pole553

@NOTintoxicated Dude it's pointless, Leo's head is so far up his own arse it would require the latest version, stainless steel retractors to even begin considering its removal

@This Exactly this, sounds like I've heard this somewehere before I've been observing Leo for a few months now, and the guy has a clear narcissistic complex he reflects on this forum. I don't think he means harm, he's actually done a lot of good, but hiding his clearly dangerous views behind a shitty youtube disclaimer to cover his ass just screams hipocrisy. There's no sincerity, there's no compassion to him if there's an alternate view to be explored. Now y'all can claim I'm not 'woke' enough, but how do you know anything about my POV? What if I've done 5meo hundreds of times and simply taken out other conclusions? Leo implants an idea, an expectation of what the experience should be, which gently attentuates your own experience, where you seek a confirmation bias of what Holy Man Leo said is true. The 'truth' I suspect is true is Leo, the poor chap, has unresolved trauma, as can be seen through his limited interactions with others, on videos (PUA - yeah, sure, he just screams public confidence) and this whole shenanigan conundrum of spirituality is one of the greatest examples of spiritual bypassing I've ever seen to avoid his problems or gain attention. Plus its a damn good business model

@Bogdan Lad I'm perfectly open, Leo misuses terms to assume superiority and refuses to acknowledge anything but his 'perfect purist' view which has nothing to do with reality

@Leo Gura The irony and lack of self-awareness in your post is frankly speaking hilarious. Good retort, sounds smart without actually saying anything. I now get why you don't debate. Because your argumentation is poor, you automatically assume a position of authority while not replying to anything. Shit, that requires skill

@Leo Gura It's not a label I invented, it's a term you used upon which I'm correcting you, thus the necessity of proof lies on you bud. The whole statement is just absurdly false. Neurotransmitter, by definition, implies something that is pre-synthesized and released by a neuron to continue endogenous signalling. Psychedelics are not neurotransmitters, just like ECT, exogenous application of neuromodulators or a simple electrode down your cortex does not imply simplicity and causality of utilization. ' Just like it makes no difference when you eat food whether the chemicals in the food are endogenous.' That statement makes sense, how else would you consume food if not through exogenous chemicals, that is the whole point of eating, dude. What are you comparing food to in this twisted logic? Hold up just a second, you just implied heavy metal levels to levels of consciousness. That has naught to do with 'brain function' as a whole; while metal level was found correlated with levels of irritability and some cognitive disfunction, the risk levels are relatively insignificant comparing to other risk factors as a whole. On top of that, what is your claim of 'heavy metal poisoning' even correlating with? Dude was talking about drug clarity, where you compared brain as a complexion of drugs, and implied some other substances affect that. So what determines the normal homeostasis, if by your definition, any application of an exogenous substance is normal? The entirety of your argument falls apart, mate

You've compared exogenous drugs to an endogenous compilation, and how they draw distinct similarities, as 'drugs are just chemicals within our brains, bro'. Which is simply untrue. Our bodies are not full of drugs, the term implies exogenous application. I'm still waiting for any explanation of the heavy metal claim

It's okay, we all make mistakes every day Come on man, rest of my logic is based on your highly illogical reply based on a highly illogical understanding of neurological chemical homeostasis and your metaphysical misinterpretation of such. Chemicals can be applied anywhere, they do not mean such harmonious application because they're all 'drugs' as you imply. The least we can do is talk about your initial claim, instead of your egoic discounting when someone calls you out on it, which is something you tend to do more oft than not nowadays. Also, lastly, care to back up your claims of heavy metals influencing consciousness in any way? If consciousness is primal to brain matter anyway, what does it matter? I'm just curious with the source that instigated the initial claim, is all

I don't doubt you've gained personal insight, that is what psychedelics are for, and they're astounding in the exploration of the dreamworld of your mind. And they are beautiful in their own right. Yet after extensive use, one comes to realize they present an obstacle in themselves. And the pursuit is what continues the futility of dissatisfaction

Ah I expected this Hello friend Care to talk this out instead of laughing out loud? Leo is using unsubstantial scientific claims, while berating those same scientific ideas if anyone else uses them against him

Lad as a long term neuroscientist you're spouting bullshit. (Btw what does that have to do with microbiology which is the study of microorganism influence on macroorganisms, such as us? That metaphor is worthless in itself. Soup of chemicals.. Let's start off with that claim. We're talking about endogenously synthesized substances, not drugs, that implies exogenous introduction - similarly, just because receptor function is similar does not imply commonality of use. Just because a plant needs water to function does not mean you flooding it with a continuous stream of hydration will result in sustenance. That's a fool's logic and stop using condescending claims to sound smart if it is pure bullshit in sheep's clothing.

How do you know you experience the Truth and not your mind's interpretation of what truth is? Neuroscience showed psychedelics acting akin to dream-states through theta wave induction - how does one know this isn't the entire effect and our primate brain is tricked by it? Isn't claiming to know the Truth a bit pedantic considering the scope of human experience?