Nick Sand, Orange Sunshine LSD chemist, has died
psymposia.com
psymposia.com
When I began to navigate psychospace with LSD, I realized that before we were conscious, seemingly self-propelled human beings, many tapes and corridors had been created in our minds and reflexes which were not of our own making. These patterns and tapes laid down in our consciousness are walled off from each other. I see it as a vast labyrinth with high walls sealing off the many directives created by our personal history.
Many of these directives are contradictory. The coexistence of these contradictory programs is what we call inner conflict. This conflict causes us to constantly check ourselves while we are caught in the opposition of polarity. Another metaphor would be like a computer with many programs running simultaneously. The more programs that are running, the slower the computer functions. This is a problem then. With all the programs running that are demanded of our consciousness in this modern world, we have problems finding deep integration.
To complicate matters, the programs are reinforced by fear. Fear separates, love integrates. We find ourselves drawn to love and unity, but afraid to make the leap.
What I found to be the genius of LSD is that it really gets you high, higher than the programs, higher than the walls that mask and blind one to the energy destroying presence of many contradictory but hidden programs. When LSD is used intentionally it enables you to see all the tracks laid down, to explore each one intensely. It also allows you to see the many parallel and redundant programs as well as the contradictory ones.
It allows you to see the underlying unity of all opposites in the magic play of existence. This allows you to edit these programs and recreate superior programs that give you the insight to shake loose the restrictions and conflicts programmed into each one of us by our parents, our religion, our early education, and by society as a whole.
---
Very much in line with what recent neuroscience results are finding:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46421
http://www.nature.com/news/brain-scans-reveal-how-lsd-affect...
A very good book, even though you should not take it literally, quote from the preface:
Eventually the cerebral cortex appeared as an expanding new highlevel computer controlling the structurally lower levels of the nervous system, the lower builtin programs. For the first time learning and its faster adaptation to a rapidly changing environment began to appear. Further, as this new cortex expanded over several millions of years, a critical size cortex was reached. At this level of structure, a new capability emerged: learning to learn.
[0]: http://nekhbet.leary.csoft.net/biocomputer.pdf
Edit (further context):
To avoid the necessity of repeating learning to learn, symbols, metaphors, models each time, I symbolize the under- lying idea in these operations as metaprogramming. Metaprogramming appears at a critical cortical size-the cerebral computer must have a large enough number of interconnected circuits of sufficient quality for the operations of meta- programming to exist in that biocomputer. Essentially, metaprogramming is an operation in which a central control system controls hundreds of thousands of programs operating in parallel simultaneously.
I first discovered him through reading this https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/the-ketamine-secrets-of-s... and then went on to read every one of his books except for his last, which I want to save for the right time. This guy has had a profound effect on my life and I cant recommend his work highly enough.
https://psychedelicsalon.com/category/people/nick-sand/
Especially interesting is episode 054, where IIRC he talks about how all the high-level LSD producers and distributors he was in prison with were the children of the folks who worked on the Manhattan project.
I'm not sure about that. I've done my fair share of LSD some years ago, but to me (to lift a simile from somebody else), it's a bit like a program's coredump. All the information is there, sure, less pre-categorized / pre-filtered, but it's not exactly guiding, so to speak. You're left on your own in a forest. Not always, and doesn't have to be like that, but I've seen diminishing returns after a while (meaning, it definitely does give you something the first time; and perhaps several more - when you can focus on thoughts and the world in a calmer way). The latter may not even be the case for some people, maybe, but I definitely think there is an overall "floor" in regards to the "depth" you can reach. Let me compare and contrast.
This may sound cheesy, but the quoted text above reminds me very much of Kant and the approach he had laid out in his Critique of Pure Reason, which I very much recommend and had the pleasure to (to a most definitely quite limited degree) grok, partly. (I think it's quite possible to just take it and read it - some guidance would definitely help - but in itself, it's very organized and (when he's not contradicting himself, which (under some interpretations) does happen) almost pedagogical at times. Familiarity with (especially) Hume and (perhaps) Leibniz, et al. would help, but I think there's value to be extraced by reading it just like that.)
