Some wise fool said once that life is all sensation. Seeing that we are humans with the capability to consciously alter our experiences and in turn our life, it would be natural or inevitable for us to develop ways of altering, optimizing, or enhancing our sensations. Not surprisingly, much of human behavior aside from basic survival (which most people in this society don’t worry about) deals with this endeavor. Some may see it as reducing boredom or making a moment more interesting. Unfortunately, with the numerous ways of altering our sensations/perceptions, some happen to be against the law; these are the illegal drugs, for which all nations around the world (in some form) are waging a war on their own populations. These wars a fought in the vein of stopping a perceived threat to humanity as a whole: drug abuse. I’d like to show how this kind of reasoning, making drugs illegal because of the possibility of abuse, would be like making sex illegal because of the possibility of disease, or food illegal because of diabetes/obesity; it is impractical and immoral in a society based on individual civil liberties. Moreover, I’d like to show how in a drug tolerant society, a recreational pharmacological industry could be established and integrated into the economic system as a whole, ultimately benefiting society by allowing for the research of these substances for their most effective uses.
The phenomenon of recreational drug use, more specifically defined as non-prescription psychoactive usage.
Although both humans and animals have used mood/mind altering substances (Siegal, 2005) there are laws forbidding people to ingest certain compounds, not because of health effects (Nutt, 2012), but because of a combination of xenophobia and ignorance (Block, 2013). Even though most people have used or use drugs- whether it be through caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, prescription medications, or lifestyle supplements- most see a clear distinction between drugs and their own culturally sanctioned substances. This distinction is cultural and has no basis in chemistry or health (Nutt,2012).
Despite the war on drugs, drug use is expected to rise (Travis, 2012) 25% by 2050. Currently more people- this includes people over 50 (Levine, 2013) - in the US are partaking in illegal drug use than ever before (Mann 2011). In short, the war on drugs is failing in its aim to perturb people from using illegal substances. There seems to be no stopping the demand for illegal drugs. Criminal legislation, propaganda, and alternatives to drug use have not dampened the drive to seek and use substances. What is it that causes people to seek and use mind/mood altering substances?
In order to better ask what the behavioral etiology of non-prescription drug use, we need to understand exactly what a psychoactive substance is and what makes it different from some other substance or phenomenon that can alter mood or consciousness. According to most dictionaries, a psychoactive drug is a substance which is taken into the body and influences metabolism through crossing the blood-brain barrier and directly altering neurotransmitters. In essence, psychoactive drugs are exogenous neurotransmitters because of their high affinity and similarity to receptors in the synapse.
Moving on, there are two major psychological theories which attempt to explain why people use and seek mood/mind altering drugs or substances; they can be broken into two basic groups: Learning theories and inadequate personality theories. The former (McAuliffe,1975; Bejerot, 1980) deals with the idea of positive and negative reinforcement. So for example, someone seeking a drug does so to either feel euphoria (positive reinforcement) or to combat withdrawal symptoms once addicted (negative reinforcement). The problem with this explanation is that it fails to account for why people who have never felt the drug's effects seek it, or why some who use fall into either habituation, occasional use, addiction, or abstinence; the theory also fails to explain the use of non-physically addictive drugs like psychedelics or cocaine. Therefore the learning theory is insufficient as an explanation for why people seek and use non-prescribed psychoactive drugs.
The latter group of theories account for non-prescription psychoactive usage with a defected, inadequate, and/or pathological personality. That is, this kind of drug use is done by someone as a defense mechanism against their own feelings of inferiority (Ausubel, 1980; Wurmser, 1980). Traits such as low self-esteem are seen as primary motivators for people ingesting psychoactive substances. Although recent research (Goode, 2002) has shown that low self-esteem is not a good indicator of drug use as people with high self-esteem use as well. Nonetheless, other inadequate personality theories postulate the trait of conventionality-unconventionality (Jessor&Jessor,1980) as a surefire way to separate and explain the behaviors of psychoactive drug users. This idea, that conventional people do not seek or use psychoactive drugs that not prescribed to them, will be addressed in more detail later.
Interestingly, a newer personality theory for this kind of drug use claims that people who are more prone to take risks are more apt to use. This theory is quite different from others as it puts people on a spectrum rather in discrete categories of user/non-user. Rather, the spectrum says that most people fall in between taking many risks and avoiding them altogether. Those who fall on the more extreme side of the scale are more likely to abuse drugs, those in the middle are likely to experiment and cease use eventually, and those on the mild side of the scale don't take any non-prescribed psychoactive drugs at all. The problem with this theory is that it still classifies this kind of drug use as deviant to natural behavior. Yet some researchers (Sunstein, 2003) have shown that people who take risks and who are unconventional contribute greatly to the wealth and progress of culture. Knowing this, could these kinds of drug using behaviors be a part of normal curiosity and development instead of being solely pathological?
