Posted: Fri 23rd Mar 2007 08:19 am
Interesting thoughts DK:
I agree that we do ourselves a disservice by being illogical or irrational in our reasoning.
I also agree that many anti-marijuana arguments are not rational and that many members of society look for the "semi-crazed" unproductive hippie type as a good reason for how bud is bringing down society.
I don't however, see anything illogical or irrational in noticing the creative power of human thoughts upon reality. On the contrary, given the current preponderance of evidence in quantum physical experiments, it seems to me that the denial of such a reality would be the irrational position.
Why else do scientists conduct double blind experiments in an effort to get reliable data? It's because they are aware -though they have a hard time explaining it when they limit themselves to an "only phyisical things are real paradigm"- that the thoughts and expectations of scientists influence the outcome of experiments. It is true that there is still debate as to what these affects are and how to explain them. There are more than a few highly qualified and prestigious physicists, however, who maintain that human consciousness has energy that interacts with the physical world. I agree with them and have had far too many direct experiences with the flexibility of reality according to what I'm thinking to hold any other view. (All of us, in fact, have countless examples of this truth every day, but we are unconscious of them.)
But what is "physical" anyway? According to the latest and most powerful theories of reality by the brightest minds in physics, there is enough space between seemingly physical objects for the earth to pass between their atoms. You hurt your hand when you punch a wall, not because the wall and your hand are in physical contact, but because of the electrical resistance -the opposing electrical charge- that both have and there is, in reality, no actual contact between the molecules at all! E=mc2 is something that everyone has heard, but few have really grasped. In this equation E is energy, m is mass (what is usually perceived as "physical") and c is the speed of light. What this means is that all of physical reality can be equated to energy, and that all energy can be equated -with the help of the speed of light- to mass; the two are one and the same thing. I, and other quite rational individuals with PhDs in physics am simply suggesting that human thoughts -which obviously exist in some way as they race around in your head- also equate to energy. The idea that human thoughts have no energy, to me, would be the irrational position.
Regardless of one's stance on these issues, however, I must say that it is very arrogant of those in support of the only physical things count view to speak as if their position is rational whereas any other conclusion or interpretation of the same data is not.
These are issues that are debated at length by philosophers of science, physicists, and others to this day. It has never been the case that one side has an unshakeable answer. In most cases, people who accept a physical view do so whithout ever having truly thought about it (much like how most people assume marijuana is evil because that is the message they've always received even though they have never experimented with it themselves); they have never really heard or considered the case for a non-physical reality except for some lame story from the Bible interpreted by a person who hasn't had an oroiginal thought about the issue his or her entire life. None of this is new information. Here are a couple of links that can give a person some insight into what some highly qualified and "rational" people think about this issue of spirituality, science, and being "rational". These people include physicists, philosophers, MDs, psychologists, Buddhists, and others http://www.integralscience.org/ http://www.mindandlife.org/ I also recommend A Brfief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot, The Spiritual Universe, by Fred Alan Wolf, PhD., and [/u]Destructive Emotions, narrated by Daniel Goleman.
How do you know this is a fact? Have you done a study on it? Have you read any of the 400 studies cited in the article of the op? Not to be a pain in the ass, but pretending something is a fact because we would like for it to be won't further our case either.
My own view is that, as you state at the end of your post, marijuana may be a catalyst, but is not the casue of psychizophrenia. Factually speaking, however, I don't really know. I think my guess is a reasonable and educated one, however. A large part of this catalyst effect, if such exists, though, is because of the social consciousness or context surrounding the drug and mental illness in general. I have stated in the past -though not on this forum- that madness is nothing more than fear cloaked in psychology. Remove the fear, and we will remove the madness. I believe that if our culture -for whatever reason- were to collectively decide that splashing water on rocks causes depression, we would suddenly find snorkeling linked to mental illness. Truly, if what we think has nothing to do with our experience, then why have so many posters experienced with shrooms and other psychadelics pointed out the importance of mood and who you trip with over and over again? I'm taking that same premise and extending it to mass consciousness. Is it mind blowing?
