if our creator did not want swims to get high why can we?

[The Doors]

God has a plan for everyone or a certain path laid out that we, or may not, choose to follow. Throughout the beginning of our lives, our Being nurtures us until we become aware of our existance, from there it becomes the guiding Light to the Father, our Being, our Creator. God acts through us if we allow it to.

I believe God gives you many signs that can point you towards a higher Truth. If one bothers to observe, the signs are everywhere and in such abundance that one might think they're crazy at first! The Light calls: pretty often at first, over and over again but the Self keeps on ignoring the calls. Finally, it decides to patiently wait for the Self to return the call while giving signs of Life every once in a while. The only one that gives up is your Self, not your Being!

The Being plants the seed, it is up to us to blossom and prosper by following and reaching for our Inner Light. Now, this is still a concept that I'm still trying to figure out and elaborate on, but it seems to me that the "Self" is meaningless. The Self wanders around aimlessly not knowing where it is and certainly not having the slightest clue as to where it's going! It wanders in Infinite Darkness. If there is no Light, there is no path. Our physical bodies(3rd density) are a way for us to bring forth knowledge from superior states of consciousness, even though we are constantly learning on all 7 density levels. The physical world is where the Abyss and the Supreme Worlds connect together, which is why we can polarize either in a negative or positive aspect; Creating Heaven or Hell.

The Soul is awakened once the Self finds the Light and is therefore now guided on a conscious level. The Soul is the knowledge that the Being has gathered throughout it's life times. Essentialy, we experience ourselves by returning to our roots in order to create what we want to Be!

"We need to cease being what we are in order to become what we are not. One has to become missing to oneself. The outcome of all this is the advent of someone who is not oneself."
- Samael Aun Weor

[jux]

there are many accounts of animals in the wild purposely seeking intoxication. (http://www.timboucher.com/journal/20...l-intoxicants/ and http://www.erowid.org/library/review/review.php?p=253) therefore (as humans are no more than animals that figured out indoor plumbing), seeking intoxication should be considered natural. in fact, you can spot this instinct in humans from childhood. think about when you used to spin around in circles for the sole purpose of getting dizzy (every kid does it at some point)...you were seeking intoxication.

as for how god feels about it...well, i dont believe in god..... but if there was a god, i dont see how he could be upset with natural behavior (after all, if he created us with that instinct)

[imyourlittlebare]

[quote=jux;342295]there are many accounts of animals in the wild purposely seeking intoxication. (http://www.timboucher.com/journal/20...l-intoxicants/ and http://www.erowid.org/library/review/review.php?p=253) therefore (as humans are no more than animals that figured out indoor plumbing), seeking intoxication should be considered natural. in fact, you can spot this instinct in humans from childhood. think about when you used to spin around in circles for the sole purpose of getting dizzy (every kid does it at some point)...you were seeking intoxication.

Ah see, this isnt natural and thats why animals die of it for the most part. These chemicals manipulate natural systems and cause pleasure and the animals seek it out and like part of the study said the animals die from it frequently. They just become addicted like us. It doesnt prove its natural. They dont seek out intoxication. The animal finds something that is reinforcing and becomes addicted and has much less inhibitions than us.

[jux]

the study mentions that sometimes animals to it do the point of endangerment of their life. to say they do it becuase they are addicted is a rather glib interpretation. for example, psilocybe mushrooms are known to be non-addictive... but there are certain animals (one of the links mentions goats) that still eat them.

furthermore, even if it were addiction, they would have to seek out the substance several times before becoming addicted. (unless you buy into the whole "you are addicted from the first time you try drugs" philosophy)

[imyourlittlebare]

i dont. however, i believe animals have a "if it feels good do it" attitutude and they do in fact get addicted the first time

[ReAlitY-HoLds-NonE]

^how can you say that it isnt natural?, by natural one implies something that isnt perverted by human law, and so essentually human thought, so how can an animal, that isnt a human, that seeks intoxication not be a natural cause?...
Animals are reinforced by their intoxication, so go on to eat more when they are capable of doing so, reinforcement is a natural and oh so common psychological factor in everything.
If, following the logic that animals are no diffirent from humans that the intoxication they seek 'is not' natural, and that veiw is prescribed over humanity, then there is no diffirentiation between the animals and us, stating then, that we are addicted after the first try...

surely the very fact that (natural occuring) animals seek (naturally occuring) intoxicants proves that intoxication with at least naturally occuring substances is in fact... natural?

