What do you say to somone who says drug are "fake feelings"

[El Calico Loco]

Another possibility: there is no real response to "Fuck off."

(Or "Whatever, dude!" if one is more polite.)


ECL
(Sometimes one just has to ignore idiots for one's own sanity.)

[wafflesincars]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

Another possibility: there is no real response to "Fuck off."

(Or "Whatever, dude!" if one is more polite.)


ECL
(Sometimes one just has to ignore idiots for one's own sanity.)

But this response alludes to you not having any real reason for imbibing the substance, wherein you simply can so "why not" and "why should they have any say about it".

Which is all very true and good, but does not refute their point, in fact it only adds to their premise of the substance being unnecessary, and you being unreasonable.

[El Calico Loco]

It's not the kind of thing I would say in Real Life. I prefer to be productive. I was just foolin'.

On the other hand, I find it unreasonable that people want to control the behavior of others who are doing them no harm. The type who crave conformity, uniformity, and hierarchy - the culture of control. I think it's a mental illness.


ECL
(But since I'm the minority in this respect, I'm the crazy one... )

[wafflesincars]

But that's not the person who makes a logical stand against drug use, those people are also functioning on a logical fallacy, conformity by nature defeats the purpose of humanism.

The person who states that drug use is unnecessary is one who is efficient and logical, if someone suggest that you take antibiotics every time you sneeze what would you say to them?

It's just that the definition of recreational drug use is completely unnecessary, wherein it isn't needed for preservation of the self nor the body. Which is true, but you can gain immediate satisfaction from it, which is also integral for overall happiness, satisfaction in the here and now as well as the future.

Determining what is optimal is the logical solution, and if the compromise of slight health risk leads you to be a more productive and overall happier person then the use can be seen as subjectively beneficial. It's like if I go surfing all day, and come out with a more positive attitude, as well as more healthful from the workout, then that activity can be deemed good. I am taking a risk being in the water, as well as accruing radiation from the sunlight, sunblock or not, but overall the activity benefits me emotionally now and in the long run.

It's not quite the same, but that analogy applies.

I wasn't knocking you in any way.

[moda00]

Originally Posted by lulz

Although if anyone has a rational argument for feelings being "real" I'd love to hear it.

Very interesting discussion/topic. I "get" that feelings are simply the result of various factors within the body and brain, but reading some of the early posts in this thread, I come automatically to the opposite conclusion- that all feelings are real. "Feelings" can encompass a lot of experiences and sensations, but to me they can all be explained similarly- emotions and moods, certainly... the five basic senses; touch, smell, taste, hearing, and sight... perceptions and interpretations...

If someone is in pain, that is real to them, even if that same stimulus might not be painful to someone else, or if a doctor cannot find a physical cause for it.

If one says "I feel like Bob hates me," that doesn't necessarily match up with the Bob's feelings- it is completely separate. Nor does it need to match up to other people's observations or perception of either individual's feelings or the relationship between them..

Or when they teach kids in middle school or high school about harassment.. lol.. back in the day.. they always say that harassment is based on the feelings of the harassed- NOT the intent of the harasser. So even if we are unaware of other's feelings, or don't intend something to be taken a certain way, it can still produce undeniably "real" feelings in response.

These examples are mostly what are seen as "negative" emotions, but the concept applies to positive ones too, imho. For example, the profound states of empathy or enjoyment experienced in peak states, or after physical exercise, or when making love with your partner, or after a proud accomplishment. It is about what you feel, because it is real to you, in the moment.

I won't get into objectivity versus subjectivity of "reality." But to me, when we feel something, it is a very personal and internal thing (although it also influences our external actions and the energy we project outwards).

I have often wondered about memory as well- ie. hindsight, nostalgia, the different feelings and perceptions we have when looking back on things as opposed to in the moment in the past.. things are constantly in flux- both the tangible, the external- and also our internal realities; our feelings and perceptions.

What I have come to is that all feelings are real in that they are experienced by the same "self," and felt just as intensely and personally, whether drug induced, or through natural brain or hormone fluctuations, or brought about by external or internal satisfactions or situations..

I wouldn't argue that all feelings are rational, or externally valid, or should be taken at face value- I do think it is important to identify feelings which may be detrimental if allowed to dictate our lives, and to acknowledge that how we feel at one point in time, may not be how we feel the following week or even the next day or an hour later- even with regard to the exact same stimulus or situation.

But I do think that all feelings are internally valid, felt as "real" and thus so, as they relate to the person who is feeling them.

