Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Shrooms Make News

Last week’s news about a new study by Johns Hopkins University researchers, showing that psilocybin (‘Magic’) mushrooms offer positive spiritual/mental effects for more than a year, has certainly made things difficult for the mainstream media. So often an excuse to throw out negative or scare-mongering clichés, this particular study offered no such opportunity to news outlets. Check out this story, just to see a CNN anchor say people will be lining up to sign up for a shroom trip:

You’ll still roll your eyes at comments suggesting this is a “surprising” result, and the regular hippie/spaced out ‘humour’, but still a good step away from the ‘demonising’ of these substances, and moving more towards understanding and education.

You can download and read the actual study here: “Mystical-type experiences occasioned by psilocybin mediate the attribution of personal meaning and spiritual significance 14 months later” (PDF). Here’s the abstract:

Psilocybin has been used for centuries for religious purposes; however, little is known scientifically about its long-term effects. We previously reported the effects of a double-blind study evaluating the psychological effects of a high psilocybin dose. This report presents the 14-month follow-up and examines the relationship of the follow-up results to data obtained at screening and on drug session days. Participants were 36 hallucinogen-naïve adults reporting regular participation in religious/spiritual activities. Oral psilocybin (30 mg/70 kg) was administered on one of two or three sessions, with methylphenidate (40 mg/70 kg) administered on the other session(s). During sessions, volunteers were encouraged to close their eyes and direct their attention inward. At the 14-month follow-up, 58% and 67%, respectively, of volunteers rated the psilocybin-occasioned experience as being among the five most personally meaningful and among the five most spiritually significant experiences of their lives; 64% indicated that the experience increased well-being or life satisfaction; 58% met criteria for having had a ‘complete’ mystical experience. Correlation and regression analyses indicated a central role of the mystical experience assessed on the session day in the high ratings of personal meaning and spiritual significance at follow-up. Of the measures of personality, affect, quality of life and spirituality assessed across the study, only a scale measuring mystical experience showed a difference from screening. When administered under supportive conditions, psilocybin occasioned experiences similar to spontaneously occurring mystical experiences that, at 14-month follow-up, were considered by volunteers to be among the most personally meaningful and spiritually significant of their lives.

I’m not sure whether the results say more about the positive effects of psilocybin mushrooms, or the spiritual vacuum we live in these days…perhaps a combination of both.

On a related note, as I’ve mentioned previously, the next Daily Grail publication is a reprint of Paul Devereux’s amazing book detailing the history of entheogen use throughout world cultures, The Long Trip. Definitely one to look out for, I’ve really enjoyed putting this one together.

Editor
  1. Here’s the proof! Its all in our head!
    Well if ever there was a proof needed that spirituality and mysticism exists solely in the mind here it is! 🙂

    A simple introduction of the chemical psilocybin into our chemically operated brains causes many to have what they say is “to be among the most personally meaningful and spiritually significant of their lives.”

    Oh well…

    Cheers

    1. No…
      [quote=tihz_ho]Well if ever there was a proof needed that spirituality and mysticism exists solely in the mind here it is! 🙂

      A simple introduction of the chemical psilocybin into our chemically operated brains causes many to have what they say is “to be among the most personally meaningful and spiritually significant of their lives.”

      Oh well…

      Cheers[/quote]

      The simple action of changing the channel on your TV also makes a different show appear. Is that tiny news reader inside your TV?

      You may be right in your assumption. But your logic is flawed (and is perhaps the most fundamental mistake made by materialist-inclined thinkers).

      Kind regards,
      Greg
      ——————————————-
      You monkeys only think you’re running things

      1. But is it FOX?
        A TV is a device to receive electromagnetic waves of the tiny TV news reader and if we put a chemical in our brains to alter it we can hear a “spirit” news reader… ?

        So our brains are the same as a…TV…? You can “change” the “channel” by chemical means?

        So schizophrenic people are not imagining those voices in their heads, they’re real – “spiritual news readers” in fact! (Must be Fox! LOL)

        Sorry Greg, swing and a miss. 🙂

        Cheers

        1. different settings
          My TV has different settings. Channels, and sound volume and things like that.

          My car is very simple, it has Traction Control so I don’t spin the wheels too much. For this feature the only 2 settings are – ON, and OFF.

          Come to think of it, my TV has those 2 settings as well.

          —-
          The large print giveth,
          The small print taketh away.

