The message of the mushroom, by Terrence Mckenna

[ughaibu]

In that case, why do cows not evolve into spiritually whatever non-cows?

[ughaibu]

"Herbivores do not graze near their own dung; therefore, the spores must be propelled beyond this "zone of repugnance." Thus, the spores or spore masses are relatively large and heavy. In the Zygomycete Pilobolus, for instance, the entire sporangium is discharged as a unit (Fig. 2). In the bird's nest fungus, Cyathus stercoreus, the peridioles (the "eggs") containing many spores are violently discharged when a raindrop hits the peridium (the "nest"). The spores/masses, because of their weight, do not remain in the air long, but follow a parabolic trajectory landing on nearby grass without the aid of air currents. The sporangium and sporangiophore of Pilobolus measure about 0.5-1.0 cm, yet the sporangium has been propelled as much as 1.8 m vertically and 2.1 m horizontally."

From: http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/CT/no_place_like_dung.html

[Tarantism]

im actually sceptical abou that one myself, Craig. as stated in your post, there are reasonable arguments for both sides. a statement that a 1960's pregressive rock band made: we are all just soft machines. i think that was a refrence to Penrose, or at least a certain refrence to the human body.

 

to say that our bodies are governed by certain proesses, be them quantom mechanical or biological, would basically put the lockdown on any notion of free will. everything is the result of a series of possible outcomes, and these possibilities are determined by that which came before. this is deterministic science.

 

it makes sense, of course, to assume either side of the argument. to say that we have some kind of choice, or option, to say that our "opinion" matters in the outcome of our lives, is a nice thought. its comforting to think that perhaps we DO have some kind of say. unfortunitly this is probably not the case, as we can see with other natural and bioorgranic organisms, they do according to what their instinct tells us. well, our senses and instinct are born through memory....not memory as you or me may perhaps percieve it, becuase these are not memories of our own lives, but rather memories passed through genes. a kind of "collective memory"...i do not mean this in the sense of a universal mind, mind you (haha), but rather one that is passed down through breeding treees. some breeding pools are more adept than others, its all balances upon whether or not the past members of the pool learned from their mistakes.

 

now, its quite the same with humans, only we have another aspect to the way we behave. we have the ability to study and learn from what other humans have done, again, not becuase of some "collective consciousness", but becuase we can literally STUDY other people. we can listen to advise, watch the theories played out in live action, we can read history books and learn in science classes...we sometimes even pit ourselves in direct physical competition, for a short term goal of seceeding in the match, and to any smart competetor, for the long term goal of learning how to better play next time.

 

in short, we are all the makeup of our genes, family memories, and everyone we have ever met in our life.

 

so, what room is there for improvisation?

[Tarantism]

eek i hope i answered the question!

[Tarantism]

there certainly isnt any doubt that quantum mechanics is simply a catylist in our efforts to describe this universe taht we live, breathe, walk and exist in. that goes both ways, because it could be involved in our being, it could not, but either way it certainly checks out as accurate.

 

that is assuming that he human mind evolved in a ratinal way. we could be totally and utterly completely off.

 

ah, but we are certainly connected to this universe, just like any other conscious beings in our universe undoubtadly are. so, why is it that it is so unraesonable to consider ourselves and all else the footsoldiers of a conscious universe?

[Tarantism]

as a galaxy who claimed to be god once told bender....

 

"the best way to do something is to make it appear as if you havent done anything at all."

[Queso]

In that case, why do cows not evolve into spiritually whatever non-cows?

 

Could be the hooves, could be the brain size, could be the 4 stomaches

 

:)

 

who knows?

[CraigD]

to say that our bodies are governed by certain proesses, be them quantom mechanical or biological, would basically put the lockdown on any notion of free will. everything is the result of a series of possible outcomes, and these possibilities are determined by that which came before. this is deterministic science.

What “quantum consciousness” proponents (such as Penrose) are getting at is that, if consciousness is a non-algorithmic, quantum phenomon, then “quantum weirdness” such as the uncertainty principle can be considered a basis for free will – the “God throwing dice” in which Einstein so famously didn’t believe.

 

Personally, I don’t think this is necessary. My personal conception of free will is a pragmatic one – even if our behavior is completely deterministic, we practically have free will if no other entity can predict our behavior with sufficiently accuracy to gain advantage. If no one can know what you’ll do next, your choice of what you do next can’t reasonably be attributed to anyone but you.