Originally Posted by vantranist

What do you say to someone who says drugs are "fake feelings?"

Preferably in words that a Teenager would understand?

I know why i think its not a valid argument but i cant find the right way to express it.

To give a specific example, perhaps it is helpful to look at senses and feelings that are more basic, to illustrate how more complex emotional states and perceptions, also feelings, arise. Say one is on a psychedelic drug and they feel something like a sensation of warm or cold or pressure on their arm. The brain is sending the signals which cause this feeling- the same signals which would be activated if an external stimulus were causing it. So while there is a difference between something that is externally originating, and then manifested internally, versus something that both originates and manifests itself internally, the resulting FEELING is the same. Of course, one can have feelings induced by chemicals which are not likely to be externally brought about otherwise, but that doesn't change the realness of the feeling in any way. Then if you look at soemthing like feeling joyful or happy- this too can be felt in many mind states, with or without drugs. The same neurotransmitters and parts of the brain are involved. Sure, not all states of feeling "happy" are identical in their origin or expression, but they are still real feelings.

Another intriguing example, relating to the above, is in Ramachandran's book "Phantoms in the Brain." He explains some fascinating research, and also several experiments one can do at home, without being altered by any substance or chemical, and induce the perceptions that would otherwise not be experienced in the course of normal human experience. Many of his studies center on phantom limb pain and paralysis, and he invented a mirror box device in order to see if patients would feel that their paralyzed "phantom" limb was moving, with correct visual feedback (another person's hand was in the device, which the patient didn't know). It worked. He took it a step further, and had the individual who had their hand in the box during one test ("Mary," a woman with a paralyzed phantom hand) bend his index finger to his palm. Since it was mirrored, it appeared to Mary that her fingers were bending backwards and touching her wrist- anatomically impossible for most humans beings, with the exception perhaps of those who are "double-jointed."

The patient indeed felt, simply through this visual feedback, that her paralyzed hand (phantom) was bending in this way. Although her limb was amputated, she could still feel it- this alone should be enough to show that internal feeling can deviate from the external (without the use of drugs). And the pain and suffering experienced by some patients with phantom limbs should be enough to prove that such feeling is real and legitimate feeling- no different from, or any less painful than, the pain experienced in an intact limb caused by a physical/external injury.

Furthermore, the fact that they could induce, through visual feedback, the feeling of one's hand moving in an anatomically impossible position, shows that such feelings can indeed be experienced by the brain, even when they body is not actually the source of the feeling and could not ever have moved this way before. (The patient said "One would have thought that would feel peculiar, but it doesn't. It feels exactly like the finger is bending backwards, like it isn't supposed to. But it doesn't feel peculiar or painful or anything like that.")

The book also details some fascinating experiments which can be done by anyone, which induce some very strange feelings and perceptions- imagine feeling that your nose is three feet long, or that someone else's hand is your own.. If anyone is interested, pm me and I can go into more detail about his research and those specific experiments, or just read the book if you get a chance- it's absolutely fascinating.

Otherwise, in general, as for the initial question of how to address the issue, if you can use neurology or other non-drug related examples to show examples of different sources of feeling than the conventionally accepted ones, and to demonstrate that such experiences are indeed valid, it may be easier to get them to understand your point, since when emotions or values are involved, it can skew logical or rational discussion and communication in some cases, and the drugs issue can be controversial (but it does still need to be discussed; I don't mean to imply that controversial topics should be avoided, just that if you are trying to have a rational discussion and get this person to see your perspective, it may be helpful to set the stage with more general examples before applying the same ideas to the more drug-specific examples).

I like the analogy that was mentioned, of the final destination on the mountain top being the same (the internal brain mechanisms and the feelings thus produced), and the difference lying only in the means by which one arrived there (various manipulation of external or internal factors, spontaneous experiences, hormonal fluctuations, the effects of medications or recreational drugs, environmental factors, etc.)

Perhaps this person, though speaking in terms of reality and legitimacy, is actually speaking from a moral standpoint. Perhaps they really mean that such feelings are "fake" or are not "legitimate" in that they are perceived as arising from a morally unacceptable route or action- the idea that drugs are sinful or evil or weak, or are a "crutch" or shield from facing reality- as opposed to meaning that the feelings produced by substances are not "real" in other ways... Perhaps ask this individual what exactly he means by those words. But I do find that many people believe this to some degree- both the moral/values stance, which is generally embedded from a very young age and not researched much beyond what they are told by the general population, and also the idea that drug experiences are not real in that the things learned are not applicable to life or sober reality, that they are merely delusions or hallucinations- which is certainly implied by most drug education programs.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Fun with epistemology. :)
	Good post, thanks for all the words.