_____

And, The Doors-

"...but it seems to me that the "Self" is meaningless. The Self wanders around aimlessly not knowing where it is and certainly not having the slightest clue as to where it's going! It wanders in Infinite Darkness."

^what about several idea's that the 'ego' (which is essentually ones psychological self) is destroyed when a certain level of intoxication is achieved with psychadelics? (mainly LSD and mushrooms), do you think that could be considered close enough, or even a sign of this light that the creator may well have pointed out as a way to blossom?... obviously not a way of achieving such enlightenment, but instead a way of seeing how one would feel, or even show someone something during their trip that they can apply to their physical life to bring them closer to the correct path?...if so, then the creator agrees with the use of drugs? (well, certain ones, not necissarily all of them)
[nice post btw, very good read]

[imyourlittlebare]

ah see thats where i disagree. What i mean by not natural is its effects on the systems of the brain. Again you have to make sure you read what I put. This is an unnatural affect on the brain. This unnatural effect causes an unnatural reduction in anxiety or causes euphoria when the anxiety should otherwise be dealt with by dealing with the problem and euphoria is an unnaturaal increase in happiness. It is perfectly natural for animals to get addicted due to the unnatural effects that take place in the animal. An animal that eats an addictive drug will want to keep reducing its anxiety and using the addictive drug. the drugs effect is unnatural. The addiction is a natural response to this reduction in anxiety because obviously one would want to reduce this anxiety. This is not the best way because it does not take care of the problem. Animals use and have no control over there use due to their lack of control and alot die according to the study. Do you understand now?

[imyourlittlebare]

so the main point im refuting from you is

Drug addiction is a natural reaction to an unnatural reaction that takes place in the brain.

[ReAlitY-HoLds-NonE]

I did read what you were saying...And the main point i was refuting was the fact that it is natural because it happens in an occurance between two completly natural beings in the case of the animals. If intoxication is perceived as something unnatural, then surely any other form of neural stimulation/depressant (psychological or purely chemical) is alien...then what makes intoxication alien?]

someone needs to read what I am indeed saying: i never said drug addiction is a natural reaction to an unnatural reaction as i had never stated that intoxication was unnatural, i said the opposite infact, you have simply perceived what i had said to suit yourself

question im asking YOU is why is it unnatural?... what makes it unnatural if it infact happens, that is simply opionion, like my own, but i can justify and support mine with ethical and philosophical systems

[the thread isnt about scientific addiction though, its blatently a philsophical and thoughtful one about a higher essence and its relations to this world, dont pervert it with the science of this reality]

[imyourlittlebare]

I did read what you were saying...And the main point i was refuting was the fact that it is natural because it happens in an occurance between two completly natural beings in the case of the animals. If intoxication is perceived as something unnatural, then surely any other form of neural stimulation/depressant (psychological or purely chemical) is alien...then what makes intoxication alien?]

No, psychological is not alien. It is natural. If you are attacked then an adreniline rush is a natural body occurance to a threatening situation. If you get hurt severely and need to survive, your bodies opiod system kills the pain and the adrenaline keeps you alive. Anxiety is a natural occurence to get you to deal with a problem and GABA release naturally occurs, anti anxiety, naturally occurs when one takes care of the problems. This is what these systems are needed for. Chemical manipulation of these systems causes the system to work against its will and alot of times way past its natural capacity and sometimes way different to what its supposed to do. That is what makes chemicals alien my friend. Lets keep this friendly alright? because i see your next paragraph and i dont know why your getting frustrated, i should be because your implication is wrong and ill explain next paragraph.


someone needs to read what I am indeed saying: i never said drug addiction is a natural reaction to an unnatural reaction as i had never stated that intoxication was unnatural, i said the opposite infact, you have simply perceived what i had said to suit yourself

I didnt say you said that. That is my view friend. So calm down and keep it friendly.

question im asking YOU is why is it unnatural?... what makes it unnatural if it infact happens, that is simply opionion, like my own, but i can justify and support mine with ethical and philosophical systems

