The Psychedelic Genome Project Part 2 (with questions for the forum)

[Entheogenic Scientist]

So how can we apply the methodology of science to the study of different aspects of the psyche with the intention of acquiring original knowledge? Could such a methodology be designed and then applied to psychedelic states of mind? Empirical evidence has shown that psychedelic states of mind can be used to obtain original knowledge providing that the subject in question has the suitable background knowledge to interpret the acquired information. Take for instance Francis Crick and his vision of the DNA double helix when under the influence of LSD. He was later awarded a Nobel Prize for playing his part in this discovery and later admitted to frequently using low dosages of LSD. Another Nobel Prize winner is Kary Mullis who designed a technique – known as PCR - to amplify small sections of DNA, a technique that underpins most of current molecular biology which I also used extensively during my own PhD research. Again, Kary is another example of a researcher making a discovery (under the influence of LSD???) and was also awarded the Nobel Prize. However, one point of clarification should be made about the aims of my ideas. LSD and other psychedelics can be used at low dosages to change the way we think and aid problem solving. This is an extremely valid application of psychedelic usage; however I am interested in using high dosages of psychedelics to acquire new knowledge rather than thinking about existing problems in different ways. At this early stage of a new scientific methodological paradigm any original information acquired must be verified by traditional means in order for it to be accepted. So let’s outline a psychedelic methodology and apply it to the question of biological evolution at the level of DNA. So, the interesting questions are about the nature of the causes of mutation that lead to genetic change and whether or not these mutations have immediate phenotypic affects. To aid the experimental process the problem can be broken down into two sides: that of intelligent (teleological) causation on one side and unintelligent (blind) causation on the other. As previously mentioned these experiments have never been done and the side you support is mainly a matter of belief about how you view the Kosmos as a whole. The experiments have never been done because they are virtually impossible to do using traditional scientific methods and in general scientists are not interested in doing them anyway. It is my goal to apply a new methodological paradigm to investigate this very problem which will eventually lead to a paradigm shift in science as a whole which will eventually lead to a paradigm shift in western society as a whole. As we move away from traditional religion and the dogma of reductive rational materialism a new paradigm might be reached of a cognitive multidimensional universe brimming with meaning and purpose.

So my questions to the forum are about experimental design.

Let’s start with two hypotheses, one being methodological in nature.

1. Intelligent causes drive biological evolution.

2. Psychedelic states of mind can be used to access the mind driving evolutionary change.

‘Materials’:

Let’s start with 4 scientists/thinkers

i) a supporter of neo-Darwinsm
ii) a supporter of intelligent design (intelligent causation)
iii) a supporter of self-organization theory
iv) a supporter of theistic evolution

Psychedelic chemicals/plants, appropriate set and setting, a list of specific questions to be answered

So how do we use these ‘materials’ to design a rigorous scientific protocol? Is it even possible?

[sidecross]

My first response would be how to obtain pharmaceutical grade LSD-25?

I last took pharmaceutical LSD-25 in 400 to 500mcg range in 1966. Most street ‘acid’ is in the 80mcg range and people on this very board have described their dose as 2 ‘hits’.

This is not what I would call a very exact way to judge the dose or even the substance itself. There are many compounds that can produce changes of perception.

Unless you are a chemist with the knowledge to produce LSD-25, it is a gamble to trust anyone without a direct way to test the dosage and verify its substance.

[Entheogenic Scientist]

Yeah, I have no idea how to get hold of pharmaceutical grade LSD so I’m probably going to start these experiments using plant psychedelics. For instances it would be easy to set this up using psilocybin mushrooms in Holland and as far as methodology goes I would use specific dosage from the same batch in the same external environment. This wouldn’t be as exact as using a specific amount of a specific chemical but we have to work with what is available. I want to make it clear that I am not going to apply for a grant or have this project sanctioned by a higher authority. I am going to do this as an independent piece of work. The results of this work can then be published in book format just like a lot of the greatest ideas in science were such as Darwin’s Origin of The Species. These are early days for a scientific psychedelic methodology in this context and its going to be a bit rough and ready at first.
Additionally, it is my experience that experiments rarely work as planned and the outcome of these experiments are impossible to anticipate but its going to be interesting and a lot of fun! I accept that I might be totally misguided in my ideas but I think that something interesting will be achieved. And of course I’ll have to test different dosages of psychedelics on myself first which is going to be an interesting experience in itself!
So I need to work with accessible psychedelics (I am also starting to consider Ayahuasca and have tried taking it a couple of times and I’m intrigued by the cosmic serpent DNA double helix association).
So I’m starting to consider
Which psychedelic(s)? Where?
How to set up preliminary experiments to select suitable dosages?
How to prime the mind in advance to focus on a particular set of questions?