[cdin]

There's an extremely easy method to debunk this kind of thinking. Ask what constitutes a "real" feeling. They might say, o you know, something that happens to me as a result of some external stimuli. respond then that those "feelings" in the brain are caused by chemical reaction and electrical impulse resulting from said stimuli. Then explain that these chemical changes can be prompted by everything from the food you consume to the situations you're in, and that in fact the brain itself produces substances similair, if not identical to - DMT, GHB, cannibanoids, amphetamines and morphine. Then explain that the "feelings" caused by drugs are caused by EXACTLY the same mechanism. chemical reactions and electrical impulse. There's absolutely no difference. Then ask them to define what a "real" feeling is. If they really understood what you said, they'll see that in fact, everything is drug/chemical based, and that the only feelings we have are often caused by endogenous neurotransmitters that closely mimic those vile "drugs" .

Reputation Comments on this post:

They probably wouldn't understand what the hell you're talking about. :)

[EndThisDisgustingDystopia]

Tell them to define 'feeling,' instead of a real or fake feeling. Apparently they cannot define feeling if they will argue what is real and fake, or they are ignorant and cannot think for themselves.

[AddyCrazy]

Tell him that the feelings he gets from religious ceremonies and such can be considered fake because who knows if god really exists. Or maybe the feelings from winning a game of some sport is fake because its just a made up game to entertain people.

Reputation Comments on this post:

nice metaphors

[Matches]

I give a very emphatic,

"O.K."

Then their truth conflicts with my truth and both realities cancel each other out in an explosion of antimatter. And the universe as we know it ends.

[chinpokomaster]

It's true that life has a lot more to offer than drugs, but of all it has to offer, drugs are part of that.

Drugs are simply one of the many wonderful ways to induce a feeling, emotion or sense of self into the brain, but what separates them from everything else is that they're the most direct, without a doubt. Does this make them any less valid? Not in my opinion.

[kenc_nz]

I think that anyone who asks such a superficial question doesn't really deserve an answer.

However, you can ask them "what do you say to people who enjoy eating fine foods and get a sense of pleasure from eating delicasies? Are those feelings fake?"

How do you differentiate between a "fake" feeling and a "real" feeling? Both require some sort of stimulus, wether it be a tangible object or a provocative memory. I think that the distinction between the two are very blurred, if present at all.

Pharmaceutical products that alter one's psychological state are no different that one that alters a person's physiological state IMO.

[stoneinfocus]

Originally Posted by kenc_nz

I think that anyone who asks such a superficial question doesn't really deserve an answer.

However, you can ask them "what do you say to people who enjoy eating fine foods and get a sense of pleasure from eating delicasies? Are those feelings fake?"

Pharmaceutical products that alter one's psychological state are no different that one that alters a person's physiological state IMO.

Thank you for this statement, and I too think, such a statenebt as the title, is used by their multipplicators just for the purpose to choke-off any
in-depth discussion.

No sense in starting a philosophic approach with such people, in determine/describing the reality of the mind/feeling and imagination and that of the physics and how they influence one another.

A good example: one is suffering from an sickness, say a brain tumor, and is feeling very bad, it can´t be scientifically be proven, that the tumor directly causes a psychological distress, but an anti-tumor agent eradicates the tumor and the bad psychological state of this patient.

Is this improved feeling now fake, because it just eradicated the tumor?

Vice versa, the medicine eradicates the tumor and creates as a side, a very unpleasant feeling(which causes can´t be determined by any analytical mean on the action of this medicine) -is this fake, too?

One loves peaches and gets a thousand positive memories by tasting them, some might be loathed and disgusted by peaches, who´s right, who´s fake, who´s for real? And does this even matter...

[manda]

That they are probably right, a drug or alcohol induced state is just that- a drug or alcohol induced state. You want to get to know yourself hang out alone with only yourself and no drugs/alcohol for a month.
People get off on henious charges often for being under the influence- in other words doing something they wouldn't have done if not intoxicated.
To be honest, the real me is the chick who is scared to open my front door when I wake up- sure I get a buzz on and open it and live my life, but I know I am altering the scared chick who lives inside me. In other words, my buzzed bravado is not real.
Courage is doing the shit you have to do to take care of your life, family, and home without being high.
I'm a bit older than some of you, and it takes great courage to face life w/out anything. I still don't do it.
But I am no longer naive enough to think that every acid trip I ever had was an indication of my true feelings.
Sober=Real Me

[sweetsweetmary]

Let them know that they are correct only if that pertains to consciousness as humans know it.