        2. Err, no.
          [quote=tihz_ho]A TV is a device to receive electromagnetic waves of the tiny TV news reader and if we put a chemical in our brains to alter it we can hear a “spirit” news reader… ?

          So our brains are the same as a…TV…? You can “change” the “channel” by chemical means?[/quote]

          It’s an analogy…so no, not the “same”. But you’re getting the general idea. This is generally known as “T-theory” (transmission theory), which simply means that perhaps the brain does not originate consciousness, but instead receives it in some manner…a transmission.

          [quote]So schizophrenic people are not imagining those voices in their heads, they’re real – “spiritual news readers” in fact! (Must be Fox! LOL)[/quote]

          You’ve identified one of the possible problems with ‘T-theory’ (though over-simplifying the analogy and taking it absolutely literally is, of course, a coarse attempt at dismissing a fascinating thought-experiment through sarcasm. Randi would be proud of you.) Although, it does rely on a very limited idea of what consciousness transmission may be defined as, and further what ‘reality’ might actually be.

          Sticking with the simplistic analogy though: to use the TV model again, if something is broken inside the TV (brain), it may pick up static, or only pick up fragments of a channel, or pick up radio transmissions from Korean fishermen.

          [quote]
          Sorry Greg, swing and a miss. 🙂
          [/quote]

          Errr, no. Saying something doesn’t make it so, no matter what you may wish the outcome of a debate to be. There is quite a lot of in-depth debate about T-theory, by better thinkers than I. See the monolithic book Irreducible Mind for a good reference.

          Beyond T-theory, other possible models which could dispute your logic include the “reducing valve of the brain” theory. In this case, the psilocybin just expands the boundaries of perception and comprehension of the brain, to include things beyond the material world. The thinking behind this is that the brain serves to shut out things not required for physical survival (which would fit with evolutionary theory, funnily enough). Metaphysical perception and comprehension therefore may be excluded from everyday consciousness, though it goes on about us.

          Once again, your assumption may be right. I have no solid answers, only doubts about everything (from T-theory to materialist philosophy). But your logic is wrong – and from my past experience debating this topic, it’s probably due to a rush to confirm your own belief.

          Returning to the essential flaw in your logic: Psilocybin may be causative of the phenomenon, or it may be mediative. There is a big difference, but you’re assuming only the former is valid – based on your own worldview.

          Kind regards,
          Greg
          ——————————————-
          You monkeys only think you’re running things

          1. Neo?
            A “Matrix” type consciousness?

            Our sense of the world around us, reality, is based entirely on our five senses stimulating our brain. If it were possible to “unplug” our natural senses and use artificial senses generating the stimuli to our brain we would be none the wiser…enter “The Matrix”.

            I often thought it would be the biggest goof of all time to find out when we “die” we are only avatars of a really good X-Box! LOL!

            Thanks for your thoughts Greg…I am not as close minded as you might think. 🙂

            However, (you knew that was coming) chemical stimulation is not anything more than something being artificial. Menthol can stimulate the nerve receptors into sending the false stimulation of being cold.

            Cheers

          2. Oi!
            Thou shalt not name The One in vain!! 😉

            PS: You might be right in that spirituality and mysticism exists solely in the mind, but that leaves a really big question unanswered: What IS the mind?

            I also pleasantly notice you used the term “mind” instead of brain; indeed there may be hope for you yet 🙂

            I do believe the biggest question this current generation faces is the one about the nature of consciousness. It is a far deeper and unexplored realm than all the oceans in the world and all the vastness of outer space.

            ‘Tis time to look within.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          3. Sorry
            I used “mind” instead of “brain” as we are “self aware” therefore we have a “mind” vs a “brain” which is a CPU…I am not aware my PC is “self aware” though it seems that way sometimes. 🙂

            However…

            If one is to use the term “self aware” ought not there be a definition of what “self aware” actually is?

            One could write a program so that a PC with additional hardware running it would be “aware” of its surroundings and is able to interact with it. OMG…where is Asimov?

            Enter: “Deep Thought”

            Ok, the answer to the “ultimate question” of life the universe and everything is “42”

            As you know to understand the answer one must first understand the question, or more specifically the correct question(s).

            Which means all we can hope to do is continuously fit (crowbar) the “correct questions” to all the “answers” we think we understand…EG chemicals which illicit a mood, feeling et al in our mind as some “proof” of something which is more that what exists as a product of chemical balances and stimulations in our mind.

            It is easy to accept that drinking enough beer does not make us any better at anything even though our mind tells us differently. So why then does not this principle apply to other chemicals other than alcohol?

            Ahhh, we can prove that drinking too much beer will not make us drive any better and is more likely to make us drive our car into a wall however for the other “spiritual” chemicals where is the proof? Enter the problem…we do have proof and accept that chemicals affect the mind falsely and then when we choose we will not accept that conclusion for a myriad of “reasons”.

            Now where did I leave that crowbar?

            Cheers

          4. Consciousness
            [quote]One could write a program so that a PC with additional hardware running it would be “aware” of its surroundings and is able to interact with it. OMG…where is Asimov?[/quote]

            There are a lot of people who believe that, post-humanists and singularitarians who would like to transfer their personality to a computer or a sinthetic robotic body; the philosopher—and renowned atheist—Daniel Dennett also shares this belief.

            But there’s a computer scientist, Jaron Lanier, who is famous not only for his contributions to virtual reality aswell as for his long tentacle-like dreadlocks, who thinks this idea is flawed. He is an atheist too, he dismisses the notion that we are all living inside an enormous computer simulation, and yet he’s willing to accept that the mystery of consciousness may very well be unfathomable to science.

            He used to have a column in the Discover magazine, which I really miss because he used to deal with a lot of cool and strange ideas.

            Anyway, I really possess no answers, but you are right in that we should always try to formulate the right questions. It is very difficult to live in a state of perennial uncertainty, but it’s better than surrender to comfortable belief systems.

            PS: I took the liberty of taking your crowbar 😉

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          5. Brain salad
            Hello,

            we do have proof and accept that chemicals affect the mind falsely and then when we choose we will not accept that conclusion for a myriad of “reasons”.

            We have proof chemicals effect the brain and thereby the minds perceptions. Whether our standard chemical set up is the right one, we do not know. Fact is some are able to see things others can’t, freaks ? Or are the normal the degenerate ? We do know these days that the human genome is a hotchpotch compared to say gorillas, its a mess full of faults, causing all sorts of genetic diseases. A not so godly force likely tampered with it.

            The brain is a tool, a sensetive one, it can be upgraded or downgraded (f.i. fluoridation). Plenty of natural substance cause chemical reaction that open new pathways in the brain and thus enable mind to percieve differently, are these perceptions real ? Is that computer screen real ? Its at least 99,99 % nothing ness but because our brains senses are so lame we dont get it, and nor do we see those bedbugs, thankfully. Humans have been thoroughly conditioned, most of all the scientists.

            I’m not in favor of using brain altering drugs as such, but as a tool to widen our perception of realities beyond our current limited one, and thus understand how trivial our materialism is, i think it’s a step ahead.

            As for AI, consider ‘ghost’in the machine and that i think is surely possible, after all a (super) computer is, is just simple matter. If Ray Kurzweil wants to tie his consciouness to a machine, he might well succeed, but if i were him i’d ask for advice in Tibet not Silicon Valley.

            A small perception of reality tester..(no drugs needed)Sit in a darkened room about 4 ft from a mirror, with a lighted candle to the left. Breath deeply and relaxed, gaze upon your left eye/face ….

            A Man Can Not Begin To Learn That Which He Thinks He Already Knows (Epictetus)

          6. Close-mindedness
            [quote=tihz_ho]I often thought it would be the biggest goof of all time to find out when we “die” we are only avatars of a really good X-Box! LOL![/quote]

            Imagine Richard Dawkins’ disgust to find he was actually the avatar of some pimply-faced teen in a supra-dimension…
            🙂

            [quote]Thanks for your thoughts Greg…I am not as close minded as you might think. :)[/quote]

            Not at all, I love these debates. It’s quite obvious that you’re not close-minded, you’ve been a TDG regular for some time and your head hasn’t yet exploded. 😉

            [quote]However, (you knew that was coming) chemical stimulation is not anything more than something being artificial. Menthol can stimulate the nerve receptors into sending the false stimulation of being cold.[/quote]

            Or pretend to stimulate the nerve receptors, in your Matrix world…

            Kind regards,
            Greg
            ——————————————-
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

  2. Paul Devereux
    Nice coincidence, I picked up his book Haunted Land in a bargain bin the other day (sad for the author, happy for me). Can’t wait to read The Long Trip, cheers Greg.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal