Drug info - How Does LSD Expand Consciousness?

[metaljuana]

What does LSD do to the brain to give LSD's famous mind expanding effect? Does it give certain areas of the brain enzymes or something to make it work faster? I have been wondering for some time now, and am just wondering if anyone here may possibly know.

[TheBadMan]

It depends what you mean. I do not think that "consciousness expansion" is a particularly meaningful term. I think that it refers to the expanded content of one's thoughts while under the influence of psychedelic drugs, which is the result of more flee flowing and creative association between ideas. I do not think that whatever makes up or contributes to consciousness is actually expanded in any way. I do not think that the term "consciousness expansion" works well in acting as a metaphor for psychedelic drug action. I kind of dislike the term because I think it is pretentious. An equivalent but less idealistic term might be "rambling consciousness."

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

Originally Posted by metaljuana

What does LSD do to the brain to give LSD's famous mind expanding effect? Does it give certain areas of the brain enzymes or something to make it work faster? I have been wondering for some time now, and am just wondering if anyone here may possibly know.

No one really knows how consciousness is created from the brain so no one really knows how LSD affects consciousness at the biological/molecular level you are talking about. Sure, they have a pretty good idea of what LSD does to the brain, but that doesn't really tell you much if you don't understand how the brain creates consciousness.

They know, for example, that by attaching electrodes to people's heads and watching which areas light up when they do something creative or something sad, which "areas" of the brain roughly relate to different emotions/feelings/aspects of consciousness and so they can tell that because LSD works on the pre-frontal cortex, the area associated with abstract reasoning and creativity, that LSD affects these things.

Neuroscience is very speculative and works on many assumptions.

Reputation Comments on this post:

well done putting emphasis on how much we don't know

[Desertfox]

Read The Invisible Landscape by Terence & Dennis Mckenna. No book has taught SWIM more about drug interaction and how psychedelics work in the human ape body, especially how the psychedelics intercalate with our DNA which may sound creepy at first but is truly fascinating once you start grasping what these molecules are doing. The molecules sort of get locked in a harmony through their Electron Spin Resonances, magnetic and sound waves, this catalyzes a mechanism that reads our DNA, and giving us a visual light show of information appearing before our eyes. Our consciousness may be simply the interaction of the magnetic vacuums inside the particles inside our heads, and the frequency the psychedelics hit is just so that we get the 'altered perception' by altering with the magnetic interactions in the cerebral cortex. Keep in mind this is just a n idea, maybe one day it will be accepted and experiments performed that confirm it. It is already confirmed that electric pulses can affect consciousness as stated by the post above, but as also stated much of neuroscience is speculative and only today is the technology starting to become available to us to test the many ideas floating around out there. Psychedelics cause the cells in the visual cortex to get excited and cause the classic psychedelic visuals we've come to know and love, and drugs like alcohol and barbituates 'De-excite' these same cells counteracting any visual one may otherwise receive.

ADVISORY: Science hasn't researched this idea, and has not been experimentally reproduced. This idea was developed after psychedelic research was made criminal, and governments have sought no interest in funding research into the field. so yeah don't believe this as fact, just interesting to think about at this point in time.

Reputation Comments on this post:

You are full of nonsense. The stuff about ESR and DNA intercalation with DNA is NONSENSE!

[TheBadMan]

Originally Posted by Desertfox

especially how the psychedelics intercalate with our DNA which may sound creepy

LOL. I would love to hear about this. Intercalating DNA is usually how mutagens and teratogens start. Honestly, I really hope that this is not true. If you can genuinely point to some evidence of this, then I would appreciate it.

