"Man is free to the extent he knows himself"
-Alan Watts
Many people feel that they can take an unbiased view of an issue or event. They tell themselves, "let me consider this in an unbiased manner". They may do an experiment or search for some relevant information which comes from outside of them. Therefore as the source of the information is external, they feel its unbiased. So one will hear "its based on math" or "evidence" when hearing rationale behind a claim- done in order to justify it.
But can we ever be free from bias? My opinion is no we can't, if unbiased means we are taking a point of view which does not exclude. All points of view exclude by their very nature. There is no point of view from nowhere. Each point of view takes on a certain perspective in spite of some other perceptive. I look right so I exclude what's on the left. I consider a mathematical perspective which excludes a qualitative perspective. Every perspective is opposed to some other perspective- no perspective can include it all.
Where does that leave those who want to act in an unbiased manner? This is where the epigraph comes into use and Mr. Watts gives us some advice: we can become unbiased by becoming aware of our biases, rather than attempting to remove them. We will always have our biases- it gives us our identity. Bias may as well be a ontological phenomenon rather than a purely semantic one.
All in all, bias defines our point of view. It is impossible to remove all bias. Each point of view excludes some aspects of reality. Therefore, if we want to become free of our biases we must get to know them. We must familiarize ourselves with the biases that define our motivations and tools; it is only then that we can free our selves from bias by keeping attention on it and regarding other points of view.
The point is not to get rid of our biases, but keep an eye on them, while considering other points of view.
Monday, April 7, 2014
What Progress in Philosophy? (Philosophy is like Bathing)
Some may feel that philosophy as a whole has not made any progress. Some are quick to point out how philosophers have been arguing over the same problems for centuries- seemingly making no progress.
Philosophy is like taking a bath or shower. No one would come to and ask "how much progress have you made in getting clean?".It seems like a silly question. You (hopefully) shower or bathe everyday, all the while knowing you will get dirty again. In this way, bathing is not an additive process like technology is. Technology is builds upon itself, while bathing is an iterative process- one of returning back to and repeating.
Philosophy is more like bathing than it is like technology. This distinction is what causes scientists and others ignorant to the true scope of philosophy to see it as something that makes no progress. But what they fail to see is that philosophy is like bathing, in that it is a iterative and not an additive process. We return again and again to philosophy to orient ourselves- to clean out thoughts and wipe away the inconsistencies and fallacies of our ways.
Philosophy cleans the picture of reality so we can understand on a grand level what it is we are doing in our day to day lives. Like bathing, philosophy we do often- not with he intent of never getting dirty again, but rather with the desire to see our nature devoid of all the dirt of the world- gaining a new perspective. Philosophy is a way to get this perspective. We must return to it and cleanse ourselves like we do in bathing.
Therefore, the progress made in philosophy is like the progress made in bathing- although it seems to go no where, it is actually vital toward our image of ourselves and our world. Philosophy, like bathing, is a process we repeat over and over, while technology is a process which builds upon itself. When science and technology make strides in development, philosophy and bathing are needed to cleanse the mind and body from the days work in the world- washing away inconsistencies and fallacies- allowing for progress to head in the right direction- rather than in unconsciously biased directions.
Philosophy is like taking a bath or shower. No one would come to and ask "how much progress have you made in getting clean?".It seems like a silly question. You (hopefully) shower or bathe everyday, all the while knowing you will get dirty again. In this way, bathing is not an additive process like technology is. Technology is builds upon itself, while bathing is an iterative process- one of returning back to and repeating.
Philosophy is more like bathing than it is like technology. This distinction is what causes scientists and others ignorant to the true scope of philosophy to see it as something that makes no progress. But what they fail to see is that philosophy is like bathing, in that it is a iterative and not an additive process. We return again and again to philosophy to orient ourselves- to clean out thoughts and wipe away the inconsistencies and fallacies of our ways.
Philosophy cleans the picture of reality so we can understand on a grand level what it is we are doing in our day to day lives. Like bathing, philosophy we do often- not with he intent of never getting dirty again, but rather with the desire to see our nature devoid of all the dirt of the world- gaining a new perspective. Philosophy is a way to get this perspective. We must return to it and cleanse ourselves like we do in bathing.