In epistemology ("how do we come to know things, and what kinds of things can we know?"), Kant was all about the "Kantian filter/net" - the "raw experience" / sense data we get is not actually raw; not only is it filtered just by virtue of us having specific perceptual sense, but there appears to be structure in the very experience we get (for him, this was (first and foremost) spatial, temporal and causal structure; in addition to this, we have an arsenal of Kantian categories, which are something that all objects we get to experience have, our perception applying the former to the latter involuntarily and preemptively; Kantian categories are (so to speak) "conditions of the possibility of objects in the first place"). Kant goes into detail about this, attempting to deduce them and the associated "judgments" (we judge whenever we understand things, for him), and so on. His whole project does a reversal of the "how can we know laws of the world?" inductive approach done by Hume et al.; it's not observed temporal sequences -> causal relations between events -> aha! - general causal principle. Kant instead reverses the "direction" and shows how you inevitably have to have a general causal principle if you are to have any experience whatsoever (this is explain in part in his Second Analogy, for anyone interested). Thus it is that even though we cannot know how things in the world are "in themselves", we know things about our experience - their conditions. Consider a fish: a "normal" thinking fish would just think that all its world is water. But a Kantian fish would deduce that even though it does not know what the world "out there" truly is, whether it's water, not-water-deceiving-as-water, or a mixture - it can know something - namely: whatever it comes to experience, the experience itself is aquatic so to speak, having to come "through water". Kant applies this general approach to a number of things, going in detail about the "filters" and about what they tell us about the world, and how this can be used to revive metaphysics (which aims to know what things exist in the world a priori (known not empirically); no, we cannot know this, in a sense; but we can pin down the conditions of human experience, at the very least; these conditions will be a priori).
This kind of stuff was (in a way) quite more powerful than the "knowledge" from LSD. LSD is good for other things, and it can "bootstrap" your drive for knowledge (maybe), and give you initial insights. But for me, I prefer a debugger-symbols-loaded REPL vs. investigation of a binary coredump ;) (that said, I'll want to have a trip again some day just to compare).
Edit: English isn't even my first language, and I got that. If you're so bloody smart, how come you took the comment so literally?
I find this part disturbing if he sees the different programs as competing viewpoints and wishes to enforce a "deep integration" by limiting the possible viewpoints to a single one. I see a mind that is in constant contradiction and disagreement as the only way to prevent a person from becoming a zealot of any particular viewpoint.
I hope someday to conquer my anxiety to a degree sufficient to explore beneficial LSD use without fear of so called bad trips. Having tried a small dose, there is without question a power in LSD (and other psychedelics, e.g. shrooms) as a tool.
I recognize that this is an unlikely case, however during my light trip I experienced a seemingly inexplicable sudden anxiety attack which was difficult to control. I feel like LSD is a toss up between potential euphoria/enlightment and dysphoria/mental illness.
Granted, I did experience a substantial tranquility following the attack and in the days after the trip, and I believe that cubensis provided me with a substantial months long relief from existential depression, and helped me realize the depth of the hole into which I was already aware that I'd fallen. So I probably just have a few self imposed walls to break down.
For me, having taken more psychedelics than one would like to admit, it just mellowed out over time. Those walls broke down some and i got more comfortable with that bit of myself. And oh, the depression lifting has been a real effect for me as well. Of course, mine didn't reach anxiety attack level either, and I think that would have scared me off.
I wouldn't risk it. I suffered an acute psychotic episode, induced by LSD, that lasted for three days. I had to be hospitalized. It wasn't a nice experience for my family and friends. It was competely unexpected, I'd used psychedelics before with no ill effect, and have no mental health issues.
We don't fully understand the mechanism by which psychedelic drugs work, and so cannot guarantee a safe way to use them.
What's the title?
[Note: that's actually him (Nick Sand) in the video clip above.]
I've found that marijuana and amphetamines both make it substantially easier for me to meditate and calm my mind. I'm not particularly experienced though- just a handful of times a month for a few years...
parting words: "If we can keep moving from truth to love to beauty to preciousness, everything around us becomes sacred"
I'll preempt the obvious response. Yeah, it doesn't kill you, but it irreparably alters your personality in a completely senseless way, turns you into Tim Leary, or someotherway spits in the face of the delicate and exhaustingly intentional intellectual and emotional process that has produced every genuine, valuable human insight in history. I haven't encountered a single LSD advocate that wasn't conspicuously unstable and self-hating, and we don't say a word when they encourage others to risk everything that matters to a functional person in exchange for fake spiritual nonsense.
