Diet. Psychedelics. And Species Wide Brain Damage....

[valisopticus]

Hey everyone!

I wanted to share some info with you all because i've found it mind blowing beyond words..and after some experimentation and research over the years, and some dedicated psychedelic exploration, it seems to really hold together well.

The forward by Dennis McKenna explains the general idea behind the guys theory, and it actually ties into the McKenna's idea a lot once you grok it.

Heres a free .pdf of the entire book from the authors website that you can read: LEFT IN THE DARK

If this is even remotely right then it could really change everything we thought about the evolution of mind, and the role psychedelics play in the grand scheme of things. Especially DMT. Initially it sounds far fetched but it makes sense once you look into it deeper

This little pictorial very breifly explains some of it http://leftinthedark.org.uk/sites/default/files/The missing link pictorial version_0.pdf

Anyone already read this?

I'm very interested in hearing what people think : )

 

[ForEverAfter]

I only read the pictorial segment, but I think it is laughably bad science. There are so many things wrong with it, that I don't know were to begin.

1. Assumptions and theories cannot be declared factual without - at least - referencing evidence.

2. An enormous number of species consume the "reproductive organs" of plants - not just mammals - yet this study is specific to humans.

flowers and fruit are the hormonally rich developmental environments of the some of the most chemically complex species biology has produced

A. Herbivores are not the most chemically complex species biology has ever produced. First, biology doesn't produce species. Second, there are a great number of mammalian carnivores that are far more complex, biologically, socially, and otherwise, than a great number of mammalian herbivores.

B. The diagrams of tomatoes and flowers indicating that they are reproductive organs are absurd.

As the symbiotic relationship evolved the mammalian developmental environment was slowly infused with ever greater concentrations and complexity of plant hormones.

C. There are a shit-load of non-mammalian species that consume "reproductive organs". And, non-human mammals. So logically they all would have developed cognitively to a similar extent?

3. Shrinking brains do not indicate brain damage or a reduced level of intelligence. Sperm whales have larger brains, in comparison to the size of their bodies. This does not lead me to conclude that sperm whales are more intelligent than people. Nor does the development of micro-technology lead me to believe that technology is degenerating. It's not all about size.

Roughly 2 million years ago, the brain tripled in size.

A. Do you really think that because Neanderthals had larger brains, in comparison to body size, that they were more intelligent?

These factors in combination when considered within the context of the design, development and function of most complex, chemically sensitive thing we know can only result in massive failure.

4. Not only is the above quote grammatically incorrect, it is insane.

Near loss of transcription modifying chemicals (DNA). Build quality reduced to junk.

A. Junk is not a scientific term. It is not specific and therefore it should not be used. Species evolve cyclically. We cannot be expected to continue to evolve at the same rate. Deceleration of evolution in species is not an indication of de-evolution.

5. Have we, as a species, stopped consuming "reproductive organs"? It seems to me that we are now consuming a much wider range. So, if cognitive evolution is the result of the consumption of plant matter - which, as I've illustrated, doesn't make any sense - then wouldn't we keep evolving as long as we keep eating "plant sex organs"?

6. Terrence & Dennis McKenna are either idiots or manipulators. They profit from the willingness that the psychedelic world has towards certain theories. If they believe those theories themselves, they are idiots. If they are brainwashing drugged up people through the use of - what they know is - bad science, then they are manipulators.

What you posted is badly written, full of holes, and relies heavily on assumptions rather than facts.

 

[Aetherius Rimor]

The McKenna's do have some gems of insight/wisdom among their plethora of writings/speeches, but the majority of what I see is idealistic/wishful fantasy and a desperate attempt to confirm that fantasy using whatever evidence they can find.

They do have some gems... but it takes a lot prospecting to find them and the wisdom to know pyrite from gold.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Honestly, I'm not all that familiar with their theories. Like with Michael Moore, I don't have the patience or inclination to dig through mountains of garbage for the molehills of wisdom. One of my friends went to see a Terrence McKenna lecture a couple of years back. He's a bit "out there", my friend. He was all excited, telling me about what he learnt: apparently McKenna believes that there are lizard people among us, and aliens; and that the current theories of evolution are, more or less, a conspiracy. The guy is one tab of acid short of being a permanent fixture in a psych ward. I guess it runs in the family.

 

[Shifty38]

And so appears the religion of science ...