These theories being thirty or more years old have been challenged by threads of inquiry/investigation in the fields of public health policy, psychopharmacology, and neuropsychopharmacology. First and oldest is the public health policy of Harm Reduction. It represents a third approach (Marlott, 1996) to drug use and abuse- the other two beings the moral/criminal and disease models of non-prescription psychoactive use. Its basic aim is to treat this kind of drug use as any other kind of high-risk behavior (sky-diving, driving, bungee jumping, etc) and develop strategies and methods which reduce the harm associated with it. Harm reduction offers pragmatic and compassionate ways of dealing with the problems of drug abuse The major assumption of this health policy is that people will always be drawn to and use these kinds of substances, no matter what society has to say about the matter. The implication here is that drug use is a natural behavior that must not be made deviant. It aims to normalize (Crofts, 2012) what has been demonized by society and culture.
Second, the US psychiatrist and psychopharmacologist Ronald K. Siegal published the 2nd edition of his book on the culmination of his research into human and animal non-prescription psychoactive usage. The title gives a clear picture of the conclusion of his life's work: "Intoxication: The Universal Drive for Mind-Altering Substances". The main thesis of the book is that the kind of drug use discussed here represent a "fourth drive" after the drives to acquire food, shelter, and sex. In other words, over twenty years research lead him to believe that people seek these kinds of substances not because of any deficit, but because it's a part of their natural biological drive to do so. He cites examples from animal and human studies to show how this drive is at the heart of behavior, not at the periphery. Radical in its presentation, but sound in its methodology, this book gives us a clear picture as to why the so-called drug epidemic is so pervasive: It's our natural inclination to seek these substances!
Third, the psychopharmacologist Carl Hart has written a book entitled "High Price". The books serve as part auto-biography part scientific work. Using personal examples and scientific studies as foundations for his claim that the stereotype of the drug user as violent, irrational, and non-functional is fictional. He points out how most people who use non-prescribed psychoactive drugs are working competent adults who pay their taxes and besides their drug habit, obey the law. The book supports the claim that not only the search for drugs but the use of them can be integrated with ordinary society, because of the fact most drug users behave like average law abiding citizens. He also shows how the racial disparity in drug arrests and that drugs are not to blame for poverty and violence. It's pointed out how politicians use the drug issue as a cover for more legitimate issues which are left untreated. His book helps the average person shake the decades of misinformation about drug users and the effects of drugs, for a more nuanced and evidence-based view.
Finally, comes the work of David J. Nutt, a British psychiatrist, and neuropsychopharmacologist. Ironically he worked for the UK government as a drug policy advisor before being fired for giving his advice and disagreeing with the then current UK drug policy. The main thrust of his work and his recent 2012 book: "Drugs without the hot air", is that drug harm can be on par with harm in other parts of life. One of his most famous studies (Nutt, 2010) shows a graph of how drugs like Alcohol and Tobacco are more harmful than illegal or restricted drugs like Cannabis, LSD, Ketamine, Amphetamine, and MDMA. Knowing this, it could be speculated that what brings people who are conventional to not seek drugs is not the conventionality itself, but rather an inflated/false conceptions of psychoactive substances and their apparent consequences.
Knowing that non-prescription psychoactive usage may be a consistent aspect of human behavior, what are the implications for our current illegal drug policies? Some have argued for legalization while others fear that such a move would only increase usage and the problems associated with it. The latter group believes either decriminalization or toning down of hard penalties is sufficient. What these two groups fail to consider is how research on these substances will affect the way people use and abuse them. Consider the following scenario.
In much the same way medicinal drugs are carefully researched for their effects and are replaced by newer generations of drugs with more of the target effects and fewer side effects, a recreational or responsible adult use pharmacology industry would do the same. Many of the currently illegal drugs will become more or less obsolete as alternatives with fewer side effects and more desirable effects become available. However, this kind of industry can not emerge overnight. It could only come after a ten year period of mere research and no legal availability for personal use. This time is to work out what are the effects of these substances devoid of political or social biases as to their moral value. During this time personal use will be decriminalized but still illegal. After this period, the substances will be obtainable but not regularly marketed- no ads will appear in any public places (more restricted than erotic material or cigarette advertising). People interested in such substances will, more often than not, come to it by their own volition. Information about their safety and proper usage will be freely available to anyone wishing to partake.