Now they'll suggest I take some to free myself from the confines of the emotional equipment that grounds any reasonable value system. As an exercise, read the responses carefully. For nothing, they've bargained away their ability to argue this point with me, and they want me to join the club.
edit: As anticipated, this comment is unpopular. However, no one has yet attempted to articulate a criticism. I welcome any effort, and will try to respond with care.
From my perspective, to put my anecdotal experience beside yours, I know many very stable, very loving, very intelligent people who use LSD occasionally. These people generally don't talk about it, or haphazardly recommend it to others. But they do enjoy the experience of altered consciousness, and the experience of experimenting with new thoughts and perspective.
If it is a damaging drug, as you claim, then these people emerge from their trips strengthened from the harm. If it has irrevocably altered their personalities, then it has done so to their benefit.
LSD, like other drugs, is a way to play. There are those who take it too seriously - this crowd are as ridiculous to outsiders as the whisky, coffee, or marijuana enthusiast. But for most, it is simply a safe and reasonable way to spend a day in leisure.
Anyway, I simply asserted that the claim to know an experience, before having that experience, is absurd. I'm pointing to the distinction between knowing something, subjectively, as opposed to knowing about it, objectively. That's just a fact.
Consider a less contentious example. Let's say that you've never eaten dry-aged beef. Would you claim to know the taste? Sure, you could understand the chemistry of the curing process. You could have loads of GC/MS data. People could tell you about it. You could have all sorts of brain scan data. You could have formulated all manner of suppositions. But even with all that, until you took a bite, you wouldn't know the taste.
In case this is a new concept for you:
> There are, however, other uses of the terminology related to objectivity. Many philosophers use the term “subjective knowledge” to refer only to knowledge of one’s own subjective states. Such knowledge is distinguished from one’s knowledge of another individual’s subjective states and from knowledge of objective reality, which would both be objective knowledge under the present definitions. Your knowledge of another person’s subjective states can be called objective knowledge since it is presumably part of the world that is “object” for you, just as you and your subjective states are part of the world that is “object” for the other person.
> This is a prominent distinction in epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) because many philosophers have maintained that subjective knowledge in this sense has a special status. They assert, roughly, that knowledge of one’s own subjective states is direct, or immediate, in a way that knowledge of anything else is not. It is convenient to refer to knowledge of one’s own subjective states simply as subjective knowledge. Following this definition, objective knowledge would be knowledge of anything other than one’s own subjective states.
All you do is make grand, unsourced claims such as calling LSD "an objectively useless and destructive drug" followed by preemptive insults on anybody who'd dare to respond. You should work less on trying to sound clever and more on actually saying clever things. "the delicate and exhaustingly intentional intellectual and emotional process that has produced every genuine, valuable human insight in history", seriously?
Did you miss all the other comments celebrating LSD, and Nick Sand for providing it to the masses? This is absolutely right place to say it. You just don't like it, for completely different reason.
> You should work less on trying to sound clever and more on actually saying clever things. [my wonderful prose], seriously?
I was sloppily recording my honest thoughts at two in the morning, and I did a pretty good job.
Let's contrast with some words quoted in this thread, probably more carefully spoken at the time:
What I found to be the genius of LSD is that it really gets you high, higher than the programs, higher than the walls that mask and blind one to the energy destroying presence of many contradictory but hidden programs.
What do you think is more clever? What is being celebrated in the highest rated post of this thread, and what is being mocked near the bottom? That doesn't seem strange to you?
> As anticipated, this comment is unpopular. However, no one has yet attempted to articulate a criticism
You aren't owed a fruitful discussion, and it's clear you're not looking for one. That's criticism enough, but I'll continue.
> spits in the face of process that has produced every genuine, valuable human insight in history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelics_in_problem-solvin... and other anecdotal experiments and experiences seem to indicate otherwise.
> I haven't encountered a single LSD advocate that wasn't conspicuously unstable and self-hating
I'm sorry that this has been your experience. That hasn't been my experience. There are a lot of quiet users of LSD, so given your aggressive stance against it, you're most likely to only encounter the most outspoken/optimistic ones. How about someone like James Fadiman? How is he conspicuously unstable and self-hating?