[Tarantism]

ah ok craig, i think that we can agree there. everything that happens is inevitable, but only after it happens. otherwise its just "god throwing dice". nothing can sit "above" the universe and observe it from an outside perspective, therefore i cannot tell you what you are going to do in the next five minutes, but whatever you do end up doing was going to happen weather i predicted it or not.

[Tarantism]

youre right, too, becuase it can completely be attributed to you. we are all resposible for our own actions, positive or negative outcomes regardless.

 

the real question now becomes: what are YOU?

[DarkColoredLight]

I think I might of figured it out. The stoned ape theory and why is holds water. Apes do not know what love is, they only know lust. Upon being stoned for quite some time they inadvertanly learned what love is. I only have personal experience to back this up because one fine psylocybin night I found love. It wasn't true love, but it set me on the path to find true love. And I think that's what happened to those apes.

 

Anyone with me on this?

[Queso]

I definitely am.

Though I will never eat another mushroom,

their essence is embedded.

[Tarantism]

I think I might of figured it out. The stoned ape theory and why is holds water. Apes do not know what love is, they only know lust. Upon being stoned for quite some time they inadvertanly learned what love is. I only have personal experience to back this up because one fine psylocybin night I found love. It wasn't true love, but it set me on the path to find true love. And I think that's what happened to those apes.

 

Anyone with me on this?

good point. i might reword it for my personal uses by saying that psycehdelics allowed me to really see the beauty in life, existance, being and nature. they turn life into a mozaic, shifiting the previous opinion of it being a play.

 

of course, it is what you make of it.

 

drugs are bad!,

tarantism

[Phileas Fogg]

Why, exactly, is this in the Biology Forum?

 

Mushrooms speaking to you should go to Strange Claims, if it should go anywhere at all.

yeah.. it's true some natural chemicals have effect on human brain, and it could be discussed, allthough I don't see it so interesting. Well, might be medical, toxic or hallucinogenic effect.

 

WHAT INTERESTS me, is why modern people are so interested in drugging themselves? What is this babble about "psychedely", about "altered states of consciousness", - Timothy Leary and hippie-things.

 

I can not see that drugs - whether natural or artificial made, could have a benevolent effect on humans. What I rather see, is that they make their user dependent, they destroy the personality, or make it weaker. Some drugs, like crack, destroys the nervous system for the rest of life. Mushroom-toxins destroy the liver, and the kidneys, I can not see them anything but harmful.

 

In India, I've seen a chicken eating leaves from marijuana plant, but what does it prove? That animals can get addicted, but so what? Where is the message?

[neuroflux]

I*ve been re reading this thread over again, and it is quite fascinating, I like the intelligence around here.

Phileas Frog you lump Drugs together in a very vauge post.

For starters all drugs are not Addicitve. Psilocyin does not destroy the liver.

Humans have been using altered states for as long as we can find remnants of human civilization.

As an example:

 

"The oldest trays and tubes known from all of South America are those excavated by Junius Bird and Frederick Engel on the north and central coasts of Peru and dated circa 1200 BC. The presence of these implements in an archaeological setting is a clear indication of the use of psychoactive snuffs. Twentieth-century snuffing practices have been documented among numerous groups of the Amazon basin.

 

The botanical identity and the chemical makeup of archaeological snuff powders have only been recently determined. Until now the evidence has largely consisted of descriptions by early European chroniclers and comparisons between archaeological artifacts and those from the Amazon collected within the last two hundred years. Two samples of archaeological snuff powders found in tomb #112 of the pre-Hispanic site known as Solcor 3 in San Pedro de Atacama were submitted to chemical analysis. The site has been dated by a series of seven radiocarbon dates and six ceramic samples dated by thermoluminescence. The dates range from 320 to 910 AD. The approximate date of tomb #112 is 780 AD, as determined by radiocarbon dating and comparisons with artifacts found in other dated tombs. The mummy bundle of tomb #112 had two snuffing kits inside multicolored textile bags, each located at shoulder height on the left and right sides of the body. Each bag held a rectangular snuff tray, a simple snuffing tube, two leather pouches containing the snuff powder, and a small spoon.

 

The analysis demonstrated the presence of the psychoactive alkaloids dimethyltryptamine (DMT), 5-methoxydimethyltryptamine, and 5-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyltryptamine (bufotenine) in both snuff samples."

taken from this link:

http://www.stlawu.edu/gallery/mtorres.htm

 

I believe this thread is about mushrooms and conciousness not CRACK. or anything near it.