Any of the ill effects such as addiction or careless use can be circumvented by medical and community support programs which will treat these afflictions with compassion and pragmatism (dealing only with the most pressing issues affecting health and well-being- not use in general). This is a much better alternative to our current policy of criminalizing users. The amount of money to treat people in intervention and maintenance style programs is just a tiny fraction of the money needed to incarcerate someone for a year. Also, addiction rates of drugs show that only a small percentage of people using drugs end up afflicted. This may be due to personality traits of the person rather than the substance itself.
It becomes clear, considering that non-prescription psychoactive use is an expected part of the human experience, that making drugs illegal because some people may abuse them is illogical. Most behaviors have a degree of risk to them- so there is no valid reason to arbitrarily pick out these kinds of substances as illegal. Cars can cause crashes, love can cause insanity (for a while), knives can cut, eating can impact health negatively, and taking psychoactive without a prescription can lead to addiction. There are many cautions, but considering how the war on drugs has affected the world for the worse, a better approach would be to accept these behaviors as a natural part of life and work accordingly to reduce the personal and social suffering of people- not with criminality and harsh legislation, but with knowledge and respect for people’s civil rights regarding their personal decision making.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Philosophies are like Bodies.
Personal philosophies are like bodies. Everyone needs a body to act in the world. But only a select kind (physicians) of people are able to understand it in more depth (technically). The same is with philosophy; everyone has one. But some are knowledgeable of its technical aspects (academic philosophy). So in the same way everyone uses a car but is ignorant to its parts and function, so are people ignorant as to the details of their own philosophy- some to the point of not recognizing they even have one. This is akin to a person born in a car, never knowing the car was present, but assumed it to an extension of their body.
So what is the benefit of knowing your own approach to life or philosophy in more detail? Well just like having more knowledge of your body or car, it puts you in more control over it- you can recreate your philosophy rather then using someone else’s. Having autonomy increases personal power. With this power, however, comes being responsible for your philosophy and its effects on the world.
Are you willing to take the step to greater autonomy over your view of the world and things in general? Or will you withdraw to philosophies others have constructed without your input?
The idea is simple, we all have philosophies shaping how we approach and view the world. But for many of use, we have inherited philosophies like one would receive hammy-downs of their siblings clothes. They got to choose them, not the person receiving it. In order to become fully autonomous and think for ourselves, we must take the step to understanding our individual philosophies deeply. This is done through questioning it and examining other philosophies.
So what is the benefit of knowing your own approach to life or philosophy in more detail? Well just like having more knowledge of your body or car, it puts you in more control over it- you can recreate your philosophy rather then using someone else’s. Having autonomy increases personal power. With this power, however, comes being responsible for your philosophy and its effects on the world.
Are you willing to take the step to greater autonomy over your view of the world and things in general? Or will you withdraw to philosophies others have constructed without your input?
The idea is simple, we all have philosophies shaping how we approach and view the world. But for many of use, we have inherited philosophies like one would receive hammy-downs of their siblings clothes. They got to choose them, not the person receiving it. In order to become fully autonomous and think for ourselves, we must take the step to understanding our individual philosophies deeply. This is done through questioning it and examining other philosophies.
Monday, September 30, 2013
What of it? (Science is Art)
Science is the art of the probable physical.
-Terrence Mcekenna
The other day, me and one of my cohorts from the psych program were discussing the limits of science and its epistemology. He would remind me of the incompleteness theorem and how it applies to all knowledge. But we are both training to be scientists, so why bother with this way of knowledge if everything has limitations? Well of course its because of how conventional science is- almost everyone agrees with its authority- and how efficient it is- people love their technology. Granted, we live in comfort because of science. But I cant help to think that history would have me in some past situation under the rule of a king asking similar questions about the crowns authority. I can imagine a fellow subject pointing out to me all the positives we’re experience- asking me if I wasn’t grateful for the following years harvest, or the fact we haven’t had a war in such and such time. Yes, I could picture something just like this. So now I ask: what’s the difference? Coming back to the conversation between me and my cohort, I posed this issue to him. He responded that science is most accurate, unlike creationism for example which states the earth is only several thousand years old. True, no one is going to get away from this one. The real answer to the question of how old is the earth, if we all agree on the definition the terms, is around ~4 billion years old. No way around it. So therefore our conversation reached a conclusion on the matter: science is the way to go because it answers questions most accurately. I would also add because of awareness and consideration of its own axioms.