Therefore, the progress made in philosophy is like the progress made in bathing- although it seems to go no where, it is actually vital toward our image of ourselves and our world. Philosophy, like bathing, is a process we repeat over and over, while technology is a process which builds upon itself. When science and technology make strides in development, philosophy and bathing are needed to cleanse the mind and body from the days work in the world- washing away inconsistencies and fallacies- allowing for progress to head in the right direction- rather than in unconsciously biased directions.
Mindful Entertainment: Watching the Car Wreck of the Contemporary World Vicariously
Keeping up with current events and learning about the world’s affairs is like watching a car wreck. It’s a hideous thing to look at (war, poverty, injustice); but for some- like myself- they cant help but to look. The engrossing chaos of the contemporary world is like a vicarious roller coaster ride- the plot twists and contradictions provide the curling turns and the death-defying drops. But many are content to not give it the least bit of attention. They are happy to just know about what they feel directly affects them. Things like their gossip, finances, and the smorgasbord of mindless entertainment- designed to turn ones attention away from the current and into fantasy, all reinforce their choice of willful ignorance.
What may seem like a selfish decision to look away from the current world (especially to a naive me) is actually a form of learned helplessness. Learned helplessness is best defined by an example- a psychological experiment to be more specific. In the 70s, researches were investigating the effects of punishment on dogs. They came up with the arguably sadistic but nonetheless important scientific decision to test the effects of continuous punishment. They set out to do this with dogs and electric shocks. The dogs were placed one at time on one of two adjacent metal platforms, from which they were confined to by bars. These metal platforms were connected to electrodes which would give a shock to whoever was in contact with them. The researches then continued to shock the dogs causing them to move from one platform to the other. Much to the dog’s dismay, both platforms were electrified- there was no escape. The dogs from then on stopped trying to move and laid on the platform to be repeatedly shocked. The dogs refused to move because they seemed to know it would not help them. But the incredible part comes when the researches removed the bars- allowing the dogs to move from off both platforms. One expects the dogs to leap from the platforms to safety, but the opposite happens. The dogs continue to stay and receive shocks although they are free to leave. The dogs had learned to be helpless- thus the term learned helplessness.
Confronted with the calamity of the modern world, most people are unable to figure a out a way to fix things. This is akin to the dogs not finding a way off the platforms. Like the dogs, they learn to take the shocks- which for them means numbing themselves to current events. Unfortunately, when the opportunity for a genuine plan to help the situation arises, these people will be blind to it- unable to seize the chance. Sad as that may be, it is expected and should not be thought of with contempt.
I say this because for myself- one who can’t help look away from the car wreck of current affairs- my gazing is passive. Instead of learning to look away with passionate disinterest, I have learned to look toward with dispassionate interest. That is, while others are passionately involved in the small scope of their immediate interests, I have become a detached observer. I’m not looking to find a way to help the situation with my gazing. I look because I am engaging vicariously or virtually with it. It’s as if I am finding entertainment in it. If this is the case, how is this any different from mindless entertainment. Is this the opposite? Is what I engage in a mindful form of entertainment?
Wait… the common conception of entertainment is that it must be mindless by definition. So what do I mean when I say gazing at the car wreck (vicariously) is a kind of mindful entertainment? It seems like I’m contradicting myself. But am I? Appearances may be deceiving- especially at first glance.
Can entertainment be mindful of current events rather then unconcerned with it? Let’s first ask a easier question. Does all entertainment have to be fantasy? This is obviously not the case. Reality TV (although much of it is scripted) shows that people can be entertained by the idea of watching something real as opposed to something made up. But what about the kind of topic entertained; does it have to be trivial instead of crucial? This I believe gets more to the hear of the matter. Most want to entertain shallows content, which does not affect them too much.
Can entertainment of crucial topics be engaging in a way as not to cause dread and helplessness but of hope and/or vicarious entertainment? Is there a way to make entertainment about vital topics without shying away from their unpleasant aspects? I believe I have been doing this some how. I find mindfulness in all the entertainment I watch. I find myself following alternative media because I find it entertaining in the mindful way I am describing here. However I am not sure how exactly it happens for me.
I would like to envisage a time when people can trade mindless for mindful entertainment. I think it would help us by reversing the learned helplessness via a redirecting of attention toward the world- now with the guise of vicarious entertainment rather than frustration. The key difference is one can look at the worlds problems like a car wreck- telling yourself its OK to watch although there is no apparent fix. There is no reason to run from the world because it is chaotic when one can learn to become entertained by it and learn to experience it vicariously. This way, we can be at the forefront of the world’s issues and notice when we have a chance for a true fix, like jumping off an electrified platform when bars holding one in are removed.
