The Purpose of Psilocybine in Nature?

[Temeraroius]

the hypothesis could be tested with relative ease by growing a non-psychoactive psilocybe genus mushroom and a psychoactive one under black lights and observing how they reacted. obviously the fact they are different species would distort the data. i cant remember off the top of my head but i thought there was something you could do to psychoactive mushrooms to inhibit production of psilocybin, perhaps something that is added to the substrate *thinking*

With controls under normal light it could be better.

 

[MurphyClox]

It seems most likely to me that is has to do with ATP production (which would affect growth in some way or another).

I have to insist: This seems really unlikely!! The phosphate ester (!) serves probably as stabilizer for the more unstable congener psilocin.

- Murphy

 

[MurphyClox]

the hypothesis could be tested with relative ease by growing a non-psychoactive psilocybe genus mushroom and a psychoactive one under black lights and observing how they reacted.

Yeah, that sounds indeed like a reasonable plan to me! Good idea.

 

[Temeraroius]

I have to insist: This seems really unlikely!! The phosphate ester (!) serves probably as stabilizer for the more unstable congener psilocin.

- Murphy

Ahh my bad, I said that under the assumption that another poster's statement about growth issues without the compounds present was valid. I retract my statement.

 

[Coolio]

I pray this is a joke.

Do you mean the Hindu perspective or the fact that cow shit comes out partially colonized by P. cubensis mycelia?

 

[shibireru]

Do you mean the Hindu perspective or the fact that cow shit comes out partially colonized by P. cubensis mycelia?

I find the former laughable, the latter not so much. Even so, I think Hammilton, the putative ham-milton impersonator, was referring to your assertion that hindus worshiped the bovine for having noted the association between seemingly divine experiences and the prior ingestion of cow pies - this belief of mine being based merely on his storied and extensive track record for being needlessly douchey and condescending to everyone.

 

[Coolio]

I got the idea from Gordon Wasson and Terrence McKenna...

 

[Hammilton]

I have to insist: This seems really unlikely!! The phosphate ester (!) serves probably as stabilizer for the more unstable congener psilocin.

- Murphy

There's just no reason for this thinking, I'm afraid. It's not logical. There's nothing to suggest this. That's assuming that psilocin or psilocybin itself serves a direct role (ie: UV absorbtion, which seems unlikely given Vecktor's recent comments on the subject). Maybe it does does serve a direct role and do something. Or, just as likely with current knowledge, is that it does serve some sort of intermediary function (as ethanol does per previous expample).

Without good reason, rational ideas shouldn't be discarded, it's bad science, and the stability of the two compounds doesn't have any obvious relevance in disproving this idea.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a particular favorite idea, because there just isn't enough known at present.

 

[longtimelurker]

ut I doubt this possibility). I have no idea how this would relate to the ATP cycle. Are there any species that store phosphorus in other forms?

Creatine Phosphate in humans and other animals, (cows etc).

 

[Doctor Abalaba]

Im surprised this is being discussed some much. The question, why does nature or certain fungi produce psilocin or psilocybin? Well, the fungi could give a fuck less about you, your religion, or to "facilitate a symbiotic relationship between mushroom and human consciousness"
The chemicals obviously increase their survivability. They have an evolutionary advantage over other mushrooms that do not have value to human.
The question of how it evolved, now thats a whole different story.

 

[Coolio]

It could also be an evolutionary remnant and will eventually lose the ability to produce psilocybin because it's no longer a beneficial trait.

 

[Hammilton]

Im surprised this is being discussed some much. The question, why does nature or certain fungi produce psilocin or psilocybin? Well, the fungi could give a fuck less about you, your religion, or to "facilitate a symbiotic relationship between mushroom and human consciousness"
The chemicals obviously increase their survivability. They have an evolutionary advantage over other mushrooms that do not have value to human.
The question of how it evolved, now thats a whole different story.

This seems to assume that the chemicals are there because human beings are using them (giving the mushroom greater chance of surviving and reproducing). That's a pretty big assumption, and probably isn't even accurate. Considering how few people would ever re-use the mushroom (or eat it to begin with), that's certainly a pretty ineffective survival mechanism.

The reason it has been kept around is certainly more interesting than the mechanics of how it became to exist in the mushroom. Combing through tens of millions of years and even more generations seems dull when the mechanism for how all of evolution works is well established.

It certainly could just be something that's waiting to be weeded out, but today there's a large population of people growing them simply for the psilocybin content, meaning if it was, that's no longer the case.

 

[MCMG]

holy shit you guys are smart.

 

[Doctor Abalaba]

This seems to assume that the chemicals are there because human beings are using them (giving the mushroom greater chance of surviving and reproducing). That's a pretty big assumption, and probably isn't even accurate. Considering how few people would ever re-use the mushroom (or eat it to begin with), that's certainly a pretty ineffective survival mechanism.

The reason it has been kept around is certainly more interesting than the mechanics of how it became to exist in the mushroom. Combing through tens of millions of years and even more generations seems dull when the mechanism for how all of evolution works is well established.

It certainly could just be something that's waiting to be weeded out, but today there's a large population of people growing them simply for the psilocybin content, meaning if it was, that's no longer the case.

