I'm not saying do acid all the time. And of course had work and discipline are important to improving yourself and coming up with new ideas, but LSD opens up a different way of thinking about and perceiving things that a lot of people find very valuable. I fail to see how any of those things precludes the others.
Ever hear the phrase "sleep on it"? It's true that a lot of the time sleeping and not thinking about something will cause you to come up with a solution to a problem. That certainly doesn't mean sleeping all the time and constantly ignoring your problems will solve everything.
It's all about using the wide range of tools at your disposal.
Probably fear of the unknown, mixed with jealousy for those who get to experience a future i never will, mixed with disappointment at all the answers i'll never get to some of the questions that really fascinate me. There are some other emotions too. I don't live like that though. I don't think i'm unique in this respect.
You're definitely not alone. That sums up my view perfectly
Fourteen months after participating in the study, 94% of those who received the drug said the experiment was one of the top five most meaningful experiences of their lives; 39% said it was the single most meaningful experience.
Critically, however, the participants themselves were not the only ones who saw the benefit from the insights they gained: their friends, family member and colleagues also reported that the psilocybin experience had made the participants calmer, happier and kinder.
You can read more about it here: http://healthland.time.com/201...
And then there was the experiment where a couple dozen professionals who had been stuck on various problems for months were given LSD to determine it's effects on creative problem solving. (You can read about the experiment here: http://www.themorningnews.org/...) but here's a quote:
"But here’s the clincher. After their 5HT2A neural receptors simmered down, they remained firm: LSD absolutely had helped them solve their complex, seemingly intractable problems. And the establishment agreed. The 26 men unleashed a slew of widely embraced innovations shortly after their LSD experiences, including a mathematical theorem for NOR gate circuits, a conceptual model of a photon, a linear electron accelerator beam-steering device, a new design for the vibratory microtome, a technical improvement of the magnetic tape recorder, blueprints for a private residency and an arts-and-crafts shopping plaza, and a space probe experiment designed to measure solar properties."
Yeah, LSD is a lot of fun to use recreationaly, and it's easy to mock "the semi-coherent ramblings of some guys on LSD," but LSD has a lot of potential to offer our society if only we'd take it seriously.
We should be spying on nations, organizations, and people who are a direct physical threat to the safety of our country, and I would expect and be fine with other countries doing the same. We should have a military that will protect our country from those physical threats as well, as should every other country. Just because I disagree with many of the people our agencies spy on doesn't mean I want our spies gone altogether, I just want them to be focused only on the people who are out to cause us harm.
More to my original point, if I am not planning harm against Russia or France, I would say it is immoral for them to spy on me. On the other hand, if I were planning an attack against those countries, I may not like them spying on me, but it would be hard to argue that it is immoral for them to do so.
Instead of asking "How can we instill public confidence?", how about they ask, "How can we prevent our intelligence agencies from enabling tyranny?" or "What are the consequences of allowing this data collection if a future presidential administration decides to significantly oppress the public?"
Another good question they should ask is "What happened to needing to get a warrant issued based 'upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched'?"
I've heard stories and seen news reports of people causing problems while tripping, but out of the hundred or so times I've tripped with people I've never witnessed it.
I just hate it when people suggest that psychedelics are bad or should be illegal. I think pretty much everyone could stand to gain something from tripping at least once. Once weed gains widespread acceptance, I'd like to see a push for legitimizing psychedelics.
When's the last time you've heard of someone being violent or harming others due to alcohol vs hallucinogens? I've seen plenty of people causing problems because they're drunk. I've never seen anyone causing problems because they are tripping.
Right now you are sitting in a chair in front of a computer reading English text. To have your conscious experience at this moment you are integrating your knowledge of where you are at this moment, that you are sitting in a chair in front of a computer, your knowledge of what Slashdot is and that the text you are reading is a comment by another user, the concept of what a user is - that it's another person somewhere else in the world, the parts of your brain that recognize text and processes English into thoughts, your memories/knowledge of the concept of consciousness, your awareness that you yourself are conscious, and many other things all at once. All of those things are integrated into your singular conscious experience.
Compare this to something non-conscious, like a reflex. When the doctor hits your knee cap and your leg moves, you aren't integrating the feeling of the object hitting your leg with any memories or objectives. You don't "want" to move your leg, it just happens, unconsciously.
Also think of the way unconscious thoughts "bubble up" into consciousness. Scientists have shown that using brain scans they can predict what decision a person will make before the person even consciously knows. This is because the scientists are taking readings from the part of the brain that is responsible for making that decision before the results of that process get sent back to the part of the brain that kicked off that processes and to the rest of the brain that's responsible for acting upon that decision.
When you really get down to it and analyze it, everything that you would consider a conscious experience necessarily involves the coordination of many distinct parts of your mind. It's no coincidence that the parts of the brain that have been shown to be heavily involved with the subjective experience of consciousness are the the parts that are highly connected to many other parts of the brain.
As far as the strange possibilities for any complex system having consciousness, I fail to see how that should preclude a definition of consciousness involving systems and complexity. Just because the idea of any sufficiently complex system being conscious is bizarre from the conventional understanding of consciousness doesn't mean it's wrong. I think it's entirely plausible that any system with sufficient feedback loops and integration between components could be considered conscious. That's not to say that such a system would be necessarily sentient or deserve rights.
I think what this comes down to is agreeing upon a definition of consciousness and coming up with testable qualities that could be used to confirm consciousness. I think that "A system capable of integrating disparate sensory and past experience into a continuous singular whole" is a good start for a definition of consciousness that doesn't require any kind of non-material entities such as a soul and doesn't necessarily involve subjectivity; simply come up with some tests that could only be completed if the system is capable of such integration. Such a definition would certainly apply to humans and most other animals of higher cognitive abilities.
Some other interesting food for thought: Think about the way companies interact with the outside world and the way they build off past experiences. I wouldn't consider it to be too crazy of a notion that large organizations of people display some level of consciousness.
I am not a neuroscientist, but I have given much thought to what makes me conscious and how other animals can be conscious, albeit on a different level than us, and this is pretty much exactly the conclusion I came to. That consciousness involves the coherent interconnectedness of distinct subsystems. I'm glad to see this topic being discussed, and I'd love to hear other people's opinions of this definition of consciousness and it's implications.
Soldiers are, in theory, willing to die for their country. That certainly doesn't mean they purposely go run into the line of fire, and anyone who would suggest that a soldier need to do so in order to prove they're "willing to die for their country" would be ridiculed.
Being willing to suffer the extreme consequences of your actions in no way precludes attempting to avoid those consequences. Unless your cause has something significant to gain by making yourself a martyr, odds are you're of more use alive and free.
Also, would you rather people not expose crime, corruption, and abuse of power if they aren't willing to go full martyr right after their "one-hit-wonder"? If you had the info Snowden did, you probably wouldn't even be brave enough to release it to the public, much less hand yourself right over to the government whose corruption your just exposed.
Besides, most people in the middle east don't have a "devout faith [that] tells them that anyone who doesn't believe the same way should be killed." any more than Christian Americans have a devout faith that tells them that homosexuals, blasphemers, and adulterers should be killed. Sure there are a lot of islamic fanatics in the middle east, but you're buying way to much into the propaganda if you believe most people over there are like that. And as I argued above, even fanatics have have their minds changed.
When you make it into an "us vs them" fight, of course they're going to be on their own side (against us), you're forcing their hand.