But later it came to me. Its not over yet. Why would the answer to the question matter? The answer to that would be its effect. But its effect on what? This is where pragmatism takes a step in our epistemology. We choose the effect. This choice is made intuitively; it is not deduced from some general principle out there in the world. Rather our choices on what effect we want from the answers to our questions (e.g. accuracy, consistency, more technology, better health, peaceful world, etc) come to us by our hunches about the world. We feel inside, this must be right. But there is no way to test to see if what you feel is the right feeling, if we define right in the same we would a math problem or in a science article. So we start from our own axioms and move outward- building on them.
Thinking back to the creationist argument, the answer given by that belief system could have an effect which feels good to believers. It could give them a sense of security or comfort. There is no reason to say that the intuition of believing empirical data as the only valid or best form of knowledge is any inherently better then believing that the words of some book hold all the knowledge worth knowing. In the end, it’s the effect on the person and their own evaluation of the answer which matters.
This notion is radical because it takes the floor of “truth” out from under us. It makes us take responsibility for our beliefs and attitudes. There is little use in justifying one’s answers to their questions because it’s objective or most accurate. These “measures of truth” are our assumptions about the world, not something that is fundamental to existence.
Science is just a very complicated art with many rules and procedures. Its values are accuracy and consistency. This art has brought much joy into the world. But it is not the only kind of art.
-Terrence Mcekenna
The other day, me and one of my cohorts from the psych program were discussing the limits of science and its epistemology. He would remind me of the incompleteness theorem and how it applies to all knowledge. But we are both training to be scientists, so why bother with this way of knowledge if everything has limitations? Well of course its because of how conventional science is- almost everyone agrees with its authority- and how efficient it is- people love their technology. Granted, we live in comfort because of science. But I cant help to think that history would have me in some past situation under the rule of a king asking similar questions about the crowns authority. I can imagine a fellow subject pointing out to me all the positives we’re experience- asking me if I wasn’t grateful for the following years harvest, or the fact we haven’t had a war in such and such time. Yes, I could picture something just like this. So now I ask: what’s the difference? Coming back to the conversation between me and my cohort, I posed this issue to him. He responded that science is most accurate, unlike creationism for example which states the earth is only several thousand years old. True, no one is going to get away from this one. The real answer to the question of how old is the earth, if we all agree on the definition the terms, is around ~4 billion years old. No way around it. So therefore our conversation reached a conclusion on the matter: science is the way to go because it answers questions most accurately. I would also add because of awareness and consideration of its own axioms.
But later it came to me. Its not over yet. Why would the answer to the question matter? The answer to that would be its effect. But its effect on what? This is where pragmatism takes a step in our epistemology. We choose the effect. This choice is made intuitively; it is not deduced from some general principle out there in the world. Rather our choices on what effect we want from the answers to our questions (e.g. accuracy, consistency, more technology, better health, peaceful world, etc) come to us by our hunches about the world. We feel inside, this must be right. But there is no way to test to see if what you feel is the right feeling, if we define right in the same we would a math problem or in a science article. So we start from our own axioms and move outward- building on them.
Thinking back to the creationist argument, the answer given by that belief system could have an effect which feels good to believers. It could give them a sense of security or comfort. There is no reason to say that the intuition of believing empirical data as the only valid or best form of knowledge is any inherently better then believing that the words of some book hold all the knowledge worth knowing. In the end, it’s the effect on the person and their own evaluation of the answer which matters.
This notion is radical because it takes the floor of “truth” out from under us. It makes us take responsibility for our beliefs and attitudes. There is little use in justifying one’s answers to their questions because it’s objective or most accurate. These “measures of truth” are our assumptions about the world, not something that is fundamental to existence.
Science is just a very complicated art with many rules and procedures. Its values are accuracy and consistency. This art has brought much joy into the world. But it is not the only kind of art.
Monday, September 16, 2013
God or Infinity: Is it Fractals or Turtles all the way down?
Which is greater? Are they the same? Does one explain better? Does one feel better?
Sometimes I think to my self: “I don’t need god, there’s infinity.”
Not sure quite what I mean. I feel like it has something to do with thinking about the totality of the universe and its origin. Sure I could postulate some force or power capable of generating everything, even itself. But it seems to fall into an infinite regress- who created the creator god and so on. Or if one subscribes to the notion that god’s self creation is no contradiction, there’s still the problem of a schism- between god and creation- which begs the question of its nature and origin as well.
Infinity… it just keeps going on and on. Could this give use more closure in thinking about the nature of existence then a creator god? Existence is there because infinity allows it to keep going on and on. Am I deluded in thinking that infinity can have a property of its own outside of the quantity of something? As if it was a principle which allowed the potential and expression of everything we know and perhaps much more. That is, infinity is the reason for why there is anything. This needs clarification… or maybe calculation?