The molecules sort of get locked in a harmony through their Electron Spin Resonances, magnetic and sound waves, this sends the psychedelics cascading down our DNA,

This sounds like McKenna's wacky BS. I hope you realize that this could just be baloney (and probably is).

but as also stated much of neuroscience is speculative

Well, first of all, McKenna's BS is not a "theory", but sounds more like a "poorly thought up hypothesis." Sorry, but I think McKenna truly was a crackpot and his ideas are just ridiculous. His ramblings irritate the hell out of me because they are just so bloody stupid.
Neuroscience is speculative and is built on assumptions but is built on just as many assumptions as any other science and, most importantly, WORKS just like any other science. If you read the current literature of neuroscience, I think you'd see that largely the problem of how consciousness emerges is not even address as a whole, but that smaller pieces are being chipped away at. If you do read the literature, you will also see where this science works versus something McKenna's magical baloney. While I do think that it is important to criticize any science which might be able to address a problem you are interested in, I also think that just criticizing the best approach and offering no alternative leaves a vacuum of ignorance. So, go ahead an point out the problems with neuroscience, but don't pretend like there is a better way to understand because unfortunately there isn't and I don't think believing in stuff like Leary's 8 circuit model is an advance of any kind (Leary was a goof in SWIM's book too).

Reputation Comments on this post:

for not thinking LSD is a mutagen

[Lou1024]

In swims opinion, it simply brings your level of awareness to the present moment. All those thoughts you have when you zone out are now present and ready to be analyzed to the fullest extent.

[cra$h]

it's like a microscope for your self. Youtube Tim Leary, he'll explain in greater depth. But people think of ways to improve their lives, and don't put it in practice. LSD allows you to take that step, and adapt to a better, more philosophical mindset. You learn things you've known all along, if that makes any sense.

[Desertfox]

BadMan, you sound as if you're inferring you have a breadth of knowledge of nueroscience, can you offer any alternative theories that you care to share or elaborate on that help to explain the phenomenal mystery that is the psychedelic experience, or do you only offer unconstrucive opinions and critiques that are not justified. Science is very helpful in explaining the external world as well as the world of the mind, but i'm not aware of any of mckenna's or leary's outloooks that have been disproven by science.
If you know any please share, as swim is interested to hear.

[TheBadMan]

Originally Posted by Desertfox

or do you only offer unconstrucive opinions and critiques that are not justified.

You should always be able to back up any claim you make. I would also expect that whoever originally made the claim (that is, the one you may refer to, such as McKenna) would provide enough information to satisfy me that they tested their claim.
While everyone in science has the responsibility of criticizing and testing the hypotheses of their peers, that work of hypothesis testing also is shared with those initially making the claims. I am asking you to supply me with information. That is, I want to know why you think you know what you are saying is right, because a lot of it sounds like nonsense. If you can't provide more information or don't want to then just say so and we can agree to disagree.

I want to hear about intercalation and ESR.

You're the one who started with the implication that neuroscience is vacuous, so why not help me see your point of view by pointing me in the right direction? What would you point a skeptical scientist to if they were to say they doubted that you were right and would like you to help shed light on the situation? That's what I want. I hope you now understand why I have serious doubts. I don't believe everything that John Lilly ever wrote into a book.

[Desertfox]

Originally Posted by TheBadMan

You should always be able to back up any claim you make. I would also expect that whoever originally made the claim (that is, the one you may refer to, such as McKenna) would provide enough information to satisfy me that they tested their claim.
While everyone in science has the responsibility of criticizing and testing the hypotheses of their peers, that work of hypothesis testing also is shared with those initially making the claims. I am asking you to supply me with information. That is, I want to know why you think you know what you are saying is right, because a lot of it sounds like nonsense. If you can't provide more information or don't want to then just say so and we can agree to disagree.

I want to hear about intercalation and ESR.

You're the one who started with the implication that neuroscience is vacuous, so why not help me see your point of view by pointing me in the right direction? What would you point a skeptical scientist to if they were to say they doubted that you were right and would like you to help shed light on the situation? That's what I want. I hope you now understand why I have serious doubts. I don't believe everything that John Lilly ever wrote into a book.

