I'm excited about your PR's venture. Either way - you are going to thoroughly enjoy them - I can guarantee that. Definitely keep me posted
I've very much been enjoying our conversation. I conveyed some really interesting philosophical concepts that analyze the basis of "What defines truth" and when is the final word given on future discoveries?
Yes, I did mention that it wasn't a direct correlation between the two, but rather that it resembles the same questions of when is it OK to say "everything has been revealed" in terms of the full understanding of chemicals, synergies and our brains. The lessons from cannabis connects to the question at hand over future research into psilocybe differences. It Concerns the absolute need to holding judgement before claiming the impossibility of any future discoveries in a field or topic.
The main connection I was trying to make between the discovery of the endocannabinoid system and the presence of specific effects for certain psilocybe strains. Is that it's an example in the past that claimed a psychological bias as the deciding explanation of effects that were rather caused by different less-understood chemical interactions. While discussing other ways that human analysis could overlook the presence and discovery of a whole unknown neurological / chemical system that has been influencing the results of science, but never before picked up on the radar of what was analyzed. Which we see happen over and over, like UV rays for example. They were always there, we just didn't always have the tools and methods to discover and display them.
If one were to have done the same thing with cannabis and THC 20 years ago as is now being proposed for psilocybe's saying they are all identical in psycho-active properties and any difference of affect is a psychological bias - they would have been strong arming (derailing) any future inquiries into deeper understandings of phenotype differences in substances and our brains.
I think this philosophical discussion is essential to the horizon of what science is possible of.
Would you say our current subjective (1st person) claims of objectivity (truth) are the endless potential of what we are questioning - always the end all say all? Science and worldly discovery has been turned on it's head many times throughout history due to new tools, methods and discoveries. If scientist and those who care about accurately documenting our environment and chemical systems - had said "This is everything that will ever be learned", at each new discovery - saying "As such, this is the objective unquestionable truth (universal truism)." If this analytical process were followed - future discoveries built on a desire to dig deeper into the unexplained would be conceptualy over before they began. Science tries to claim the true state of things "the is-ness" or "essence" of phenomena in our world as the "objective state" rather than our current hypothesis based on our methods, theories and ways of creating a science to provide results.
The significance that connects to what i was talking about above, is that in order to claim something as objective it has to take the stance that it has already considered and followed through researching every other possibility. Even the ones that are not revealed yet in current research - from discoveries in the future that show more of the bigger picture. They would be cast aside before inquiry began. In reflection to the potential of casting them out - previously unheard of discoveries have opened up new insights, understandings and areas of research that were inconceivable before. Basically the concept is that is order to say something is objective it has to claim that it has been shown to not be any other possibility. But in reality what's measured and analyzed for us in science and the lens of discovery is specifically what is shown by our current state of tools, methods, and understandings of science, neurology, and our brains. Discovery is generally limited to this factor.
The trick of the matter is that all objective claims were created by 1st person perspectives overtime. Science (which I support) ends up having to defend itself as the ultimate truth in order to secure funding at points, which creates problems - just as mislabeling or false marketing may happen with sales of chemicals or products (like we discussed). Science should be seen as a constantly re-evaluating and expanding inquiry about not just processing pre-set formulas or assumptions, but rather thinking about the way we think and go about setting up methods that lead to research based results. One last concept =] There is a difference between something being "true" vs something being "correct", it's a little semantic but important to distinguish. Something can be correct in any given "system/methods" or "set of data". However, the accuracy of this result is solely judged by the extents of the system itself. If the system does not look for, or account for data, for example neuro-pathways or chemical that are yet to be discovered - then it is not able to account for their influence on the outcome in its model or data. "Correct" is always limited to the set of data/system that it is based on and proved by. While on the other hand Truth is an ultimate constantly developing phenomena that sometimes is currently out of our research due to our tools, methods not revealing it in results.
Although there might be different alkaloids theoretically detectible in the lab, the important question is whether your body can detect minute traces of other alkaloids when it's being overwhelmed by a massive dose of psilocybin. It's kinda like someone throwing a 10 gallon bucket of water over you with a pinch of lemon juice in it and then saying "Did you taste the lemon?". Sure - in the lab you'll be able to detect the lemon juice but your body can't.
As far as synergistic effects of other alkaloids influencing the function of the primary active chemicals, there is no golden rule that says you always need a lot to change the primary chemicals effect. There are many things that take very little - but yes it would have to be processed somehow. The size or ratio for an interactive state isn't always the same for each chemical.
Best Regards,
Bi0hazard
