psood0nym
Bluelighter
Willkell420: Maybe it's because you had been having an uncomfortable and stressful time due to the aMT the whole night? I suppose your physiology could have changed since you last used aMT as well. My "typical experience" with numerous psychedelics has gone through a lot of changes over the years as my metabolism has changed.
I guess I'm skeptical of any claim that some impurities in a substance, whether through degradation or poor synthesis, really impact psychedelic experiences substantially (in so far as might be consistently measured by ratings given in a a double-blind study kind of way). The reason I am is that for these byproducts to have a substantial influence, they must have a powerful pharmacological action in doses far lower than the psychedelic they've degraded from or that they've served as a precursor for if they're going to psychologically influence experience (since impurities usually only make up a tiny percentage of a typical RC dose).
For instance, LSD manufactures have reported to Erowid that simply by putting the same LSD and the same dose on different sheets their customers will come back to them insisting on a certain print because that one was so much more euphoric or lucid than the other. It's natural to do this because physical changes we can see or smell in a substance (or what's printed on a sheet) are far more salient than our inner physiological and subconscious psychological states. We trust our ability to intuitively discriminate far more than is justified and assume that impure substance means impure subjective experiences, but except in certain special cases where impurities are shown to be active in extraordinarily small amounts I don't really see much support for our confidence in that judgment. So I guess I'm saying if you assume the negative experience was a total fluke unrelated to any intrinsic property of the aMT and next time take it in circumstances as similar to those of past positive experiences as possible you'll be far more likely to have a great experience than if you hold on to the notion that chemical degradation degrades experience.
I guess I'm skeptical of any claim that some impurities in a substance, whether through degradation or poor synthesis, really impact psychedelic experiences substantially (in so far as might be consistently measured by ratings given in a a double-blind study kind of way). The reason I am is that for these byproducts to have a substantial influence, they must have a powerful pharmacological action in doses far lower than the psychedelic they've degraded from or that they've served as a precursor for if they're going to psychologically influence experience (since impurities usually only make up a tiny percentage of a typical RC dose).
For instance, LSD manufactures have reported to Erowid that simply by putting the same LSD and the same dose on different sheets their customers will come back to them insisting on a certain print because that one was so much more euphoric or lucid than the other. It's natural to do this because physical changes we can see or smell in a substance (or what's printed on a sheet) are far more salient than our inner physiological and subconscious psychological states. We trust our ability to intuitively discriminate far more than is justified and assume that impure substance means impure subjective experiences, but except in certain special cases where impurities are shown to be active in extraordinarily small amounts I don't really see much support for our confidence in that judgment. So I guess I'm saying if you assume the negative experience was a total fluke unrelated to any intrinsic property of the aMT and next time take it in circumstances as similar to those of past positive experiences as possible you'll be far more likely to have a great experience than if you hold on to the notion that chemical degradation degrades experience.
Last edited:
