Natural vs. Synthetic trips (implications)

[surf.shaman]

defying nature is nature itself!
matter is neither created nor destroyed in the formulation of these chemicals - by man or by plant.

Maybe P.S. touched on this - one related tangent of this is that is interesting to discuss is - Do plants produce psycho active chemicals because it makes man cultivate said plants?

like the psilocybes... do they make psilocybin to help themselves live?

 

[~_Hiss_~]

Ignorance is Bliss. This doesn't have to do as much with science, as just simply using rational thought and what fits best. I think a child could help you learn about imagination vs. reality.

It has now been justified!

Setting theoretical barriers based around science softer than play-doh always help explain the unexplained lol.

Yes, your relevant senses in a negative feedback loop wrapped around your reality in real-time has been explained, we have three main receptors for such in our own brains, duh!

 

[guerillabedlam]

This debate has always subtly annoyed me, mainly because people are underestimating the "set" part. If your mind believes that natural is better, you may well be more inclined to think that way while tripping. People also severely underestimate the placebo effect.

Also, as Roger mentioned, there are many "bad" chemicals nature produces, such as poisons, and even psychoactives like datura, nutmeg, (and some would argue salvia). The plants usually produce psychoactive chemicals as a defense against being eaten, mainly by insects. Insects have nervous tissue similar to ours, so it is usually made to mess with this.

Most including me think 4-aco-dmt is better than mushrooms, because mushrooms must have some extra chemicals that are unpleasant, some think it is baestyocin (forget exact spelling).

Nature is doing a poor job if it wants to communicate (lol, neohippies, you may be benign but have stupid ideas)... when you ingest a plant you are killing it, or it was already dead.

Then when you get into the ways drugs work, pharmacology, it can easily be realized the only way natural chemicals is different, is that the plant takes the place of a chemist, that is all.

LSD, ketamine, DPT, 4-aco-dmt, 2C-E and 2C-I have all at one time or another made me feel a presence or have contact with an entity. Its not as fun to believe this, but the truth is these "entities" are just the power of our subconscious mind coming to life. Its more interesting anyways to believe in reality, and the way psychedelics unlock the un/sub-conscious into the conscious realm.

I'll single out this post since I want to touch on thee last part. But I think for the first few paragraphs you and others are grossly misunderstanding the op by debating the which is more profound when it comes to natural vs. Synthetic.

The only 2 hallucinogens I've visually perceived beings are salvia and dmt. As far as salvia goes at least I didn't have any prior expectations to see entities so if we want to use science I think its a serious abberation in visual processing more than a subconscious thing, at least initially.

But I have felt outside presences on mescaline, dpt, lsd and mushrooms. So I do agree that at least the felt presence can be experienced on both and it would not surprise if a particular dose or sensitive individual perceived intelligent entities visually on synthetics too.

 

[nopipesdfw]

Ignorance is Bliss. This doesn't have to do as much with science, as just simply using rational thought and what fits best. I think a child could help you learn about imagination vs. reality.

Lol @ rationality fully explaining a universe built of paradox.

Once again, the situation has been justified and sealed, now move along as I head to the nearest preschool to get my head out of the clouds!

 

[Roger&Me]

Arthunter, I don't have the energy to continue our back-and-forth today, but I just wanted to say I enjoyed the friendly debate!

 

[Depressicaa]

I'm with Roger on this. If I gave you two structurally dentally drugs and did not tell you which was manmade and which one is natural you wouldn't know. If I extracted one, created one, how would it feel more natural to you? What makes something feel natural? Maybe its the taste? The smell? I personally don't understand how you can claim that something feels more natural if you have just compared two different chemicals.

On the other hand I have drug users from both ends. I take both pills and street drugs, but both kinds of users have mentioned that they don't take the other type. Street users say "I don't fuck with pills." and Pill users say "I am not a druggie." This seems relevant since psychedelics fall under both and although you have a preference, it doesn't make the drugs different.

 

[arthunter888]

If I gave you two structurally dentally drugs and did not tell you which was manmade and which one is natural you wouldn't know.]


Because you said "structurally identical" this would not be a test of natural vs synthetic, it would be a test of natural vs natural since you just made a copy of a chemical structure that was already produced by nature. My argument is regarding 'new' chemical structures that nature has not created = 'man-made'. I'm saying there is a difference between chemicals that nature has 'designed' and chemicals that nature has NOT 'designed'. When you synthesize a chemical that is an exact copy of a natural structure, you still have a natural chemical structure despite this particular chemical having been produced by a human.

Arthunter, I don't have the energy to continue our back-and-forth today, but I just wanted to say I enjoyed the friendly debate!

Likewise. No rush, but I'd like to see a response at some point. Although you may have misinterpreted some of my points (such is the fallacy of language)-- it is clear that your intellect is of enough caliper that my words will not loose too much of their original intent by the time you process/understand them, and that your words are equally clear and present in a similar logical organization as mine. This is advantageous in complex arguments like this since writers unable to transmit their thought processes using specific and logical syntax only add to the inherent shortcomings of language's ability to "show you what I mean." Till then, peace.

 

[flowerb0x]

The hell? What a long useless series of arguments.

Guys, DMT *does* have special pharmacology. In addition to being a serotonin agonist like the other tryptamines and phenethylamines, it's also a sigma receptor agonist, and is quite possibly the main endogenous ligand at that receptor; certainly the only known one at present.

Other sigma agonists of note include DXM, ketamine, and PCP.