SWIY must understand that difference between knowledge and wisdom, science can bring us all the knowledge in the world, but it's quite useless without the wisdom of how/when to apply that knowledge. Science can answer many questions, but not all of them. Some of the remaining unanswered mysteries of science is human consciousness and psychedelic expereriences. These are the domains Terence, Leary and the lot are trying to tackle and why it is so difficult for science to respect what they've accomplished because science wont ever be able to fully explain all things, you must approach these areas of interest with wisdom and personal experience. that is how SWIM knows terence was onto something b/c SWIM's personal experiences reinforce his hypothesis, that at the time were unable to be studied because of harsh political winds. only today are research opportunities arising to test whether terence was on to something or not. You saying they are crackpots leads swim to believe you haven't actually read any of their works in their entirety. SWIY cannot get a full understanding of the things SWIM is discussing without SWIY seeking personal knowledge and reading it for themselves. And a side note John Lilly was the biggest crackpot of them all (which isn't very much of a crackpot) and much of what he said and wrote must be taken with a grain of salt b/c a lot of the time SWIM doesn't think Lilly even knew what he was talking about (mostly later in life), but Mckenna's, Leary's and Robert Anton Wilson's works truly inspire and their intention wasn't really to lay out a brand new scientific theory but to meld science with the mythology and to hopefully save someone's soul from the depths of stupidity and get them thinking for themselves. These men questioned their own sanity(which may be the difference btwn them and Lilly) and knew of how far out there their ideas were gonna come off as but the fact that they had the bravery to release their books anyways shows these particular hairless apes believed in their ideas. SWIM doesn't think any of them had the intention of explaining reality and the world in general and knew their was certain aspects of their ideas that didn't work but that what was great about them, they were open minded individuals and left it to the future to build upon their ideas and refine them. And remember terence released the invisible landscape in 1975 and in it hypothesized about the upcoming acceleration of technology and the holographic(fractal) model of the universe, also about DNA operating with certain holographic mechanisms, all before they were shown to have validity in science and now can be backed by experience and experiments. Alduos Huxley and Alfred north Whitehead influenced alot of terence's work as he also wrote about the upcoming accretion of technology well before their times.

You wont be able to understand Terence's theories by reading his Wiki page or by my short synposis of his ideas you must seek the knowledge yourself and open a book. the truth is out their, but its hidden from those that don't care to seek it.

And in responce to your post, SWIM makes no claims but only offers helpful information that helped him on his own personal journies. if these ideas SWIM talked about interested you, please read The Invisible Landscape, SWIM isn't gonna transcribe the whole book for you or anyhting. If you purchase it you are supporting an ethnobotanical garden in Hawaii that Terence started before he died and is kept up by his ex-wife. Its like a museum of drugs, a resevoir for rare psychoactive plants.

Or check out this interview with Terence's brother Dennis from reality sandwich...
hxxp://realitysandwich.com/interview_dennis_mckenna

Desertfox added 24 Minutes and 27 Seconds later...

Originally Posted by thebadman

While I do think that it is important to criticize any science which might be able to address a problem you are interested in, I also think that just criticizing the best approach and offering no alternative leaves a vacuum of ignorance.

SWIM was reading our past posts on this thread and noticed SWIY misinterpreted what SWIM said in regards to Neuroscience.

Originally Posted by desertfox

It is already conformed that electric pulses can affect consciousness as stated by the post above, but as also stated much of neuroscience is speculative and only today is the technology starting to become available to us to test the many theories floating around out there

SWIM was not attacking neuroscience but simply reiterating that neuroscience has only had so much advancement due to the co-advancement of technology, and that in the past neuroscience could only be speculative with no real way to test its many theories because the technology did not exist to do so. Now it does and the theories of neuroscience can know be test. SWIM was going to be behavioural neurscience major in college but chose instead to be an chemistry major due to personal interest. Don't get SWIM wrong, he has respect for nueroscience in general and appreciates the knowledge it brings to humanity. Just because someone reads mckenna or leary doens't mean they denounce science.