Granted, but its not a huge assumption. Consider how long the fungi has been around. Surely if possessing and active chemical that humans find pleasurable [or unpleasurable] is an evolutionary advantage. Otherwise, why would trees make fruit, why would plants produce nectar, leaves make poison?

Although, Hammilton, you bring an excellent point many people never reuse them. This could indicate perhaps it is [or was] a poison. However, I contend there must be some advantageous to the production of these chemicals, otherwise, I doubt these fungi would be so prevalent.

 

[Jabberwocky]

hey Murphy, does the purpose not depend on our own values that we bring to the analysis of these organisms? Tweak our values of analysis and values of description (norms of analysis/description) and you will change what function the psilocybin has in the mushroom fruiting body.

Purposes are not discovered, they are proposed and then accepted within a scientific community.

Furthermore, the thing under analysis (mushroom fruiting bodies) is only a thing (an entity) insofar as we conceptualize/categorize it as such. There are no divisions/categories apart from our own conceptual framework. The 'joints of nature' are such in light of our understanding and relation to them.

I find it incoherent to talk of purpose and function apart (objectively) from our own analysis of the phenomenon in question.

 

[MurphyClox]

hey Murphy, does the purpose not depend on our own values that we bring to the analysis of these organisms? Tweak our values of analysis and values of description (norms of analysis/description) and you will change what function the psilocybin has in the mushroom fruiting body.

Purposes are not discovered, they are proposed and then accepted within a scientific community. *)

In particular about the red-coloured part:
No, at least not how I meant my question. What I called "the purpose in nature" is definitively independend from human values. Maybe my choice of words was a bit inaccurate. Just for clarification, let me state it again:
In my thinking (and this idea is directly derived from Darwin's theory of the evolution of living creatures), there is nothing in nature that does not serve a purpose. Well known examples were mentioned here by others, like: Lots of plants produce tasty fruits, so that certain animals get attracted, eat those fruits and propagate the indigestible seed contained within...and so on...

I strongly doubt that humans are by any means involved in the 'purpose' of psilocybine. This has several reasons, which I don't wanna discuss here, because that will only lead the thread astray. Please consider just this one single point; maybe not the most important argument but a very illustrative one IMHO:
Psilocybine-containing mushroom species are spread all over the world, in different climates and on different continents. Most of them grew for quite a long time without getting significantly noticed by human beings, i.e. magic mushrooms were a sacrament only in ancient Central America. If Homo sapiens was involved somehow in 'the purpose', and therefore, the fate of those species, we wouldn't see them in such diverse places. But actually, we do (e.g. Psilocybe semilanceata was not consumed intentionally by Europeans until ca. 1950-60, when science discovered its psychoactive nature)

Therefore, I completely reject any explanations that directly involve human beings. That is just a egocentric thinking, like the now fortunately abolished idea that earth must be in the "middle" of the universe (because we live on it), or that we are the pride of creation (...we are NOT! we are just an ugly disgrace for nature IMO)

But the fact that these mushrooms produce psilocybine now for several thousands of generations (i.e. reproduction cycles), and in addition, that not only one but LOTS of species do so, gives me the confidence that this happens for a reason. The question is now: Which purpose???

I admit, in really many cases humans have no idea whatsoever about the purpose that some things fulfill in nature. But that is because we do not understand nature thoroughly (and maybe never will), which is absolutely unrelated to my original question.
It is HIGHLY unlikely that psilocybine is only an evolutionary remnant. Again, I see several reasons here:
- The compound seems to get produced now for several thousands of generations within these fungi, which suggests that it must pose some advantage for the species who do so.
- the compound gets produced by several species, which suggests that it is not just a random mutation that wasn't selected out yet.
- These species are not only native to a certain climate or restricted geographical area but are spread nearly worldwide (sometimes because they were introduced there by us, but definitively not always), which suggests that psilocybine serves a purpose that is independent of a) climate and b) certain animals/plants that do not share this wide distribution. Psilocybine's purpose must be of a more general nature.
- Very closely related compounds (like DMT or bufotenin) are produced by completely unrelated species (toads, plants...); that could be an example for parallel evolution (maybe). Let me quote the first line of the resp. Wiki-article:

Parallel evolution is the independent evolution of similar traits, starting from a similar ancestral condition due to similar environments or other evolutionary pressures

THAT is what I'm inquiring in this thread: WHAT kind of evolutionary pressure is it that makes the production of psilocybine feasible?

The once discussed idea of psilocybine as an UV-protector seems a bit unlikely now to me, after having talked about it with others in a different forum. Maybe it is "simply" a repellent against certain feeding predators? Maybe it serves as an antioxidant? Maybe something totally unrelated... Possibilities are numerous.
I'd love to read some more theories, which are backed up with facts.

*) Well, this may be just some confusion due to my choice of words. Your description is indeed valid for all science: Things get observed, then somebody states a theory about it. Then it gets discussed and finally accepted, if all evidence speaks for the proposal and nothing against it. When new evidence is found, the proposal must be re-thought.
The theory of psilocybine as some kind of symbiotic factor for humans was rejected for this reason.

Your,

Murphy Clox