Things have continuity. There’s a spectrum in everything that exists. We could think of the whole world like a never ending fractal pattern. Its like a shape which never ends and can be magnified without limit. What allows the pattern is the reiteration of the fractal equation. The pattern itself is based on a kind of equation which feeds the answer back into itself. For example, the equation x + y = z, when reiterated will have the answer z used as the value in x, and the equation is done again. This process repeats an infinite number of times with a fractal pattern. Bridging the analogy with reality, we can see that the equation represents the stuff of existence, and the infinite reiteration of the equation symbolizes infinity itself. This way, in the same manner the equation repeated makes the whole pattern, the basic stuff of existence repeated with infinity creates all that we know and perhaps much more.
But here we are back at a dualism: that between the stuff of existence and infinity. Well, what infinity did do was take creation out of the problem of existence. So this dualism is more tolerable. Unlike the dualism between god and creation, stuff-of-existence and infinity are not in causal relation to each other- one does not create the other. I think this difference is what makes infinity a superior idea in postulating the reason for existence. It feels better as it jives with science and modernity in general. In this way we can see how god as a postulate for the existence of the universe is as useful as saying existence is turtles all the way down; at least this fractal idea don’t need a creator.
Sometimes I think to my self: “I don’t need god, there’s infinity.”
Not sure quite what I mean. I feel like it has something to do with thinking about the totality of the universe and its origin. Sure I could postulate some force or power capable of generating everything, even itself. But it seems to fall into an infinite regress- who created the creator god and so on. Or if one subscribes to the notion that god’s self creation is no contradiction, there’s still the problem of a schism- between god and creation- which begs the question of its nature and origin as well.
Infinity… it just keeps going on and on. Could this give use more closure in thinking about the nature of existence then a creator god? Existence is there because infinity allows it to keep going on and on. Am I deluded in thinking that infinity can have a property of its own outside of the quantity of something? As if it was a principle which allowed the potential and expression of everything we know and perhaps much more. That is, infinity is the reason for why there is anything. This needs clarification… or maybe calculation?
Things have continuity. There’s a spectrum in everything that exists. We could think of the whole world like a never ending fractal pattern. Its like a shape which never ends and can be magnified without limit. What allows the pattern is the reiteration of the fractal equation. The pattern itself is based on a kind of equation which feeds the answer back into itself. For example, the equation x + y = z, when reiterated will have the answer z used as the value in x, and the equation is done again. This process repeats an infinite number of times with a fractal pattern. Bridging the analogy with reality, we can see that the equation represents the stuff of existence, and the infinite reiteration of the equation symbolizes infinity itself. This way, in the same manner the equation repeated makes the whole pattern, the basic stuff of existence repeated with infinity creates all that we know and perhaps much more.
But here we are back at a dualism: that between the stuff of existence and infinity. Well, what infinity did do was take creation out of the problem of existence. So this dualism is more tolerable. Unlike the dualism between god and creation, stuff-of-existence and infinity are not in causal relation to each other- one does not create the other. I think this difference is what makes infinity a superior idea in postulating the reason for existence. It feels better as it jives with science and modernity in general. In this way we can see how god as a postulate for the existence of the universe is as useful as saying existence is turtles all the way down; at least this fractal idea don’t need a creator.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Technology and The Singularity
One trade mark of the human species is not only our ability to
create technology, but to have that technology evolve and progress
through time. That is, we not only make tools, our tools refine over
time, improving themselves and merging with other tools. If we take
the broad definition of technology as anything which a person creates
or utilizes to further an end, then we can see how this technological
progress follows a pattern: the removing of steps between the
initiation and the completion of an end. An end is just any goal or
task a person wishes to complete. Therefore in this sense,
technological progression is that which helps removes the steps or
shorten the procedure in the furthering of an end. Tools are the
objects or skills themselves that are utilized in this process.
To understand how technological progression is the production of tools or skills which remove steps towards goals, some examples are useful. Some of the first tools humans utilized were stone axes. At first the tools were sharp but uneven. The next tool to come along worked on the original idea, and improved it by adding straighter edges. This addition helps one cut better, thereby removing the steps in order to complete the task of cutting. Therefore a pattern is seen, a tool emerges to help facilitate a task- like cutting- and as time goes on, the the tools are refined by the usefulness in removing the steps toward an end. Another kind of progression technology can go through is the merging of tools. This is best exemplified by today's smart cell phone. This device is an amalgamation of many different tools like a camera, mp3 player, web browser, etc. Therefore, not only do tools progress, they merge- helping remove the steps from multiple ends at once.
