Carl-Richard

@Leo Gura

People who claim it has zero evidence have 1. not read any studies on it, 2. dismissed it based on their gut instinct, or 3. denied the validity of any evidence because of the incommensurability of different scientific paradigms (again, the curse of materalism). https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance 30:16 - addresses the testability question

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page "RationalWiki is a wiki whose stated goals are to analyze and refute pseudoscience and the anti-science movement, document "crank" ideas, explore conspiracy theories, authoritarianism, and fundamentalism, and analyze how these subjects are handled in the media.[7]" -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RationalWiki Notice how there is no metaphysics portal

Materialism isn't the only game in town.

I never thought I would say this, but ...

It's a cool model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fire-retardant_materials Don't stay inside your house.

@Jodistrict Buckley is the voice of sophistry.

If I just claimed that your entire list is an attempt at squaring a hole, don't you think that you will do the same with my rebuttal?

Your examples are the epitome of forcing a square peg into a round hole.

https://integrallife.com/

The separate self is the illusion of separateness created through mental distinctions, and humans are very good at making those distinctions. If you're not making any distinctions; if you're not venturing outside to discover the world, you don't have to come back home again. The difference between humans and animals in that sense is that the animal is sleeping inside the home while the human returns awake (he had been sleepwalking while dreaming and then woke up in his bed).

Atleast something is happening, right?

I keep getting distracted by her god damn eyes

What is it?

To return to your true self, you must first have lived as a separate self

I believe this quote can help:

I often feel like a simple man when I say this, but we have a model for how alcohol works in our society, and putting the production/distribution issues aside, I don't see a big reason why it couldn't be emulated for most other drugs (and of course improved upon). Don't get me wrong though, the prospect of legal heroin scares me when I think about the amount of people I know who have drank so much alcohol to the point of spending the next 3 days dry heaving. If there is anything that shouldn't be emulated, it's the drinking culture of young people.

The funny part about keeping the production and distribution criminalized is that as long as you don't get caught, you have a totally unrestricted and unregulated market . I believe a lot of the social harm stems from exactly that extreme lack of restrictions, and that if you wanted to legalize it, you would naturally want to go in the direction of regulation.

I remember from a long time ago that he mentioned it explictly, and I thought it was on that podcast (I'm rewatching it right now), but regardless, he does build around that point during the podcast when he talks about arguments like "pharmacological determinism", which he gets into it at 0:12:45, 54:47 and 1:06:47. It's hard to find a definitive statement because he talks about so many different topics. He gives some anectdotes from his own use, like how he thinks that methamphetamine and normal amphetamine feels almost identical, how he tried heroin once and didn't like it (says that cannabis gives an arguably superior feeling of euphoria). Then he also talks about how all drug scare stories "is never the drug" (0:57:54). I don't even know if I would want businesses in charge of it, or atleast I would want heavy-heavy-heavy government regulations. The legalization argument that seems most persuasive outside the pharmacological debate is about getting the production and distribution out of the hands of the criminals. Whether or not leaving it in the hands of businesses is better, I don't know. You could say that I'm primarily in the camp of decriminalization, but I also have an idealistic view of some aspects of legalization; the efficacy of which I can't really substantiate. The pharmacological/social side of the debate is more about the hard/soft drug dichotomy (and so-called pharmacological determinism). The issue is where to draw the line on which drugs are too irresponsible to sell for recreational use. One can always bring up pharmacology statistics and dependence charts and argue either way, but I believe the most pressing argument against the significance of the dichotomy is to question which role drugs are playing in social harm after all: is it primarily a causal factor (of course it is to a great extent) or primarily a symptom of other issues, and to which degree does it warrant a certain solution? One can also question the state of alcohol and its relationship to social harm, and how despite it being on the top of that list, it's still legally sold everywhere. Either way, I don't use drugs (anymore), so I'm not too concerned personally one way or the other. I'm open to be persuaded either way

Hamilton Morris addresses this argument and calls it "pharmacological determinism": the person did "x" and had drugs in his system, therefore the drugs are mostly responsible. It often overly simplifies the problem. I think there are additional factors that are more responsible than the drug in question, which you can describe as "lifestyle" (being poor, desperate, mentally ill, unhealthy, socially neglected etc..). The question should be how much does legalization/criminalization impact that dynamic and is it significant? The problem is we don't know the answers because we haven't tried it out. The intuition is that legalization would just be adding fuel to that fire of vulnerable people with volatile and erratic social behavior; but firstly, we don't actually know that; and secondly, this also has to be seen in relation to the other benefits that legalization would bring.

2:29:00 There is apparently a drug that inhibits implicit racial bias, and it works on the adrenaline receptors, which essentially supports the claim that xenophobia, racism, and white nationalism is based on nothing but fear hahaha