[manda]

I would say if a teenager thinks drugs are fake feelings, that's pretty smart for a kid.

[The Dreamer]

It's a sort of religious argument that can't really be thwarted. What makes anything fake? If it still works the same then calling it fake is just passing judgment. I would just let this person see that you aren't worthy of her/his negative feelings and hopefully they'll get the idea eventually.

[funkm0nkey520]

what? drugs not a real felling? if theyve ever experienced with drugs they would know just how real it is. especially if they had a bad trip.. you dont forget those to quickly

[I<3Salvia]

Swim says why not find the middle ground where you're both right? Drugs can create induced feelings under false pretenses, however the fact that you're feeling them is not false, or in other words "fake".

To elaborate, say that you have had a really bad day. You're feeling shitty, angry, anxious, and depressed, and are not wishing to feel that way anymore. In this instance (for example purposes only) the act of ingesting -insert drug here- to counteract these effects would bring you to a happy, calm, relaxed, mental state, snapping you out of that other frame of mind. Nothing has changed, your situation is the same, nothing has really happened to make you happier, less anxious, and less shitty, you simply ingested a drug. In a sense you're feeling different under false pretenses because absolutely nothing has changed to make your situation better you simply ingested a drug.


The reason why swim did not specify a certain drug was that everyone is different and different drugs create different effects and yes "feelings".

[ShawnD]

I love these essay-style threads.

1). Explanation of the question
Definition of the word "fake" (as an adjective)

designed to deceive or cheat; not real; counterfeit

2). How does a drug work?
wiki - LSD

LSD binds to most serotonin receptor subtypes [meaning it's an agonist]

3). What is this words you speeks?
wiki - agonist

In pharmacology an agonist is a substance that binds to a specific receptor and triggers a response in the cell. It mimics the action of an endogenous ligand or neurotransmitter that binds to the same receptor.

4). Conlusions
LSD creates a fake response. The activity at the monoamine receptor sites is caused by the LSD itself rather than the usual neurotransmitters.

5). Further examples
wiki - cocaine

Cocaine binds tightly at the dopamine transporter forming a complex that blocks the transporter's function. The dopamine transporter can no longer perform its reuptake function, and thus dopamine accumulates in the synaptic cleft. This results in an enhanced and prolonged postsynaptic effect of dopaminergic signaling at dopamine receptors on the receiving neuron.

6). Further conclusions
Cocaine is the real deal. It creates real emotions using the real neurotransmitters.

7). Which drugs are "real" and which are "fake"?
real
-cocaine
-caffeine
-most antidepressants
-nicotine
-amphetamine

fake
-nicotine
-mushrooms
-dmt
-lsd
-mescaline
-heroin

You'll notice that nicotine, and many other drugs, can go on both lists. Nicotine is an acetylcholine agonist (fake), but part of the response is to increase the activity of adrenaline (real).

edit:
God it's annoying how firefox makes links when copying from wikipedia. Takes like 10 minutes to edit that crap out.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Interesting interpretation, thanks for sharing.

[chiggyman]

I'd bet a fair ammount of money any one who says that has no problems with drinking alcohol, or probably smoking tobacco either.

I agree with most of the posts above, but in some ways, I always believe feelings from LSD and such aren't real. But if my hallucinations I took when I took drugs were real then I wouldn't take them!

Point out the fact there whole life doesn't have to be spent in reality hah.

Hotbox there bedroom and tell them to mellow out

[highguy]

haha, yall stay trippin.
tell'm the feeling is a part of them so if its fake then so are they.

[welshmick]

Maybe this is a fake thread

[The Dreamer]

Golf is a fake sport since it was originally invented as an excuse to get together
Love is a fake emotion since it is nothing but a mitigated urge to have sex
Most food is fake since it doesn't come entirely from animals or plants
Apologies are fake since they come out of a desire for acceptance
Masturbation is fake for obvious reasons
All games are fake
TV is fake
Books are fake conversations
Domestication and Agriculture are fake evolution

This is just how things grow and change. Everything is a fake something else; that's what evolution does. What should be asked is whether or not a new thing's new purpose is a good one.

[ShawnD]

Originally Posted by The Dreamer

Apologies are fake since they come out of a desire for acceptance

Psychopath spotted.

[The Dreamer]

Originally Posted by ShawnD

Psychopath spotted.

...you have no idea.