h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Coincidence, based on a fairly limited number of lego-bricks, surely? We share 80% of our DNA with a lettuce and all that. Less flippantly - see Your Inner Fish by a chap called Shubin for details on just how much DNA we share.

>> Anyone know anything plausible that's been written
on the cognitive effects of cannabis? <<

Most jazz.
And a whole lotta rock and roll.

~jwf~

>> Coincidence, based on a fairly limited number of lego-bricks..<<

Canadian teens send Lego man on 24 km high.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/offbeat/story/2012/01/25/lego-balloon-space.html


~jwf~

Taliesin,

> When I consider the delicacy and fineness of the wonderful mechanism that is the brain/body, clearly attempts to drastically alter its functioning is something not to be frivolously undertaken.

Agreed. However, what strikes me about the brain is how incredibly robust it is to being interfered with! I mean, you can pump all sorts of chemicals in there that it uses, and still it manages to just about function. You can cut out bits, sever the connection between the two halves, and still it goes on functioning.

I'm planning on heading to the offie in a minute with the express intention of drastically altering my brain function for a few hours!

FB

Damn you to hell, Ben. You've reminded me that 'Inner Fish' has been languishing near the top of one of my avalanches for way too long. I've been dying to get round to it for ages, but if I promote it nearer the top one of the others will have to wait.

Dogster's a good boy. *He* doesn't do drugs.

If I tell you that a certain drug enhances my sensory experiences, would you say that I am deluded? And if I am deluded, what difference does it make to the deludee?

Oh, obviously drugs enhance sensory experience. What do you think Dub Reggae is for?

End with a song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hEhI35LWxQ

"We share 80% of our DNA with a lettuce and all that." [Mrs. Zen]

I get a lot less than that when I search Google, Ben. Here's what I've found so far:


"Mushroom DNA shares more commonalities with human DNA than it does
with plant DNA. Mushrooms and humans share about 42% of their DNA."
[from http://thefirstmorning.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/information-not-to-be-found-at-the-creation-museum/]

"Humans share 40% of our DNA with lettuce"
[from http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-dna-similarity-between-lettuce-and-humans]

>>"We share 80% of our DNA with a lettuce and all that." [Mrs. Zen]
I get a lot less than that when I search Google, Ben./../
"Humans share 40% of our DNA with lettuce"

Well then, we share 80% of our DNA with 2 lettuces.

Hi all

As one who has had some experience of a wide-range of mind-altering drugs (can we call them MADs? Can we? Can we? - I think we ought to! ), I have found reading through the thread very interesting.

At the point to which the topic has drifted thus far, I am tempted to drag it back to the question:

"then why not use mind-altering chemicals if they make things better in some way"

... which although only part of the underlying query of Ben's OP, seems to me to be crucial.

I'm not sure why you focus on 'atheists and materialists' particularly, but I'd say that it is beyond dispute that one clear danger of using a drug like cannabis, is that it can result in 'altered' behaviour on day 'x' that the person who started taking it on day 1 would really not have wanted or imagined possible.

The 'just say no' example usually goes along the lines of 'You start off trying a joint one day, and before you know it, your a heroine addict'

We all know that this pattern is not inevitable, but it *does* happen.

At college, a lad in a room next-door to mine in halls threw himself off a tall building after an extended period of frequent and fairly heavy cannabis use. The drugs weren't the whole story, this guy must have had underlying problems that were not caused by, but exacerbated by drug use. It none-the-less seems clear to me that he wouldn't have ended up as desperate as he did without the changes in his mind caused by the weed.

Like everything else in life, the answer is not black and white, right or wrong. Circumstances. Individuals. Luck. Control. Many factors shape the consequences of taking MADs.

The relativist would argue, "who can define what is 'better'".

I'd just say, if there is nothing 'fundamentally wrong' with taking MADs, it none-the-less may have very negative consequences for some.

Good points all, and not restricted to illegal MADs, of course.

The most profound changes in behaviour that I've witnessed have been induced by the consumption (not necessarily excessive) of alcohol.

Yes, I agree that alcohol tops the list.

I thought about refering to them as 'substances' rather than 'drugs' (in line with 'official' documents) - but then I couldn't have used the MAD abbreviation, and that would have been a shame...

as a side-issue, it is interesting to note how the word 'drug' seems to give certain substances a completely different identity.

But I think that's another topic...

There are certainly two themes here, the one about illegal substances, and the one about prescribed medication. I'm more interested in the latter discussion because it's much less tired.

Some years ago a friend of mine was on prozac, she decided to come off it before her wedding because she wanted "my real self to walk down the aisle".

Understandable, for sure, but rational? Or admirable?

Ben

Risky, I'd say.

"There are certainly two themes here, the one about illegal substances, and the one about prescribed medication"

And a third about legal substances like alcohol.

I think it depends Ben. It depends first on if the mind altering is a side effect of some medication (like in my case) or the main purpose. I would not want to take my pills on an important day, I also don't want to take them at the Meet in a few weeks. If mind altering is the purpose, like as I said if your brain does not get some chemicals that it should usually get, then I think it's not rational to 'be yourself'.

Some years ago a friend of mine was on prozac, she decided to come off it before her wedding because she wanted "my real self to walk down the aisle".

Understandable

on the other hand a friend of mine enthused about prozac 'I'm glad I'm taking it (despite some reluctance), it is good to feel like my real self again and work on getting my life back to where I want it to be'

"the one about illegal substances, and the one about prescribed medication. I'm more interested in the latter discussion because it's much less tired."

Fair enough, but in that case, I can't understand the call to atheists and materialists, seeming to imply that those groups would object to prescribed mind-altering medication. I'd have thought the opposite was true.

Now I am thinking that your OP was really about 'self' and whether it is something that should be protected from corrupting influences.

But again, I'd have thought the two groups you have called upon for feedback are among the least likely to object to the use of medically-prescribed MADs...

Sorry, Spiff.

I targeted atheists and materialists because I'm not really very interested in what the religiously and spiritually inclined have to say about the mind (or soul); in particular I'm not that interested in the idea it has a god-given integrity. It's an argument I'm familiar with and I don't expect it to surprise or enlighten me.

What I do want to find out, though, is if there is a blind-spot among materialists and atheists to do with the idea of the self. (I am completely bemused by how compelling the results of all that electro-chemical activity are).

I want to find out if other atheists and materialists also feel uneasy around the idea that there is something unworthy about taking brain-modifying medication (which is the term I should really have used). It is common for the spiritually inclined to think that there is something intrinsically authentic about the natural configuration of a person's brain, but what happens when materialists follow the opposite idea to its logical conclusion? What IS its logical conclusion?

Hardcore atheists and materialists will still say things like "I feel I ought to try getting through this on my own" about medication prescribed for mental health issues, though they would never say that about a splint and a broken leg. They say it because it is really hard not to. Why is it so hard not to, though?

This whole thing is just a minor anomaly I spotted in my own thinking, and I wondered if it was something that is so obvious that other people have no problem with it (on the one hand) or something most people don't spot (on the other).

But the opening post was poorly worded.

Ben