[the thread isnt about scientific addiction though, its blatently a philsophical and thoughtful one about a higher essence and its relations to this world, dont pervert it with the science of this reality

i have been justifying it, you just havent read it right or ive written it poorly. I think my answer in this section two things above is a good one and will help you see my argument. Because in reality, you cant argue with that logic. Hopefully, this rewording of the same thing ive been saying will be the one to help you understand because I think you just dont understand what I mean. This full definition should help you. Its not scientific, its true. That is why those systems are there in the first place. They did not develop because a creator put them there for us to get high. By random chance, there are plants that contain chemicals that happen to fit in receptors and the chemical is able to manipulate the receptor. Sometimes this causes euphoria (opiates) and sometimes it causes death (nerve gas or biological weapons, or venom from a variety of spiders. all these mostly effect acetylcholine). The natural chemicals that modulate our brain our within ourselves. So anything else that hijacks these systems and competes (if not completely dominates) with our natural chemicals. This makes them unnatural.

Addiction is a natural response to the unnatural drugs. If one works out, one releases dopamine and endorphins which are the bodies natural painkillers as well as rewards for doing something that increases your evolutionary fitness. It feels good. however, drugs manipulate systems, including this one. Lets use this for an example. The body perceives these unnatural chemicals as great increases in fitness and of course its going to want you to continue to use them. Because the brain is confused. It thinks its its own natural chemicals reinforcing you for doing something natural like working out when in essence you are fooling it and that is why some drugs are reinforcing. Thus, my argument about addiction being a natural reaction to an unnatural occurence is true.

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by imyourlittlebare

The natural chemicals that modulate our brain our within ourselves. So anything else that hijacks these systems and competes (if not completely dominates) with our natural chemicals. This makes them unnatural.

Where do you draw the line? Anything else that hijacks these systems? So what about foodstuffs? What about 'natural' sugars? What about 'natural' pain killers? Who states that one 'natural' plant is unnatural and another natural? Surely you are not going to base your classification on intended purpose? If you base it on intended purpose, then who is to say that one intended purpose is more natural than another? Is seeking spiritual nourishment (as some would describe the consumption of certain plants) anymore unnatural than seeking physical nourishment? If we are to believe in a god, then is it unnatural to wish to consume something that we may feel may take us closer to that god?

From a personal point of view the question is irrelevant as this particular swimmer does not believe in the notion of a 'creator'.

[imyourlittlebare]

Where do you draw the line? Anything else that hijacks these systems? So what about foodstuffs? What about 'natural' sugars? What about 'natural' pain killers? Who states that one 'natural' plant is unnatural and another natural? Surely you are not going to base your classification on intended purpose? If you base it on intended purpose, then who is to say that one intended purpose is more natural than another? Is seeking spiritual nourishment (as some would describe the consumption of certain plants) anymore unnatural than seeking physical nourishment? If we are to believe in a god, then is it unnatural to wish to consume something that we may feel may take us closer to that god?

I dont believe in God. Let me go over my theory because what your saying doesnt synch up with my theory. I draw the line at psychoactive plants and chemicals from these plants. Let me explain, food is a biological need as is water consumption. While there is brain activity due to this, it is NOT psychoactive nor is it unnatural due to the fact that the brain is supposed to have this activity because you eat foods and drink water. These foods are plants too that are non psychoactive. They have a natural effect. your brains systems exist and have a function. The opiod system is there using its own natural painkillers for reinforcement and pain relief. In extreme cases like hurting yourself and having to run away from a lion, the system works harder and yo udont feel pain. This is natural. This is what the system should do. Its being manipulated by environmental factors but not by foreign chemicals manipulating the system. The cannabinoid system is complex and involved in an assortment of things that involve fear and anxiety, and pain relief as well. It uses its own natural chemicals called endocannabinoids. Lets start with these examples. Taking an opiate causes an unnatural chemical (by unnatural, i mean not native to the body) to hijack the system and cause it to work beyond its capacity and sometimes cause effects that it isnt supposed to. THC does this with the cannabinoid system. It hijacks the cannabinoid system and takes control against the systems will. This causes things to get screwed up and you get high. This is unnatural (that is, the endocannabinoid system is not there to get you high, its there to regulate things and thc manipulates it against its normal will). This is why these psychoactive drugs are unnatural and cause unnatural things to happen. While they do occur in nature, yes, they cause unnatural things to happen to our brain systems.

Working out causes the release of dopamine and endorphins so you get reinforced for something that is good for you. Drugs manipulate natural reinforcement and make the brain feel like this substance is causing a substantial gain in evolutionary fitness when in fact all it is doing is manipulating the system to cause an illusion.

Anxiety exists for a reason. The reason is to let us know we have a problem to deal with. The natural way to release GABA is to complete the problem. This causes natural stress relief. However, again you can manipulate this and take care of the anxiety another way, an unnatural way (that is, the natural way is to take care of the problem.). Thus, if you relieve this anxiety unnaturally, you do not take care of the problem and the anxiety will still exist after the drug has worn off. So this is a bad way of taking care of anxiety. The natural way is the best which is why exposure therapy works so well. It causes someone to face their fears. If one just drank alcohol and took xanax, its creating a false sense of the problem being ok.

Now after all these points, here is a link to another thread where i defend this theory http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/sho...t=36551&page=5

Now that you know my theory and my classifications, you cant really argue with it. Cannabinoid receptors and opiate receptors were not created in response to a monkey eating the plants and the body wanted to get high so it developed the receptors to do so. Random chance created a great biological system called the brain and all its parts. random chance also allowed for there to be plants that have chemicals similar in shape to chemicals that naturally occur in our brain and by even more random chance, can get through the blood brain barrier. These may be natural occurences, but leads to unnatural manipulations of our brains and neurotransmitters. While other things like food can effect the brain especially the hypothalamus with satiety and thirst quenching, this is natural and it is not a manipulation of a system by forcing out endogenous neurotransmitters for foreign chemicals.

Do you understand?

[Lunar Loops]

I understood your argument the first time around and your definition of what is natural and what is not. It is your view and you are entitled to it. It does not mean that you are totally correct anymore than it means someone else is correct.

So where would you place tea, coffee, sugar, chocolate, pepper, chillies, bananas etc? There are a vast array of foodstuffs that may not be classed as psychoactive in your terms, but that certainly effect mood. They are not required in order to survive and yet people 'crave' them? So I ask you again, what makes the line you draw the correct one? You are creating the line, it is man made.

What is normal in relation to human activity and behaviour? Who is to say that our bodies are not made to synch perfectly with certain psychoactive substances (not stating I think this is the case, but who is to say)? Why is it that man has always chosen to seek a path to altered states? Is this because it is unnatural?

[ReAlitY-HoLds-NonE]

Originally Posted by imyourlittlebare

I dont believe in God. Let me go over my theory because what your saying doesnt synch up with my theory. I draw the line at psychoactive plants and chemicals from these plants. Let me explain, food is a biological need as is water consumption. While there is brain activity due to this, it is NOT psychoactive nor is it unnatural due to the fact that the brain is supposed to have this activity because you eat foods and drink water. These foods are plants too that are non psychoactive. They have a natural effect. your brains systems exist and have a function. The opiod system is there using its own natural painkillers for reinforcement and pain relief. In extreme cases like hurting yourself and having to run away from a lion, the system works harder and yo udont feel pain. This is natural. This is what the system should do. Its being manipulated by environmental factors but not by foreign chemicals manipulating the system. The cannabinoid system is complex and involved in an assortment of things that involve fear and anxiety, and pain relief as well. It uses its own natural chemicals called endocannabinoids. Lets start with these examples. Taking an opiate causes an unnatural chemical (by unnatural, i mean not native to the body) to hijack the system and cause it to work beyond its capacity and sometimes cause effects that it isnt supposed to. THC does this with the cannabinoid system. It hijacks the cannabinoid system and takes control against the systems will. This causes things to get screwed up and you get high. This is unnatural (that is, the endocannabinoid system is not there to get you high, its there to regulate things and thc manipulates it against its normal will). This is why these psychoactive drugs are unnatural and cause unnatural things to happen. While they do occur in nature, yes, they cause unnatural things to happen to our brain systems.

Working out causes the release of dopamine and endorphins so you get reinforced for something that is good for you. Drugs manipulate natural reinforcement and make the brain feel like this substance is causing a substantial gain in evolutionary fitness when in fact all it is doing is manipulating the system to cause an illusion.

Anxiety exists for a reason. The reason is to let us know we have a problem to deal with. The natural way to release GABA is to complete the problem. This causes natural stress relief. However, again you can manipulate this and take care of the anxiety another way, an unnatural way (that is, the natural way is to take care of the problem.). Thus, if you relieve this anxiety unnaturally, you do not take care of the problem and the anxiety will still exist after the drug has worn off. So this is a bad way of taking care of anxiety. The natural way is the best which is why exposure therapy works so well. It causes someone to face their fears. If one just drank alcohol and took xanax, its creating a false sense of the problem being ok.