I know I'm a long wided motherfucker, but it tough breaking the secrets of the universe down into bite sized fast food chunks! Perhaps some of you stoned boys and girls will -because you're stoned- have cracks in your mental constructs and be able look at things in a different way, so I'll say one last thing. DK, when I speak of not being "normal", I use the term natural. Being natural, however, does not equate to being dysfunctional simply because it is not normal. Likewise, being "normal" does not equate to being "functional". Being normal means fitting in with society. A society, however, that places the value of profit for a few over the needs of millions is not functional. It is natural, furthermore, for a man to see a pretty girl and want to talk to her, to touch her, be with her, love her. It is normal, however, to deny this feeling and feel guilty and afraid because you are already loving someone else and you have accepted the very normal idea that love must be exclusive to only one person in order to be real and pure and true.
In any event, when I speak of being natural, my meaning is that, although you are not normal, you are highly functional. This means that you likely have a job and contribute to society and are not one of those stereotypes that people point to as the classic case of deadbeat stoner dude. But you know what, what's so bad about the deadbeat stoner dude? Is a guy who is basically nice, relaxed, and mellow really a bad person simply because he is not running on the tread mill with everyone else? Is not the creation of a mellow and laid back space in this world to simply chill and enjoy it not valuable? Is a person who races about with stress and is convinced of how important his deadlines are really more valuable? More valuable to who? To what? Would everything really fall apart if we simply decided to stop working constantly and light a big fat joint instead? Or perhaps everything would fall together? With or without the joint, most people could benefit from a bit of letting go of all the struggle and stress. How can we claim to be an "advanced civilization" when even those who "have" are too stressed out to enjoy what they have while the vast majority who "have not" live on the brink of starvation, death, and despair.
I agree that we do ourselves a disservice by being illogical or irrational in our reasoning.
I also agree that many anti-marijuana arguments are not rational and that many members of society look for the "semi-crazed" unproductive hippie type as a good reason for how bud is bringing down society.
I don't however, see anything illogical or irrational in noticing the creative power of human thoughts upon reality. On the contrary, given the current preponderance of evidence in quantum physical experiments, it seems to me that the denial of such a reality would be the irrational position.
Why else do scientists conduct double blind experiments in an effort to get reliable data? It's because they are aware -though they have a hard time explaining it when they limit themselves to an "only phyisical things are real paradigm"- that the thoughts and expectations of scientists influence the outcome of experiments. It is true that there is still debate as to what these affects are and how to explain them. There are more than a few highly qualified and prestigious physicists, however, who maintain that human consciousness has energy that interacts with the physical world. I agree with them and have had far too many direct experiences with the flexibility of reality according to what I'm thinking to hold any other view. (All of us, in fact, have countless examples of this truth every day, but we are unconscious of them.)But what is "physical" anyway? According to the latest and most powerful theories of reality by the brightest minds in physics, there is enough space between seemingly physical objects for the earth to pass between their atoms. You hurt your hand when you punch a wall, not because the wall and your hand are in physical contact, but because of the electrical resistance -the opposing electrical charge- that both have and there is, in reality, no actual contact between the molecules at all! E=mc2 is something that everyone has heard, but few have really grasped. In this equation E is energy, m is mass (what is usually perceived as "physical") and c is the speed of light. What this means is that all of physical reality can be equated to energy, and that all energy can be equated -with the help of the speed of light- to mass; the two are one and the same thing. I, and other quite rational individuals with PhDs in physics am simply suggesting that human thoughts -which obviously exist in some way as they race around in your head- also equate to energy. The idea that human thoughts have no energy, to me, would be the irrational position.
Regardless of one's stance on these issues, however, I must say that it is very arrogant of those in support of the only physical things count view to speak as if their position is rational whereas any other conclusion or interpretation of the same data is not.
These are issues that are debated at length by philosophers of science, physicists, and others to this day. It has never been the case that one side has an unshakeable answer. In most cases, people who accept a physical view do so whithout ever having truly thought about it (much like how most people assume marijuana is evil because that is the message they've always received even though they have never experimented with it themselves); they have never really heard or considered the case for a non-physical reality except for some lame story from the Bible interpreted by a person who hasn't had an oroiginal thought about the issue his or her entire life. None of this is new information. Here are a couple of links that can give a person some insight into what some highly qualified and "rational" people think about this issue of spirituality, science, and being "rational". These people include physicists, philosophers, MDs, psychologists, Buddhists, and others http://www.integralscience.org/ http://www.mindandlife.org/ I also recommend A Brfief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot, The Spiritual Universe, by Fred Alan Wolf, PhD., and [/u]Destructive Emotions, narrated by Daniel Goleman.It is a fact that cannabis has no non-trivial, long term negative effects on the human physiology, that most cases of “cannabis related” mental problems are cases where a person predisposed to, or already suffering from, a mental disorder
How do you know this is a fact? Have you done a study on it? Have you read any of the 400 studies cited in the article of the op? Not to be a pain in the ass, but pretending something is a fact because we would like for it to be won't further our case either.
My own view is that, as you state at the end of your post, marijuana may be a catalyst, but is not the casue of psychizophrenia. Factually speaking, however, I don't really know. I think my guess is a reasonable and educated one, however. A large part of this catalyst effect, if such exists, though, is because of the social consciousness or context surrounding the drug and mental illness in general. I have stated in the past -though not on this forum- that madness is nothing more than fear cloaked in psychology. Remove the fear, and we will remove the madness. I believe that if our culture -for whatever reason- were to collectively decide that splashing water on rocks causes depression, we would suddenly find snorkeling linked to mental illness. Truly, if what we think has nothing to do with our experience, then why have so many posters experienced with shrooms and other psychadelics pointed out the importance of mood and who you trip with over and over again? I'm taking that same premise and extending it to mass consciousness. Is it mind blowing?
I know I'm a long wided motherfucker, but it tough breaking the secrets of the universe down into bite sized fast food chunks! Perhaps some of you stoned boys and girls will -because you're stoned- have cracks in your mental constructs and be able look at things in a different way, so I'll say one last thing. DK, when I speak of not being "normal", I use the term natural. Being natural, however, does not equate to being dysfunctional simply because it is not normal. Likewise, being "normal" does not equate to being "functional". Being normal means fitting in with society. A society, however, that places the value of profit for a few over the needs of millions is not functional. It is natural, furthermore, for a man to see a pretty girl and want to talk to her, to touch her, be with her, love her. It is normal, however, to deny this feeling and feel guilty and afraid because you are already loving someone else and you have accepted the very normal idea that love must be exclusive to only one person in order to be real and pure and true.
In any event, when I speak of being natural, my meaning is that, although you are not normal, you are highly functional. This means that you likely have a job and contribute to society and are not one of those stereotypes that people point to as the classic case of deadbeat stoner dude. But you know what, what's so bad about the deadbeat stoner dude? Is a guy who is basically nice, relaxed, and mellow really a bad person simply because he is not running on the tread mill with everyone else? Is not the creation of a mellow and laid back space in this world to simply chill and enjoy it not valuable? Is a person who races about with stress and is convinced of how important his deadlines are really more valuable? More valuable to who? To what? Would everything really fall apart if we simply decided to stop working constantly and light a big fat joint instead? Or perhaps everything would fall together? With or without the joint, most people could benefit from a bit of letting go of all the struggle and stress. How can we claim to be an "advanced civilization" when even those who "have" are too stressed out to enjoy what they have while the vast majority who "have not" live on the brink of starvation, death, and despair.
), she has developed quite an interest in physics, science and most of all philosophy since we meet, but that was, I fear, unavoidable, it being a large part of my life. It’s quite hard splitting your time between a professional interest in physics and science (I am currently writing on a thesis in engineering and physics), a private interest in almost anything scientific from cosmology, over neuroscience and biology in general to quantum physics, a keen interest in philosophy and a private life with her, without a lot of my enthusiasm spilling over to her. 