> we don't say a word when they encourage others to risk everything
Many recognize that not every psychological experience is harmless or positive. I see a lot of people warning of the risk of correlation with schizophrenia, and others warning that a negative experience can do a number on your psyche. It's not for everyone, and not for anyone all the time, and many make the point to responsibly disclose that.
What do you mean "a soul only looking for a saviour"?
Is calling people "basket cases" a reasonable form of argument?
I honestly don't know what question you are asking at the start of your post.
It doesn't kill you, nor does it irreparably alter your personality in a completely senseless way. There are studies that suggest people who has tried LSD has their personality altered in a positive way, in that they're more open to new ideas afterwards. It is true though, that some people get very enthusiastic when they first try LSD, some overly so.
I know a lot of people who do LSD now and then and the vast majority of them are successful upper middle class people who's had no ill effects and lots of positive ones.
There are also many people who's successfully used LSD as a problem solving aid http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70...
That's not to say people don't have negative experiences though and I don't think LSD is for everyone. Some people freak out completely by even small changes in their perceptual experience for example, though usually not if they know the basic of how LSD works and how the mind works. A very useful thing to know is that what we experience as reality is basically just one view of the underlying data from a set of sensors (our senses), there's a neural net with multiple layers that starts with simple things like edge detection or whatever and builds up the 3D model we consciously experience from a mix of the external data, but also internal data, etc., there's no right or wrong view of this data, we could have evolved to experience it completely different and we can make computer program to visualize data in numerous different ways and on psychedelics you can experience things a bit differently from what you're used to. The reason it's useful to know some of this is because if you experience something strange when doing psychedelics, you'll know you're not being kidnapped by aliens, going insane, talking to god or whatever weird thing that some people sometimes seem to think.
There are many things that fit this description: being a parent, puberty, your first kiss, falling in love, a death in the family. Would you cling to a definition of yourself that has no room for major, perspective-changing, life-altering insights? You can try, but life has a way of changing constantly whether you want it to or not.
Recreational drugs serve no "purpose", as you say (objectively useless). But what purpose is there in being born, eating, making love, making friends, and eventually dying? Purpose is what you decide it is. If some people want to explore their brains using chemicals then what the problem with that? Yes, everything has risks, but so does getting up in the morning.
Live and let live. You may not like the fact that drugs can change personalities in a way that makes you uncomfortable, but this is a big world: I'm sure you will be able to find like minded company. Maybe even here on HN? Who knows.
I didn't have a choice to go through puberty. That was programmed through millions of years of adaptive evolution. It's the last thing from senseless.
I kissed my first woman because millions of years of adaptive evolution have tempered me to benefit from intimacy, bonding, and community.
If could do anything to help it, my family would never die. This is a terrible thing I never chose, and wouldn't wish on anybody if it were a choice.
All of these things that change us are nothing like a strange chemical we've stumbled upon and found to scramble our brains. Next.
LSD is nothing more than a serotonin receptor agonist (although LSD has a bit more dopaminergic response than other serotonergic psychedelics). It produces certain effects in the body. That's it.
The evidence of long-term harm for careful use seems low to me. (There may be a potential risk of schizophrenia / paranoia disorders and similar, though from what I can Google there is nothing conclusive yet. So if anything, that's what you monitor for. Even in the worst case, I would doubt that a single use would trigger this.)
That certain kinds of psychedelics (serotongerics in particular, but also NMDA receptor agonists, such as the naturally occurring ibogaine... and maybe a few others) seem really prone to produce this sort of almost spiritual response actually fascinates me, for exactly that reason alone. I wouldn't call this "spiritual nonsense" "fake" per se. Maybe these molecules in reality are clues to the actual mechanism behind the emotion, right?
To give another example, ketamine's another recreational hallucinogen; if it also was thought of as akin to a "bullet in the brain" and nothing more, scientists might not have recognized the potential anti-depressive nature of glutamatergic chemicals (as has happened in the last decade or so).
Or Doug Engelbart, or Steve Jobs, or any number of the other pioneers of personal computing who cited their psychedelic use as formative or informative.
I also just want to note that there are at least three earnest, substantial responses to your vitriol (I do not count this among them), and no attempts yet from you to respond to any of them. Perhaps you are just in a different time zone and will get to them later.
Steve Jobs was an idiot. That other guy is nothing special. Show me research mathematicians, hedgefund managers, landlords, or doctors.