Who's to sa that spiritual gain isnt as much a biological need as nutrition, it is definantly a psycholgical one, and according to you, by proxy then a biological process. You are saying that to take spiritual experience from psychoactive plants... You are most definantly committing Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy, any and every arguement in this thread is subjective, you cannot derive your veiws as fact that should be applied across the entire system. The question was "if our creator did not want swims to get high why can we?" not "why can we get high"

your theories can be counter argued from both the scientific spectrum AND the philosophical one... moreover the philosiphical


BTW i still have yet to see how you can say that alot of drugs that SWIMs gain spiritual experience on are unnatural. You can only put forward an opionion, with or without scientific fact. SWIM has basic knowledge of scientific theories as he is only in the first stages of further education, but he knows enough, and is logical enough, to understand what you are stating, and see the flaws in it...

back to the question though, which you have yet to answer and only put forward jargon which hasnt helped the evolution of the question in any way... why do we get high if swims creator ddint want him to?.. or even, did he want him to?

[BobTheGreat]

Originally Posted by godzcamera

swim was thinking about this last night. swim wonders why our creator would make our minds they way they are when introduced into a world in which certain chemicals mixed with the mind allow us to see. if the euphoric mind was not to be experianced and acceptable to our creator then why would we be built with such a capacity to get high. swim belives its a gift taken away by the ones in control.

Without reading any futher. There is no creator. We are simply driven by the will to live. If you driving the deer doesnt dive infront of you to die. It just wanted to live and thought that the best way to escape was to leap past youre car. Unfortunately most of the time they arent fast enough. Humans have the burden of understanding death so we simply use w/e creator to think we go on to a better place when we die. It is justification of why not to be a serial killer and to live a "clean" life. But we must also remember as a society, we create these killers, child molesters, ect. It is a breakdown of some esle's pych that created them in the first place.

Furthermore remember that the bible was written by exiled monks. Maybe it was their revenge on the world...

Life is pretty bleak if you really think about it. You live x number of years and then nothingness. I would suggest that everyone find what they really want to do and do it as quickly as possible. A plane could come crashing down on your house/appartment tommorrow. Ugh swim just depressed himself. time to go drink himself stupid. At least it takes away the pain for a while...

[Cyanide]

SWIY is trying to test your faith, just like he (or it) is with Dinosaur fossils. God is Catholic, duh.


...

[imyourlittlebare]

Science is the devil.

[imyourlittlebare]

that said. Although its an unnatural biological occurence, human behavior is unique. I think I understand what you guys mean. Ok i am right because of that, but you are right because of behavior. humans seek out strategies to better themselves. While drugs arent the best, they alleviete anxiety and cause euphoria. So since they do this effectively, a human will seek these out if exposed or if they heard it was good through word of mouth because we are social animals. this is the natural part. Does this build a bridge to both of us?

[imyourlittlebare]

Ok, for starters there are obviously some fundamental errors and differences we have that make this debate near impossible.

you say that they are subjective yet deny the fact that they have psychological value or causation behind them?... either way you have stated that they are beyond the universe and so spiritual (if they are subjective they are relevant to the individual, and so the most spiritual they could be for that person. And if they dont hold any psychological basis, then it is transcendant and so, an extremly cognitive value of spiritual enlightenment)(Before I proceed im sorry if i seem to be picking you out, i find it weird that you have completly diffirent veiws in every topic that has been posted, but SWIM feels very strongly about the transcendant value of psychoactives)
I dont deny they may have a psychological value to someone. However, they may not. That is not measurable. This is your opinion. I made a mistake in a definition that may have led you to believe that I care. I said you cant philosophically argue. I meant logically. The logic is unrefutable. Do a truth table and find out lol.