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

^^ Humans invent concepts such as value, morality and purpose. These concepts do not "exist" in the "real" world in any sense other than that the exist as physical electrical signals in our brain. Inventing a concept which doesn't refer to anything in reality, and then claiming it is a shortcoming of science (the study of reality) that it can not explain it seems silly to me.

Of course, science can not (yet, perhaps) explain consciousness and so if anyone wants to try to explain it, they have to speculate and I feel that the whole "theoretical psychology" subject which people like the ones you mention dabble in was created to fill that void, just as people used to turn to God before we had the theory of evolution. Regardless, there can be no certainty and while it may be interesting and even romantic to spend time speculating about consciousness, in the end it doesn't really matter because you have not gained any knowledge. If, however, your goal was to improve yourself, become more "in touch" with your mind or whatever, you may indeed gain a lot. There is indubitably an ontological difference between concepts such as heat, fluidity, density and purpose, value, morality.

Whereof we cannot speak, we must remain silent.

Reputation Comments on this post:

I liked your point about "humans invented cpncepts such as.."

[Desertfox]

Originally Posted by Joe-(5-HTP)

^^ Humans invent concepts such as value, morality and purpose. These concepts do not "exist" in the "real" world in any sense other than that the exist as physical electrical signals in our brain. Inventing a concept which doesn't refer to anything in reality, and then claiming it is a shortcoming of science (the study of reality) that it can not explain it seems silly to me.

Silly indeed.SWIM was trying to stress that science will not and will never have all the answers. The only real wisdom is in knowing that you will never know anything. SWIM believes his boy Socrates said that. The universe is in flux and something that is true one moment isn't necessarily true the next, and if someone were to attain knowldege or become knowledgeable of something, does not mean this person's knowledge will be helpful or useful in anyway in the future, a future where that civilization has advanced that that knowledge is now out of date and provides no application in the contexts that the civilization is living under. whats true knowledge one moment can become seen as silly attempt at trying to explain something the next

[TheBadMan]

Originally Posted by Desertfox

The only real wisdom is in knowing that you will never know anything.

That's not wisdom. It is a self-contradictory statement.

I am not sure what you are getting at with the distinction about knowledge and wisdom and how the epistemological distinction leads to a different approach in using that wisdom or knowledge. I know what knowledge I am interested in and most of what I'm asking about relates to science. I suppose I am less interested in areas of inquiry which science cannot investigate and I suspect that we may disagree of just what science may or may not know about.

If you can't address my questions then I'm not that interested. I sort of suspected when I started this that asking for evidence would end up being a fruitless task (meaning that I thought the claims were based on nothing and hence were meaningless mumbo jumbo).

[metaljuana]

Originally Posted by Joe-(5-HTP)

^^ Humans invent concepts such as value, morality and purpose. These concepts do not "exist" in the "real" world in any sense other than that the exist as physical electrical signals in our brain. Inventing a concept which doesn't refer to anything in reality, and then claiming it is a shortcoming of science (the study of reality) that it can not explain it seems silly to me.

Of course, science can not (yet, perhaps) explain consciousness and so if anyone wants to try to explain it, they have to speculate and I feel that the whole "theoretical psychology" subject which people like the ones you mention dabble in was created to fill that void, just as people used to turn to God before we had the theory of evolution. Regardless, there can be no certainty and while it may be interesting and even romantic to spend time speculating about consciousness, in the end it doesn't really matter because you have not gained any knowledge. If, however, your goal was to improve yourself, become more "in touch" with your mind or whatever, you may indeed gain a lot. There is indubitably an ontological difference between concepts such as heat, fluidity, density and purpose, value, morality.

Whereof we cannot speak, we must remain silent.

You have the same beliefs I do. It is actually an ideology called nihilism, which I believe was founded under the influence of LSD from what I have read somewhere, but don't take me serious 100%.

metaljuana added 1 Minutes and 48 Seconds later...

Originally Posted by TheBadMan

That's not wisdom. It is a self-contradictory statement.