Considering this point of view, a question arises: would there be some point in time where our technology effectively removes all steps between initiation and completion of an end? Can technology become so efficient so as to remove any time between the thought of a goal and its attainment? Can all technology converge into a single tool that can do it all? Would this be the singularity the trans-humanists hope for? This is the idea that humans and technology will merge, causing an effect so novel, it is incomprehensible to think about at this time. I feel this potential state is exactly the point of us achieving the fully optimized technology explained above. The time in which out tools will remove all steps between us and our goals, we will reach a singular state where all things are instantaneous. This must be the singularity: the state where all goals are instantly accomplished through technology.
If humans do reach this point, what is left for them to do? If technology cuts all the time down and coalesces into single tool, then how would we act? What would happen to our desires and hopes? This is what makes the singularity so incomprehensible. We are so defined by our pursuits of goals, that if all was immediately attainable, our identity must cease and recreate itself. Much or maybe all of what we do now would be unnecessary. Perhaps this progression would go backward when people start to miss the delayed response of working toward a goal. Maybe some would regress toward tools which add more steps, thereby adding a sense of meaning for those who felt they lost it all with the lack of steps towards goals. Or would these people be deluding themselves by denying a life of possible perpetual bliss? It's hard to say for sure whether or not this progress in technology will prove to be ultimately satisfying for humans. It could either become a trap or a blessing.
Is the logical conclusion of technology a single tool which does helps towards any end instantaneously? Is this what would make the singularity incomprehensible to us now? As of now we cannot know for certain what it will bring, but what ever may come, it is enviable.
To understand how technological progression is the production of tools or skills which remove steps towards goals, some examples are useful. Some of the first tools humans utilized were stone axes. At first the tools were sharp but uneven. The next tool to come along worked on the original idea, and improved it by adding straighter edges. This addition helps one cut better, thereby removing the steps in order to complete the task of cutting. Therefore a pattern is seen, a tool emerges to help facilitate a task- like cutting- and as time goes on, the the tools are refined by the usefulness in removing the steps toward an end. Another kind of progression technology can go through is the merging of tools. This is best exemplified by today's smart cell phone. This device is an amalgamation of many different tools like a camera, mp3 player, web browser, etc. Therefore, not only do tools progress, they merge- helping remove the steps from multiple ends at once.
Considering this point of view, a question arises: would there be some point in time where our technology effectively removes all steps between initiation and completion of an end? Can technology become so efficient so as to remove any time between the thought of a goal and its attainment? Can all technology converge into a single tool that can do it all? Would this be the singularity the trans-humanists hope for? This is the idea that humans and technology will merge, causing an effect so novel, it is incomprehensible to think about at this time. I feel this potential state is exactly the point of us achieving the fully optimized technology explained above. The time in which out tools will remove all steps between us and our goals, we will reach a singular state where all things are instantaneous. This must be the singularity: the state where all goals are instantly accomplished through technology.
If humans do reach this point, what is left for them to do? If technology cuts all the time down and coalesces into single tool, then how would we act? What would happen to our desires and hopes? This is what makes the singularity so incomprehensible. We are so defined by our pursuits of goals, that if all was immediately attainable, our identity must cease and recreate itself. Much or maybe all of what we do now would be unnecessary. Perhaps this progression would go backward when people start to miss the delayed response of working toward a goal. Maybe some would regress toward tools which add more steps, thereby adding a sense of meaning for those who felt they lost it all with the lack of steps towards goals. Or would these people be deluding themselves by denying a life of possible perpetual bliss? It's hard to say for sure whether or not this progress in technology will prove to be ultimately satisfying for humans. It could either become a trap or a blessing.
Is the logical conclusion of technology a single tool which does helps towards any end instantaneously? Is this what would make the singularity incomprehensible to us now? As of now we cannot know for certain what it will bring, but what ever may come, it is enviable.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
DMT, The Pineal gland, and The 3rd Eye
DMT is a neurotransmitter which is produced during normal human
metabolism in the body. A neurotransmitter is a chemical used for
communication between areas of the brain. Its function is unknown at
the time, but its speculated that it is released in the brain during
three specific stages: birth, death, and dreaming. There is
speculation that DMT is responsible for visionary phenomenon like
dreams, alien abduction, and near death experiences. If one would to
ingest DMT as a vapor or in a brew with an MAO inhibitor, they would
experience a psychedelic state which most describe more akin to
visiting a place rather then a kind of intoxication. There are much
higher reports of people encountering aliens or beings then on other
classic psychedelics like LSD or psilocybin. Although DMT works on
serotonin like the other classic psychedelics do, it produces these
intense and unique otherworldly/alien experiences. Many have said
that the drug allows one to cross into other worlds or dimensions.