You are obviously a man of science, would the laws of evolution not dictate that the very fact that we can get high and/or trip from entheogens show that this was the way they were intended, No. Serotonin is used for mood a tiny bit. Only 10 percent of it is found in the brain. However, ex and lsd cause a huge influx of it. This isnt what was intended of serotonin. Unless you believe there is some maker who made it this way. If there is , your right. But the lack of solid him makes my option the more reliable and accepted one. The opiate system was not intended to take in morphine only endorphens and such. Its pure luck that morphine fits in these receptrors and passes the blood brain barrier.

and our own brains relative to that (because it is affected by it) mean that this is natures way?.. and if there are no damages to ourselves (SWIM knows of no (just) psychoactive user (ie, acid heads, mushroomheads, or just general trip-heads like himself), that have any psychological or physical problems that they didnt have before they started putting their brains into trance)... there is sceintific evidence that supports this aswell- the only danger is the trip itself):
i disagree with that statement. Your generalizing to all drugs. How about meth? Cocaine? Ecstasy? And also, in dealing with those who were psychologically addicted to hallucinations, you hear numerous problems with things like shakyness, and anxiety and such. There is scientific evidence to support that damage might not be as bad as the govt said, however, it doesnt prove there is no damage. I mean, lets take a look at drugs that cause an influx of serotonin. These drugs cause a decrease in the number of receptors and the efficiency of receptors. This is a physical change that wasnt present before use? So be careful what generalized statements you use.

and we are gaining an enjoyable/euphoric experience as a result, and we are reinforced by what we receive, then in nature, we arent doing anything wrong??? I didnt say you werent doing anything wrong. You are getting reinforced due to biological reinforcers as well as reduction in anxieties. Nothing wrong with that. But this biological reinforcement and reduction in anxiety was not brought on by your natural neurotransmitters or brain activity. And the substance that brought it on was not of the body, it was foreign. Do you see where im going with this? You may have the misconception that i think just because i say something isnt natural that its wrong. Its not wrong. I can understand why people use and abuse drugs.

m sorry but from a philosophical veiw no-one can be correct as it is all subjective unless everyone is a cognitivist and there is such a thing as absolute good, which no-one knows anyway... this is impossible as everyone is an individual, as are the circumstances and situations. I think i cleared that up before. I didnt mean philosophical i meant a formal logical argument you would get in a logic class.

Alleviate symptoms??... maybe not as far as health is concerned, but the best realizations that SWIM has come to is either on, or on the come down of psychotropes... His intelligence is still intact, and the only negative symptoms he has experienced are the social ones of being known as a trip head down every road...
They turned him from organized religion, they turned him back to education, they turned him to put more effort into the things he does... if this is not the word of the 'creator' ..whatever it may or may not be, higher intelligence, collectivity of mankinds thoughts, SWIM has gained not only spiritual gain, but ones that have affected his life...I didnt say noone could have a spiritual gain from the drugs. however, not everyone needs a spiritual side. I dont have one and alot of people dont have one. So i dont know what this has to do with my argument. If there is a god and he wants you to get high, im wrong. If there is a god and he used evolution, then i am right. If there is no god and evolution brought us to this point, then I am right. The only way you are right is if there are 3 conditions. If there is a god and if there was no evolution and if he made us as is including the brain so we could seek out these drugs and chemicals to get high. My theory only requires one given, that that theory is wrong. There could be a god and my theory is still right. Your argument has alot of conditions and while im not unvalidating your religious experiences and im not saying its wrong to get high, im saying that my argument is alot less opinionated.
BTW i still have yet to see how you can say that alot of drugs that SWIMs gain spiritual experience on are unnatural. Right here let me clear this up, the are only unnatural in the way they react with your brain. I made the argument for that. they do occur in nature, so they are natural occurences. But our brain has natural occurences with its own natural chemicals. When foreign chemicals disrupt these occurences and chemicals, this is unnatural. Understand?

You can only put forward an opionion, with or without scientific fact. SWIM has basic knowledge of scientific theories as he is only in the first stages of further education, but he knows enough, and is logical enough, to understand what you are stating, and see the flaws in it... While you can poke holes in my philosophy, you cannot in my logic.

I have already said why i cannot argue against scientific theories that you put in this thread as i have taken right from the start on this the veiw that natural law must be applied... it does the job, one gains a good experience/enlightenment/realization, therefor, it is a good thing, and being good, it is intrinsicly natural... and, as the law was originally intended vice versae (it does it, we are affected by [natural psychadelics] and therefor it is natural, AND good)I understood this, all i was trying to say, was that you cannot use science to answer a question of this calibre as it has yet to disprove the existance of a creator, or (not necissarily a creator)- a higher conscience...
I skimmed this. I realized that you denied it through the previous readings, sorry i didnt pick up on this sooner it would have saved us both time.

also that we cannot say that it isnt natural, just that it probably is due to the fact that they occur naturally, and the responses in our brains do so as well...