We should learn to watch the car wreck of the modern world with vicarious eyes looking for entertainment. Although at first it may seem disrespectful to find entertainment value in a car wreck, when all things are considered, it is a better option that not looking at all. If we learn to become detached observes, content to keep up with the unfolding of current events, we become more aware which eventually leads to change. Ignorance on the other hand will never lead to change.
What may seem like a selfish decision to look away from the current world (especially to a naive me) is actually a form of learned helplessness. Learned helplessness is best defined by an example- a psychological experiment to be more specific. In the 70s, researches were investigating the effects of punishment on dogs. They came up with the arguably sadistic but nonetheless important scientific decision to test the effects of continuous punishment. They set out to do this with dogs and electric shocks. The dogs were placed one at time on one of two adjacent metal platforms, from which they were confined to by bars. These metal platforms were connected to electrodes which would give a shock to whoever was in contact with them. The researches then continued to shock the dogs causing them to move from one platform to the other. Much to the dog’s dismay, both platforms were electrified- there was no escape. The dogs from then on stopped trying to move and laid on the platform to be repeatedly shocked. The dogs refused to move because they seemed to know it would not help them. But the incredible part comes when the researches removed the bars- allowing the dogs to move from off both platforms. One expects the dogs to leap from the platforms to safety, but the opposite happens. The dogs continue to stay and receive shocks although they are free to leave. The dogs had learned to be helpless- thus the term learned helplessness.
Confronted with the calamity of the modern world, most people are unable to figure a out a way to fix things. This is akin to the dogs not finding a way off the platforms. Like the dogs, they learn to take the shocks- which for them means numbing themselves to current events. Unfortunately, when the opportunity for a genuine plan to help the situation arises, these people will be blind to it- unable to seize the chance. Sad as that may be, it is expected and should not be thought of with contempt.
I say this because for myself- one who can’t help look away from the car wreck of current affairs- my gazing is passive. Instead of learning to look away with passionate disinterest, I have learned to look toward with dispassionate interest. That is, while others are passionately involved in the small scope of their immediate interests, I have become a detached observer. I’m not looking to find a way to help the situation with my gazing. I look because I am engaging vicariously or virtually with it. It’s as if I am finding entertainment in it. If this is the case, how is this any different from mindless entertainment. Is this the opposite? Is what I engage in a mindful form of entertainment?
Wait… the common conception of entertainment is that it must be mindless by definition. So what do I mean when I say gazing at the car wreck (vicariously) is a kind of mindful entertainment? It seems like I’m contradicting myself. But am I? Appearances may be deceiving- especially at first glance.
Can entertainment be mindful of current events rather then unconcerned with it? Let’s first ask a easier question. Does all entertainment have to be fantasy? This is obviously not the case. Reality TV (although much of it is scripted) shows that people can be entertained by the idea of watching something real as opposed to something made up. But what about the kind of topic entertained; does it have to be trivial instead of crucial? This I believe gets more to the hear of the matter. Most want to entertain shallows content, which does not affect them too much.
Can entertainment of crucial topics be engaging in a way as not to cause dread and helplessness but of hope and/or vicarious entertainment? Is there a way to make entertainment about vital topics without shying away from their unpleasant aspects? I believe I have been doing this some how. I find mindfulness in all the entertainment I watch. I find myself following alternative media because I find it entertaining in the mindful way I am describing here. However I am not sure how exactly it happens for me.
I would like to envisage a time when people can trade mindless for mindful entertainment. I think it would help us by reversing the learned helplessness via a redirecting of attention toward the world- now with the guise of vicarious entertainment rather than frustration. The key difference is one can look at the worlds problems like a car wreck- telling yourself its OK to watch although there is no apparent fix. There is no reason to run from the world because it is chaotic when one can learn to become entertained by it and learn to experience it vicariously. This way, we can be at the forefront of the world’s issues and notice when we have a chance for a true fix, like jumping off an electrified platform when bars holding one in are removed.
We should learn to watch the car wreck of the modern world with vicarious eyes looking for entertainment. Although at first it may seem disrespectful to find entertainment value in a car wreck, when all things are considered, it is a better option that not looking at all. If we learn to become detached observes, content to keep up with the unfolding of current events, we become more aware which eventually leads to change. Ignorance on the other hand will never lead to change.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Toward a Recreational Pharmacology Industry: Understanding The "Fourth" Drive
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)