I am not sure what you are getting at with the distinction about knowledge and wisdom and how the epistemological distinction leads to a different approach in using that wisdom or knowledge. I know what knowledge I am interested in and most of what I'm asking about relates to science. I suppose I am less interested in areas of inquiry which science cannot investigate and I suspect that we may disagree of just what science may or may not know about.

If you can't address my questions then I'm not that interested. I sort of suspected when I started this that asking for evidence would end up being a fruitless task (meaning that I thought the claims were based on nothing and hence were meaningless mumbo jumbo).

What he means is that you will never know the full truth about something, or cannot be so sure about it, even things about yourself. It is not too self contradicting.

[Desertfox]

Originally Posted by TheBadMan

That's not wisdom. It is a self-contradictory statement.

I am not sure what you are getting at with the distinction about knowledge and wisdom and how the epistemological distinction leads to a different approach in using that wisdom or knowledge. I know what knowledge I am interested in and most of what I'm asking about relates to science. I suppose I am less interested in areas of inquiry which science cannot investigate and I suspect that we may disagree of just what science may or may not know about.

If you can't address my questions then I'm not that interested. I sort of suspected when I started this that asking for evidence would end up being a fruitless task (meaning that I thought the claims were based on nothing and hence were meaningless mumbo jumbo).

SWIM answered everything SWIY asked about or commented about, if SWIY just doesn't want to understand what SWIM is telling you then this is pointless. If SWIY is gonna take what ever he wants from what SWIM writes and say SWIM is not answering you, then this is pointless. SWIM responded(thought he did) with everything you inquired about,SWIM doens't know nhow to answer you further. SWIM is not going to do all the research for you, if SWIM wants to learn then SWIM must seek the knowledge himself. Simply use the internet that you are already actively using to look up the current theories on the fractal nature of the universe, much of the specific interactions of the psychedelic molecules and the mind(which is what this thread is all about) is simply not known has not been studied since psychedelics were made illegal in 1970 so that evidence simply doesn't exist. SWIM has devoted his life to studying these phenomenas and hoping in the near future that strong desire for ignorance has subsided and SWIM is actually able to bring you true evidence of these interactions through research.

[Synchronium]

Originally Posted by Desertfox

how the psychedelics intercalate with our DNA

Originally Posted by Desertfox

The molecules sort of get locked in a harmony through their Electron Spin Resonances, magnetic and sound waves, this sends the psychedelics cascading down our DNA, inside our neuronal cells, and giving us a visual light show of information appearing before our eyes. Our consciousness may be simply the interaction of the magnetic vacuums inside the particles inside our heads, and the frequency the psychedelics hit is just so that we get the 'altered perception' by altering with the magnetic interactions in the cerebral cortex.

100% Horse shit.

Drug action is all down to receptor theory. I'd link you to the Wikipedia article, but I can't post links yet. I suggest you check it out.

In no way would a psychedelic (a classification based on their effects, not chemical structure) intercalate with your DNA or whatever, just like no other drug does (unless of course we're talking about nuclear receptors for stuff like steroids where gene transcription is altered, but that's still far from what you suggest). The only thing "messing with your DNA" will accomplish is the up- or downregulation of the proteins it encodes - ie the same non-magical boring proteins that also don't interact with psychedelics in the way you suggest.

If I were a 5-HT receptor, I'd feel under appreciated. Receptor systems are powerful things, and hold the answers to everything, even if we don't know them all.

Points for speculating though. If no one had any ideas, right or wrong, we'd never get anywhere!

Reputation Comments on this post:

	thanks thats good information, further increasing my and everyone elses knowledge
	Very good point. Definitely shot down the DNA theory and proved how no one is sure about psychology.