Our responses are only natural if there is a god and if he created everything as is and he wants us to get high. If this is not true, than I am correct.

There is a better philosophical argument as well as my science of evolutonary psychology. If you do not see things differently after reading this, then there is just too much of a fundamental differnce in us and you chose to ignore the logic of my argument. I understand and want to validate your philosophy. I mean i personally dont indulge on it but good for you for a different way of looking at things. Its respectable.

[Lunar Loops]

I do understand your arguments and I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you say. I'm really only splitting hairs here.....I know, I really should find something better to do with my time.

My major quibble is with your classification of unnatural and your drawing a line under psychoactive substances.

OK, the body needs food and water. Yes, that's a given, but why draw the line at certain foodstuffs because you feel they have no nutritional value and they act on the brain in a certain way?

According to your definition, anything that is not produced naturally within the body and is introduced into the system is unnatural. I ask again, why draw the line where you do? If you analyse a lot of what we eat and drink you will find unnatural chemicals in there (and ones that have an effect on the brain and how we feel). A lot of what we eat and drink is NOT necessary for existence.

Where would medicinal science be without unnatural (yet naturally occurring in nature) substances?

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good post!

[imyourlittlebare]

I do understand your arguments and I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you say. I'm really only splitting hairs here.....I know, I really should find something better to do with my time.

My major quibble is with your classification of unnatural and your drawing a line under psychoactive substances.

OK, the body needs food and water. Yes, that's a given, but why draw the line at certain foodstuffs because you feel they have no nutritional value and they act on the brain in a certain way?

They act on the brain by hijacking the system it works on. It forcefully overtakes the natural chemicals and causes the system work in a way that it normally does not due naturally

According to your definition, anything that is not produced naturally within the body and is introduced into the system is unnatural. I ask again, why draw the line where you do? If you analyse a lot of what we eat and drink you will find unnatural chemicals in there (and ones that have an effect on the brain and how we feel). A lot of what we eat and drink is NOT necessary for existence.

No. My definition is anything that is psychoactive due to the very definition of psychoactive. I defined food stuffs and why they are not included. You need food and water to survive. While it is foreign and is needed because the body does not produce its own nutrients through photosyntheisis, it is necessary and isnt involved in the overtaking forcefully of receptors in your brain. some foods have chemicals, the chemicals do not act psychoactively. And there are some foods that have caffeine and stimulants and such and they would be classifi3ed under this as well. Your right, alot of what we eat and drink is not necessary for existence. But gluttony and eating escessively does not cause the food particles to come in and overtake cannabinoid receptors causing the system to work in overdrive and not how its supposed to?
Where would medicinal science be without unnatural (yet naturally occurring in nature) substances?

I think the main problem you have is with vocabulary. Because you will admit that psychoactive substances do introduce chemicals that pass through the blood brain barrier and bind with receptors correrct? And these chemicals are not made in the body, correct? I think the only problem is the word unnatural. The plant itself is not unnatural, neither is food or plants. Food does not cause an unnatural occurence in the body. Thats why he have the digestive system, to take in food. We do not have the cannabinoid system to take in cannabinoids and its dumb luck that they can pass through the blood brain barrier and force a reaction that would not occur except if you ingest the natural substance. Its a natural substance, but the chemical is foreign and we do not have a brain area for taking this stuff it, it comes in and does what it wants against the brains will. Do you see the difference? I mean there is probably a better word for what im saying so i dont stir up negative feelings. Thats why i say the plants are natural, that is, occuring in nature. The process that happens within our brain is not natural to our brain, there for, unnatural to the body. I think this explanation is much better as to put those feelings about wording aside. Do you understand better what i mean?

[Lunar Loops]

What you eat can influence your brain chemistry and subsequently affect your mood. For example, when we are deficient in essential nutrients our nerves perform differently and we may experience mood swings and behaviour changes.

Mood changes can be a result of poor food choices, overeating or following particular diets. Choosing the right nutrients can affect our daily performance, improve your mood, sharpen your mind and enhance your memory.

The food we eat influences our neurotransmitters (serotonin, dopamine and noradrenalin). These neurotransmitters communicate between nerve cells and control mood, appetite, thoughts and behaviour.
They generate feelings of happiness, mental alertness and calmness. As these neurotransmitters are derived from the food we eat, positive dietary modifications can regulate their levels naturally and improve the body’s response to stress – whereas an imbalance can lead to anxiety or depression.

