Hacker News Reader

Comment by ezy | Hacker News Reader

Eh.

It deserves more study -- the idea of using much more reasonable doses as a form of anti-depressant is interesting.

However, it's probably not magic, just in the same way MJ oil is probably not a cure for cancer. They, of course, don't list the many other discoveries made by scientists not on LSD. The "studies" really aren't terribly disciplined... I grant you because of its illegal status, but...

Given my personal experience with LSD devotees, I'm extremely skeptical of the benefits. The general trend is more towards extreme narcissism than enlightenment, and I would advise people to stay away from the stuff.

View on HN

If you haven't had a transformative psychedelic experience yourself, it's understandably hard to imagine the benefits.

LSD's benefit as an anti-depressant is indirect - that is, it is used for ego separation through counseled meditation, not through regular dosage like typical anti-depressants. Ego separation is a very strange and complex thing. The ability to disconnect from being a human with our social pretenses and look at the world from (essentially) an alien's perspective is incredibly powerful. Such an experience changes people forever, usually for the better(through good counseling).

In addition, seeing as being deeply involved in ones work often leads to essentially mental tunnel vision, the same properties described above provide insight and inspiration that ones mind might otherwise occlude(whether we want it to or not).

How do you recognize whether someone is Enlightened or not ?

What does this question even mean?

What do you mean what does it mean?

My question is connected to his statement that he knows the following and is intended to verify if he really knows or is also making the mistake he is pointing out.

"The general trend is more towards extreme narcissism than enlightenment"

This was my opinion only, based on my experiences and experiences of people I know. You can tell this by the way I use "enlightenment" in a very loose way when it is obviously impossible (as far as I know) to measure (I don't believe the state even exists, other than as a form of self deception or mental illness, to put a not so fine point on it).

Also by the fact that I am a random blowhard on the internet. :-)

You may disagree about my recommendation to stay away. Fine. However, do not pull this rhetorical trick on me. That is, require me to have a set of numbers to even state my opinion on a matter that, frankly, has no numbers, and could be argued either way by those so invested. Say what you mean... would you rather I use "seems to me to be" rather than "is"?

You see, as you may have noticed, there isn't a whole lot of information on the benefits of LSD. Just a lot of anecdotes and poorly designed research experiments. There are very well documented cases of the dangers. Whether that's due to bad genetics, bad dosing or impure samples, I don't know, but again, I think it's rather a dumb thing to risk your brain for.

I have no interest in arguing for psychedelics here - my interest in asking the question is exactly as stated - about truth and Enlightenment. So many people claim Enlightenment in the world today but in history only a very small handful actually have the evidence of the ability (and knowledge), theretofore unknown but necessary information, wisdom (vision), and life that come along with it. Since Enlightenment is an extremely essential thing for mankind I'm always careful to confirm what is true and false in people's words when they speak about it.

I mean, quite plainly, what does your question mean:

  "How do you recognize whether someone is Enlightened or not?"

If you can't define precisely what the question is, how can you begin to answer it? One might almost begin to suspect that the term "Enlightenment" is a load of bs ...

I believe the one who is having difficulty understanding the question is you. To be clear, it's your lacking. If you asked me "What is the definition of Enlightenment?" I can answer you immediately and correctly. But instead you were determined to give me a question which itself deviates from what you really wanted to know. If you have anything to find out or any questions then I'll do my best to answer them on the condition that you ask sincerely.

It'd be more honest of you if you said that you can't define your own question, rather than waffling about my motives.

Would you guys please stop?

It would be an interesting thing to test for, that's for sure. But I would assume scientific analysis would focus on stopping depression caused by PTSD or something.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com