch of laughing teenagers making jokes, or a bunch of quasi-religious zealots took over. Hacker News on the other hand was the forum for YC startup founders, with a practical approach to the same subjects, so it was a welcome change.
Ten years later it has been slowly degrading. It's full of self-serious young people that instead of making tons of jokes, frown upon any attempt of humour and, instead of the classic FSF zealotry, we have the usual offline causes, trying to shame everybody into thinking "the right way". If you take this place as some kind of contest to defend the best ideas, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Such place doesn't exist. It's enough that there's a place where interesting ideas are at least presented as articles and some comments.
About the drugs discusion, there has been a couple of topics here that may explain the caution some of us have. One was modafinil. A few years ago a bunch of articles were posted telling wonders about it. A guy said that he had learnt quantum physics in an infamous article, other guy that his procrastination problems had disappeared thanks to the drug.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Aycombinator.com+modafinil
You'll see that recent comments that appear in the search were starting to be negative. Modify the search to show last years results. There is none. That was a fad, people spent their money because what do you expect in a site like this where everybody wants to be more creative, smart and procrastinate less?
Similar things are being said now about hallucinogens. Most repeated line is that the experience is life changing. I dropped an acid more than 30 years ago. It was spectacular, but I wouldn't call it "life changing" and I haven't had the desire to repeat since. I don't feel like I have the right to recommend against it because "do as I say, not as I did" doesn't seem like honest advice. But I wouldn't tell anybody to do it, specially after I've seen three acquitances to lose their minds because they abused LSD.
Ketamine seems very promising. But it's illegal, unless you want to spend big dollars in it. The problem I see is: should we recommend a drug that will probably be acquired illegally and taken in unknown sets to a bunch of people that might be desperate to find something to cure chronic depression, burnout or blocking? I'm sure you understand what could go wrong. I know what I would do, but I know myself, I don't know what's in the minds of everybody reading HN, so I would be very catious to create false hopes and real risks.