[Desertfox]

What SWIM said in his posts does not exclude the role of receptors, its just an idea of what may be happening in order to explain the more strange experiences that have occurred to humans on psychedelics. And SWIM knows the word 'intercalate' has many technical connotations but swim used in because he lacked a better word to describe the action. SWIM was quickly paraphrasing Terence Mckenna's ideas, SWIM wasn't trying to recount the 200 some pages it takes to tell the whole process. Its been a long time since he's read the book and this was strictly from SWIM's memory

[TheBadMan]

Originally Posted by Desertfox

SWIM answered everything SWIY asked about or commented about.

I suppose you mean this?
". . . SWIM makes no claims but only offers helpful information that helped him on his own personal journies."

SWIM has devoted his life to studying these phenomenas and hoping in the near future that strong desire for ignorance has subsided and SWIM is actually able to bring you true evidence of these interactions through research.

Please let me know if that day ever comes, but I don't think it will because I think you're wrong, but I'm often surprised by nature.

[Desertfox]

The intercalation of DNA does not happen with every psychedelic, but with a combination of MAOI, and DMT or psilocybin. SWIM has had experiences also with LSD that makes him think LSD is capable of a similar action by itself. SWIM is aware of Psychedelics agonizing/antagonizing 5-HT receptors and how there intercations are more complex than other drugs that either antagonize or agonize serotonin and dopamine, but swim also thinks there are some things that are happening that have not been researched, such as the possible connection of low latent inhibition in the neurons when a psychedelic is ingested, leading to a flow of creativity, or stream of consciousness type experiences. SWIM is just pointing out that the receptor theory is not complete and any scientist SWIM has heard discuss it openly admits it does not explain the phenomenon fully. Again the intercalation theory is only applicable to the more bizarre experiences that are considered 'Shaman Initiations' not just your normal everyday trip, whatever that means.

[Synchronium]

Ok... *takes a deep breath*.

Originally Posted by Desertfox

The intercalation of DNA does not happen with every psychedelic, but with a combination of MAOI, and DMT or psilocybin.

You present this as fact, not as your own opinion, so let's see at least one paper in a respectable medical science journal to back up this point. I fail to see how any compound based on the 3-substituted indole structure of 5-ht is able to intercalate with DNA, regardless of the presence of an MAOI.

If you can prove me wrong, I eagerly await your doing so.

Originally Posted by Desertfox

SWIM has had experiences also with LSD that makes him think LSD is capable of a similar action by itself.

How, exactly, could your subjective experience with a substance lead you to infer that it intercalates with your DNA? Have you sampled some ethidium bromide, for example, that will intercalate with your DNA? No? Then how can you know what this supposed phenominon feels like?

It feels like you're clutching at pseudoscientific straws, which some of the less scientifically minded people here may take as fact.

Originally Posted by Desertfox

the possible connection of low latent inhibition in the neurons when a psychedelic is ingested, leading to a flow of creativity, or stream of consciousness type experiences. SWIM is just pointing out that the receptor theory is not complete

So, now we're talking about neural networks and how they interact. And guess what - communication betwixt each node of the network happens though presynaptic release of neurotransmitter and postsynaptic receptors binding those transmitters and transducing the signal. In no way does LLI + Creativity undermine receptor theory.

NB, that doesn't include things like volume transmission, retrograde signalling, glial involvement, etc, but you can find out more about that elsewhere. I'd suggest buying a copy of Neuroscience: Exploring The Brain by Bear, Connors & Paradiso.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Fantastic. Please continue this discussion. His misleading abuse of neuroscientific words need be corrected. Well done. ...
	great answer to the pseudoscientific post
	thanks for the book recommendation

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

Originally Posted by Desertfox

The intercalation of DNA does not happen with every psychedelic, but with a combination of MAOI, and DMT or psilocybin. SWIM has had experiences also with LSD that makes him think LSD is capable of a similar action by itself. .

Swim once had an LSD experience in which he came to understand that LSD works because it clearly combines with the bile in your gall bladder which then goes rampaging down your intestine and gets absorbed into your blood stream and then forms large crystals which go in front of your eyes and make you hallucinate: It is because there are small crystals in your eyes! swim is sure of this because he felt it happening ! wooooo0o0o LSD gives such insights !