Many of the anecdotal reports support this sentiment.
Some scientists believe that DMT may be synthesized in the pineal gland. This is a gland which resides at the center of the brain. Interestingly, the tissue its made from does not resemble any of the other brain tissue. Its most well know function is producing the sleep hormone melatonin. The hormone is produced because the gland is light sensitive and requires darkness to begin the synthesis. The function of its light sensitivity should not be limited to its current use. In our ancient evolutionary past, the gland was connected to an eye, and is still like so today in so called “living fossil” reptiles. Therefore it was originally designed to take in light from the outside and convert it into mental images or dispositions rather then just melatonin. Knowing its possible for this gland to registrar light, its not far-fetched to see how the stimulation of it may produce it to take in more light then usual, thereby eliciting visually images. Increasing DMT in this gland may bring out is older sense organ properties.
The mythical and spiritual 3rd eye known to many metaphysical and esoteric belief systems represents a kind of inner or intuitive vision one gains after mastering a practice. Could it be that the otherworldly encounters known to the DMT experience really be another reality picked up via a light source beyond the visible spectrum? That is, could it be that what one sees under DMT is actual light being picked up from some part of reality we normally don’t see because the concentration of DMT in the pineal gland is usually low, but increased during external DMT use? I find it possible that an increase of DMT causes the usually low tuned pineal gland to go into overdrive and not only pick up light to create melatonin, but also to transform it into visual images and perhaps other kinds of sense data as well, thereby disclosing that part of light/reality we normally cannot pick up on. perhaps this does unlock perception of either another world or a kind of parallel continuum we normally cannot pick up. Granted this theory is highly speculative; nevertheless it gives us way to think about these three phenomenon and how they might relate to each other.
Some scientists believe that DMT may be synthesized in the pineal gland. This is a gland which resides at the center of the brain. Interestingly, the tissue its made from does not resemble any of the other brain tissue. Its most well know function is producing the sleep hormone melatonin. The hormone is produced because the gland is light sensitive and requires darkness to begin the synthesis. The function of its light sensitivity should not be limited to its current use. In our ancient evolutionary past, the gland was connected to an eye, and is still like so today in so called “living fossil” reptiles. Therefore it was originally designed to take in light from the outside and convert it into mental images or dispositions rather then just melatonin. Knowing its possible for this gland to registrar light, its not far-fetched to see how the stimulation of it may produce it to take in more light then usual, thereby eliciting visually images. Increasing DMT in this gland may bring out is older sense organ properties.
The mythical and spiritual 3rd eye known to many metaphysical and esoteric belief systems represents a kind of inner or intuitive vision one gains after mastering a practice. Could it be that the otherworldly encounters known to the DMT experience really be another reality picked up via a light source beyond the visible spectrum? That is, could it be that what one sees under DMT is actual light being picked up from some part of reality we normally don’t see because the concentration of DMT in the pineal gland is usually low, but increased during external DMT use? I find it possible that an increase of DMT causes the usually low tuned pineal gland to go into overdrive and not only pick up light to create melatonin, but also to transform it into visual images and perhaps other kinds of sense data as well, thereby disclosing that part of light/reality we normally cannot pick up on. perhaps this does unlock perception of either another world or a kind of parallel continuum we normally cannot pick up. Granted this theory is highly speculative; nevertheless it gives us way to think about these three phenomenon and how they might relate to each other.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Double Standards: Oppressive For Females?
The idea of a double standard between the sexes has sparked a lot
of debate in the post-modern era. Feminists insists that it is a form
of oppression on women by subjugating them to activities like
household chores and other traditional female roles. They see their
side of the standard as a form of objectification which debases the
female. The whole system is seen as only benefiting all men, at the
cost of all women being subjugated in life. This idea is facile as it
fails to regard how the gender roles emerged from environmental and
anatomical conditions from our past.
The truth is one role is not more significant then the other. Rather, both are necessary but make up different parts which accompany each other in very complementary ways. Males are forced to defend the home and provide resources for it- a very dangerous job. Females are supposed to care for and maintain the home- a very difficult job. Although the modern age has liberated us from these roles, we still carry the psychological and anatomical baggage of our past- which shapes our behavior and minds. Our inherited cultural customs also reflect our past conditions. Therefore, its not surprising that many social institutions like marriage are crumbling in the wake of our self-sufficiency and individualistic economic system. In the absence of direct genetic intervention, it is unlikely that humans will drop their inherited gender differences. Yet it is possible with conscious intervention to work on these behaviors and acknowledge them for what they are: ways of adapting to the environment, and not a general form of female slavery. This way, people can make rational decisions on how to alter their behavior depending on their surroundings, not subscribing to a false dichotomy of either being an agent of oppression or a victim of tradition.
