> 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.
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 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).
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.
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.
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.
Of course, one would have to manually determine the values for [subjectHitCount] and [totalDiscussionCount], but I hope we can leave it at the pseudocode in my prior comment?
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!
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:
(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.)
>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.
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.
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.
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.
Fake thanks are not appreciated, nor are suggestions that it is inhuman to want to have discussions based on sound reasoning instead of irrelevant nonsense. Raise the bar of discussion.
A discussion is based on the mutual agreement that we'll try to understand THE POINT on what the other person is trying to say.
When someone fails to do that and proceeds to pick apart minutia I consider that a waste of time - quite interesting that you consider that the highest standard of discussion and sound reasoning.
>> 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.
> * 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 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.
> 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.
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.
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.