But seriously.. wtf?

Reputation Comments on this post:

Sticking up for science! Woo!

[Jatelka]

You know what? LSD does NOT expand consciousness. Nothing expands consciousness other than ones (monkey) self.

LSD just removes logical boundaries, and enables peeps to whiffle

Monkeys have to accept that it aint the drugs, but themselves that change things

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

Originally Posted by Jatelka

You know what? LSD does NOT expand consciousness. Nothing expands consciousness other than ones (monkey) self.

LSD just removes logical boundaries, and enables peeps to whiffle

Monkeys have to accept that it aint the drugs, but themselves that change things

and yet what exactly is "I" ? Is a person prior to taking LSD the same "I" as it is after ingesting? I think yes in some ways but no in others. Bear with me...

Indubitably: LSD does not lead to a display, understanding or capability which was not there in the first place but the very act of bringing, or in some cases, forcing of these things to the surface is itself a capability which the person did not have prior to ingestion.

I think a person can be defined by what they choose to suppress and what they choose to let out. Certainly, if LSD causes these suppressed things to surface then they will probably change and everything that characterises their change will be a reflection of their character but nevertheless it is LSD which caused the uncharacteristic act: the act of releasing things which had previously been repressed, the removal of "logical boundaries" or whatever.

I think that while it is true that LSD does not put anything there that wasn't there already, I think that misses the point. What LSD does is change our personal balance between, perhaps our consciousness and our unconsciousness, perhaps between what we suppress and what we choose to release, vent, our own personal balance of happiness, sadness... Ultimately your mental balance between what you value as good and what you value as bad.

From this perspective, it easy to see that in the hands of a person who understands themselves and understands their own particular balance LSD can be used for consciousness expanding. Perhaps consciousness expansion is that existential concept of creating your own purpose, and perhaps understanding and even choosing/changing your mental balance. It is also easy to see how people who do not quite understand or even repress their understanding of themselves can be negatively affected by LSD.

Of course, perhaps it the mind is not about balance and perhaps, therefore, LSD has nothing to do with balance. who knows !

[Desertfox]

SWIM reiterates that he is not restating the theory correctly and was just from a faded memory of what was written in Terence's books. SWIM was just briefly stating some of the ideas, and if they interest you or you see something wrong with what SWIM said, see for yourself and please correct SWIM. SWIM agrees with Jatelka that ultimately the molecules are catalysts for the experiences, not the source, as some people think. and when swim said

Originally Posted by Desertfox

The intercalation of DNA does not happen with every psychedelic, but with a combination of MAOI, and DMT or psilocybin. SWIM has had experiences also with LSD that makes him think LSD is capable of a similar action by itself.

SWIM only was referring to the certain experience Terence Mckenna went through in La Chorrera, not the specific neuronal action of the drug that causes your 'normal' psychedelic trip. And swim was simply saying that based off a personal experience, he feels that LSD can make happen what happened to Terence on that fateful day, however that thing happens. Terence just tried his best to give a real world explanation to the phenomenon, please read into the experience more, and hopefully you'll understand what swim is saying.

[Synchronium]

Desertfox:

Everyone sees Terence Mckenna as some kind of scientific hero, but he is NOT a respected neuroscientist. No one who is would give any weight to his theories because they simply don't make sense.

Another drug that intercalates with your DNA is thalidomide. We all know what happened with that, right?

In all seriousness, read that book. You'll learn FAR more from reading and understanding a neuroscience/pharmacology text book than listening to some old man with nothing relevant to offer. This isn't learning in the boring sense of the word. I find this stuff fascinating - not only the current theories on how the brain works, but also understanding the elegant experiments that are used to prove these kind of things.

I think if you do read that book, you'll uncover a whole new appreciation for your brain and just what it's capable of doing. This kind of personal, contemplative journey will open up your mind far more than any drug.