As an example, let's look at serotonin. An imbalance can result in some behavioural problems ranging from mild hyperactivity to violence, and low levels of serotonin can cause intense food cravings.
Serotonin is released in the brain as a result of eating simple carbohydrates and starchy foods, for example: chocolate, pastries, crisps, potatoes, bread and rice.
If we load up with poor quality carbohydrates, we may experience fatigue, mood swings and reduced physical activity. Therefore, if the levels of serotonin are normalised, we do not feel the need to overeat sugary and refined carbohydrate foods.

A psychoactive substance exerts psychological effects including changes in mood, cognition, and behaviour.

Now tell me again why you are drawing such a line in the unnatural sand?

[imyourlittlebare]

What you eat can influence your brain chemistry and subsequently affect your mood. For example, when we are deficient in essential nutrients our nerves perform differently and we may experience mood swings and behaviour changes.

Mood changes can be a result of poor food choices, overeating or following particular diets. Choosing the right nutrients can affect our daily performance, improve your mood, sharpen your mind and enhance your memory.

The food we eat influences our neurotransmitters (serotonin, dopamine and noradrenalin). These neurotransmitters communicate between nerve cells and control mood, appetite, thoughts and behaviour.
They generate feelings of happiness, mental alertness and calmness. As these neurotransmitters are derived from the food we eat, positive dietary modifications can regulate their levels naturally and improve the body’s response to stress – whereas an imbalance can lead to anxiety or depression.

As an example, let's look at serotonin. An imbalance can result in some behavioural problems ranging from mild hyperactivity to violence, and low levels of serotonin can cause intense food cravings.
Serotonin is released in the brain as a result of eating simple carbohydrates and starchy foods, for example: chocolate, pastries, crisps, potatoes, bread and rice.
If we load up with poor quality carbohydrates, we may experience fatigue, mood swings and reduced physical activity. Therefore, if the levels of serotonin are normalised, we do not feel the need to overeat sugary and refined carbohydrate foods.
While it can, is it the food itself that is going into the brain and changing things? And again You are correct with what a neurotransmitter is. However, again, I say does food pass your blood brain barrier and does pieces of bacon or saturated fat go into your receptors and cause you to be high? No. Its secondary effect of eating food. Just like a secondary effect of not getting enough light, which is something natural, can cause depression which is a natural reaction and being in solitary confinement causes one to go crazy. These actions dont cause chemicals to go in our brain. The brain reacts to these biological events in natural ways. If you eat shitty, you will feel shitty. If you dont see light for days, your probably going to get a bit depressed. This is natural. Now as for you your next thing



A psychoactive substance exerts psychological effects including changes in mood, cognition, and behaviour.

These changes in the brain are secondary to the actual things. Like i said, eating poorly will make you feel bad and not getting light =depressed. The thing isnt directly causing the change in the brain. The change in the brain is secondary. As for drugs like thc, the effect is primary. that is, the primary effect of the substance manipulates the neurotransmitters and receptors. Whereas food and light do not. It just happens that we have natural reactions to situations and eatting poorly. These are situations our body deals with naturally. Whereas, thc manipulates the brain directly and takes control of the system and the system has an unnatural response due to the system not acting within normalcy of the system.

Do you understand the difference now? PS im glad were handling this debate friendly and respectully. I have learned alot from you. Unfortunetely, it is in in learning how to fine tune my argument. Because I do believe I am right and with each argument you make, you make me further define and defend my reasoning which helps me. I mean keep going with this if you please. But i think this one should be accurate in explaining the difference. It mainly has to do with primary and secondary reaction and what is actually causing the change in the brain. Primary=the drug manipulates. Secondary: the brain and body are making the changes in the brain due to environmental circumstances (and what you eat is an environemental circumstance due to the food not actually being the cause of the change in the brain. Rather, the food causes a secondary action where the brain makes the changes with endogenous chemicals and reacts in a way that nature and biology of the human brain intended.)

[imyourlittlebare]

this is a very interesting debate. You are a very intelligent individual to be asking such good questions. Its also good to always question things, esp things people say on here. I believe I live up to my burden of proof and there is validity in what i am saying. If you have any more questions in this theory or why i define the way i do. please keep asking. and question me. I have a feeling Ill be able to help you understand my mindset yet and believe that a distinction is possible.

[Alicia]

science does like to try suck the fun out of things. look at other threads on "opinions".