What gives us a double standard is our history in relation with the environment. Men were resource providers, while women were resource stewards. Each role is necessary for survival. Any perceived imbalance in value stems, not from the roles themselves, but the upstarts who seek control over other people through either violence or coercion. It is they who inflate one role over the other (their role) as a way to justify their power. They announce that it is because the role they assume is superior that they have the right to oppress others. Although most tyrants in history have been male, it does not means most males were the oppressor. Rather, most men throughout history have been the ones oppressed along with women. The fact of the matter was, if one was not apart of a powerful family or clan, then one was very likely to be oppressed by one. Cases of males with lesser status or class maltreating any woman was not due to the role itself bringing out this kind of behavior. Instead, those males have taken the twisted view of the inflated role from the very tyrants oppressing them. As there only view of power does not come from cooperation or compassion but oppression, they have no other ways to think of their role. This confines males to a inflated view of their role because of their ignorance about other views. Its plain to see how what makes the double standard in gender roles become oppressive is not anything inherent in it, but the tyrannical forces which shape the social view of these roles- making the male inflated over the female.
The modern age has given us the tools necessary to transcend previous boundaries and restraints. Nevertheless, we carry around bodies which were designed for the past which represent over 95%-99% of human history- the era of foraging. This era required each gender to perform a certain and critical role because their biology was optimized for it. Only with the advent of tyrants and social structures like divine kingship and royalty came the oppressive qualities which would be juxtaposed on top of the already existing roles, thus rendering one to become inflated over the other. The inflation acts as a cast to indoctrinate minds with these kinds of values. It is only by acknowledging this double standard of gender roles as a way to adapt to the environment and not as an intrinsic tool of oppression, that we can improve the schism between the sexes.
The truth is one role is not more significant then the other. Rather, both are necessary but make up different parts which accompany each other in very complementary ways. Males are forced to defend the home and provide resources for it- a very dangerous job. Females are supposed to care for and maintain the home- a very difficult job. Although the modern age has liberated us from these roles, we still carry the psychological and anatomical baggage of our past- which shapes our behavior and minds. Our inherited cultural customs also reflect our past conditions. Therefore, its not surprising that many social institutions like marriage are crumbling in the wake of our self-sufficiency and individualistic economic system. In the absence of direct genetic intervention, it is unlikely that humans will drop their inherited gender differences. Yet it is possible with conscious intervention to work on these behaviors and acknowledge them for what they are: ways of adapting to the environment, and not a general form of female slavery. This way, people can make rational decisions on how to alter their behavior depending on their surroundings, not subscribing to a false dichotomy of either being an agent of oppression or a victim of tradition.
What gives us a double standard is our history in relation with the environment. Men were resource providers, while women were resource stewards. Each role is necessary for survival. Any perceived imbalance in value stems, not from the roles themselves, but the upstarts who seek control over other people through either violence or coercion. It is they who inflate one role over the other (their role) as a way to justify their power. They announce that it is because the role they assume is superior that they have the right to oppress others. Although most tyrants in history have been male, it does not means most males were the oppressor. Rather, most men throughout history have been the ones oppressed along with women. The fact of the matter was, if one was not apart of a powerful family or clan, then one was very likely to be oppressed by one. Cases of males with lesser status or class maltreating any woman was not due to the role itself bringing out this kind of behavior. Instead, those males have taken the twisted view of the inflated role from the very tyrants oppressing them. As there only view of power does not come from cooperation or compassion but oppression, they have no other ways to think of their role. This confines males to a inflated view of their role because of their ignorance about other views. Its plain to see how what makes the double standard in gender roles become oppressive is not anything inherent in it, but the tyrannical forces which shape the social view of these roles- making the male inflated over the female.
The modern age has given us the tools necessary to transcend previous boundaries and restraints. Nevertheless, we carry around bodies which were designed for the past which represent over 95%-99% of human history- the era of foraging. This era required each gender to perform a certain and critical role because their biology was optimized for it. Only with the advent of tyrants and social structures like divine kingship and royalty came the oppressive qualities which would be juxtaposed on top of the already existing roles, thus rendering one to become inflated over the other. The inflation acts as a cast to indoctrinate minds with these kinds of values. It is only by acknowledging this double standard of gender roles as a way to adapt to the environment and not as an intrinsic tool of oppression, that we can improve the schism between the sexes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)