As far as Drugs destroying the personality. I believe that Such drugs as Crystal Meth,Crack,Pills, and if taken abusibly, MDMA will and can make you dependant and destroy your nervous system to the point of no return.

 

Yet, the human urge to alter our Egos goes back Way back.

The interesting thing about DMT, and Psilocybin is its historical useage, and its use as a spiritual Door into unseen worlds.

I am 29 and have been taking entheogens for more than ten years now.

The urge to take the shamanic path, and the notion that there is more to reality than meets the eye started at an early age. Although i wansnt born into a Shamanic family, in fact i was born into a very strict Jehovahs Wittness family. I left at the tender age of 13 to find myself. I didnt have mushrooms growing around me. The area was barren of them. i wasnt introduced to DMT till i was well on my way into my manhood. Fo good reason i suspect.

What i did have access to was ery potent LSD. Which i believe was sent herer from on high to balance the destructive nature of the times. Albert Hoffmann who was the discover of LSD just turned 100 years old.

Where am i going with this?

Well, even from the earliest report in the Christian Bible, we ate of the Tree of Knowledge.

It is in us to have a relationship with the plant Queendom. We have moved away from her. And it is time to return to her.

And in the veins of her plants flows the Tryptamines, It is in that bush, in that vine, over there in that toad, in all mammalian brains and blood.

And i feel strongly that with the evidence of archeology, the history Religous thought, that as Terrence says we must have a Archaic Revival, a return to the times when we were a partnership society NOT a dominator society.

Peace

NF

[InfiniteNow]

Apes do not know what love is, they only know lust. ... I only have personal experience to back this up...Anyone with me on this?

I appreciate you saying that you only have personal experience to back this up, but I take serious issue with this. "Apes do not know what love is?" If they don't, then none of us do.

 

It's hard enough to define and quantify love, let alone list things that do and do not experience it.

 

 

Cheers. :lightning

[Phileas Fogg]

And i feel strongly that with the evidence of archeology, the history Religous thought, that as Terrence says we must have a Archaic Revival, a return to the times when we were a partnership society NOT a dominator society.

Peace

NF

Yes. So many seekers have used drugs in this spiritual sense: Castaneda, Bill Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg, Huxley, Leary. And I've read their books. Some of them I've enjoyed, and some I enjoy still.

 

I think these are great seekers, and I respect them as such. In real life, I met people who were using psilocybin, and they were talking that "some drugs are like this, and other drugs are like this", that there are "good" and "bad" drugs; and yes I read some pharmaseutical books and histories of hallucinogens.

 

The concrete, real-life experience I have, says that drugs weaken the personality. I've seen people who say that psilocybin-mushrooms ruined their liver. And I've seen that addicts can not stay in psilosybin/good drugs, but in the end use what they get. I've seen that people become so fanatic about hallusinogens, that you can not talk with them normally; you can not have contact with them. They are not in higher dimensions of awareness, they are just numb.

 

At the moment I am a teetotaller.

 

Today I thought that I am too severe on this. I thought of Huxley; I think he would never had experienced his "visio dei angelica", his "perfect mercy" if it wasnt drugs. I just think it's not good.

 

I mean - I never had to do this. I felt that the mystical states were there. I didn't need drugs. I never had any need for them. I had fantasies, I experienced visions, and dreams, and ecstacies in normal life; I didn't even had to seek them; they came. I don't know if this proves anything; one mad eccentric writing nonsense about his "experiences", - hah!

 

What I mean, is that if you really want a mystical experience, it will come. No rituals, or prayers, or chemicals are necessary. You do not need priests or churches. I don't even believe you need faith.

 

The problem, with humans, is that they never want a mystical experience. They just say, they want it. But in their subconscious, in their hearts they want that somebody with Authority comes, and explains how things are. They want that the Authority Figure is on their side, and likes them. Then they begin a war against such people, who they imagine are not liked by this Authority Figure. I think this is the problem, about drugs, I don't understand why someone might think of using them, and why.

 

Then Drugs will Dominate you, I think this is what the addicts want. This kind of talk of "Archaic Revival, a return to the times when we were a partnership society NOT a dominator society", I think it's self-deception. It's an euphemism. What people REALLY want, when they say they wish to be free drom "domination", is that they want to be dominated by someone or something. Perhaps they want just more extreme domination. :lightning

 

I have never seen a person, in my life, who would not want to find a Perfect Authority Figure, and submit to Him. ( it's always a man, in the end)