Also, read 'natural' as either "we have likely encountered this substance in the environment we are adapted to" or "there are cultural associations with this substance going back a long way, before technology". No need to split hairs so fine you're trying to shave the damn electrons off, you know loosely what's meant.

For what it's worth, entity contact seems rather common for me on DXM, beginning around second plateau. Salvia (sublingually, I haven't tried it smoked) rather reliably induces it for me. Serotonergic psychedelics in general don't seem to do it; I don't know if that's because the brain state is inherently less conducive to entity contact or I just don't know how to use them as well as DXM (which, being legal, I could actually obtain for some years before having connections to get anything else). I've tried DMT once, smoked, and did not have a breakthrough experience nor contact any entities, although I saw some very pretty rainbow cities with my eyes closed. The dose was probably a bit low and I didn't have a second chance at it.

 

[Solide]

I don't think the people on the two different sides of this arguement can find common ground here. It all comes down whether or not you believe nature has a sort of 'conciousness' I guess? Personally I don't think there's really a difference, I believe a molecule is a molecule and a man-made one is just as natural as a plant-made one. I'm guess I'm just a very science-orientated (pharmacy student here) type of person and you guys are just a bunch of damn hippies (I kid, I kid )

@Arthur:

You believe that mankind used to be part of nature but not anymore? What makes you think that nature didn't plan on us becoming like this?

 

[Depressicaa]

Oh I understand, sorry for misinterpreting it.
Datura is certainly natural, but it isn't very appealing.

 

[greenmeanies]

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” Plastic…asshole.

thank you george carlin

 

[~_Hiss_~]

excellent quote, greenmeanies. i guess it is human nature to try to find patterns and mystical thinking, and religions. thanks for helping to pull the thread away from the realm of "nature is trying to COMMUNICATE with us, man?! won't you tune in? you have a closed mind, just cause science explains most things and is the reason why i'm typing on the internet, doesn't make science right!"

i guess it'd be on topic to next discuss ghosts, spirits and a magical unicorn named charlie.

i used to wonder myself why nature has created such mystical chemicals for us like psilocin, mescaline and DMT. but she has also created datura, cyanide along with countless other toxins. by random chance, with all the millions of chemicals nature produces, its bound to produce some similar to serotonin and be an agonist at the 5ht2-a. Why did they? could be random, but probably has something to do with its survival.

 

[arthunter888]

^^ Yea, I know, I'm trying to get a grip on why these things exist. I figured I'd pose a concept like this to stimulate the debate on this. Unfortunately MOST responses are misunderstanding my thinking on this. I never said that nature was trying to communicate with us, so it places 'spirits' into the molecules it creates, though I could understand this interpretation since I did mention entity contact. It's possible that the entities are actually representations of our selves. Anyway, all I said that nature has some sort of intent behind the psychedelics it creates, I'm not certain what that intent is though.

You can argue and argue about how man-made psychedelics are no different than natural ones (though I disagree), but the fact of the matter is that nature designed psychedelics first, and if natural psychedelics had not been discovered by ancient peoples and passed on through generations, I doubt that man-made psychedelics would even exist. After all, psychedelics that came from the ground provided humans the precursors, the chemical theory, and the inspiration necessary to develop man-made ones.

The main reason I think psychedelics were INTENDED for us is that there are many natural chemicals that are terribly toxic and will cause suffering/pain or death at even low-ish doses, however the chemicals that induce the most profound spiritual experiences are relatively harmless and are highly unlikely to hurt you at 'normal' doses. I see this as an invitation saying "eat these."

 

[Feste]

The main reason I think psychedelics were INTENDED for us is that there are many natural chemicals that are terribly toxic and will cause suffering/pain or death at even low-ish doses, however the chemicals that induce the most profound spiritual experiences are relatively harmless and are highly unlikely to hurt you at 'normal' doses. I see this as an invitation saying "eat these."

Considering all the hundreds of thousands of chemicals out there that could easily kill or harm humans the fact a few have positive effects isn't very special, it's just a numbers game.

 

[MattPsy]

^ this.
YAY FOR INTENTION-BASED [MAGICAL] THINKING.
Humans are wired to find intention in everything, as it is a more efficient way of operating in a world where things usually pose a threat to your survival, in the context of survival. This does not mean it is the correct way to view everything. Far from it, in fact.

 

[knock]

Considering all the hundreds of thousands of chemicals out there that could easily kill or harm humans the fact a few have positive effects isn't very special, it's just a numbers game.

arthunter888 said "those which are most spiritual are least harmful". Not "some are spiritual". That's a correlation, not a coincidence.

Probably not entirely true, mind.

 

[Legerity]

This is an interesting discussion. Each psychedelic definitely has it's own distinct feel to it. But the idea that we are somehow separate from nature is a completely anthropocentric viewpoint. We have somehow decided as a species that we are somehow separate from nature and can do whatever we want with it. It's this belief that allows us to continue to destroy our own life support system.

A main difference that I can think of is that a plant ripped out of the ground may contain one psychoactive chemical that we attribute it's effects to, but it will also contain a lot of other things that may have some sort or synergistic effect that changes the experience.

It's the same thing with food. A freshly squeezed orange has vitamin C but also a bunch of other things that we don't know much about, which may help with the digestion and absorption of the vitamin. Taking a supplement might not necessarily provide everything that the orange would provide if it were eaten fresh.

This doesn't necessarily mean that whole unprocessed plant psychedelics are somehow superior, but it's possible that there is a difference.

I don't really care whether it is man-made or straight from the ground. I prefer to ask whether the substance provides a beneficial experience that increases my level of awareness and offers insight.