Any suggestions from the Forum?

Cheers!

[bopes]

Let’s start with 4 scientists/thinkers

i) a supporter of neo-Darwinsm
ii) a supporter of intelligent design (intelligent causation)
iii) a supporter of self-organization theory
iv) a supporter of theistic evolution



Is this a joke?

[Entheogenic Scientist]

No, this isn’t a joke. I’m not sure what you mean by that so please clarify.

I want the subjects in the experiment to have radically different views about evolution and the origin of life.

[Caprinardo Delirio]

I was discussing this recently, this question of obtaining knowledge as such by means of psychedelic drugs in a vertical approach, beyond the mere personal insight or experiences of datum in the brain-mind/cosmic system. i was sort of leaning towards admitting that maybe the psychedelic experience was as such always a personal experience, and working with it within an attempted objective methodology could prove a paramount paradox. showing in a sense what highly mistaken assumptions of historical accumulation and perfecting of information we have. that what originates from personal human perspectives and should return thereto, instead gains a life of it's own and is often in such a inertial multiplex existence that the very notion of relating to it as a human being seems almost impossible, constantly perpetuated under the willing suspicion that certain perennial problems are being worked out, and the ever increasing oceans of knowledge will reach their destined shores, ect. where in actuality it might be language that have run away with itself, carrying us through history with it. the areas of actual quantifiable knowledge that could be brought out from the depth of mind manifested through psychedelics seem to me to be relatively few as is, unless we're to discover entirely new empirical phenomena that is consistent and for which we can create a system of some sort. but then there's the question of the actual expanse of consciousness under high-dose psychedelic sessions, which does seem to include most any and every type of holon in the universe. i think it's true that one can come into contact with those partitioning parts of creation that we might call evolution and natural selection, as it is also possible to experience the insidedness of animals, plants, groups of organisms, larger ecosystemic bodies, and the larger expands of space. i've often thought, as alan watts pointed out in 'nature, man & woman' from 1958, that the conceptions of the materialistic evolutionary models of calling creation "blind" and "random" were exactly just as anthropomorphic descriptions as the arguments of the orthodox church against which they were arguing. these matters of the comic schemes seem of such an entirely different order that admitting to belief of adequate mathematical explanation of their reality seems a vanity of the rational mind, as large as the very ones richard dawkins still in his spare time goes shooting after. the possibility of observing all these matters from the inside seem to maybe challenge science a great deal. i think the truth is that the forces that brought about our geology and biology are neither 'alive' nor 'dead' and that the impression of a (in some senses) teleological structure of the cosmos, and a really non-epiphenomenal, non-material reality of consciousness, as well as many other nontraditional types of understandings of the universe could ensue from psychedelic sessions. beyond maybe reconciling materialists and theists in their understanding of their mutual worldviews, there could be lots and lots of discoveries to be made. still, i think the question of intelligent vs. unintelligent causation probably isn't going to be answered in scientific terms of one over the other, rather new insights, hopefully with some empirical verifiable parts, could settle the dispute by raising the understanding of deeper aspects of existence... but maybe this will only be able to be understood non-verbally as direct subjective experience? the problem solving spontaneity of the psychedelic logic seems very useful in so many areas of human existence and of course also in science unless every scientist, rather like those soldiers who tested lsd, quits the scene completely. no, i completely support what you're trying to do. i think the idea of getting all these people of racially different epistemic orientation in a room together, tripping their asses off on lsd might be the most interesting (entertaining) sociological experiment one can come up with!

this emergent paradigm is fascinating to consider, and eventhough i think it seems so obviously true, i keep trying to find reasons pro and con.

another important aspect is what kind of paradigm and socio-political environment this new paradigm find itself into. will it just even out the irrationalities, no matter of what order and magnitude, or will, in fact the exiting paradigm exert much influence of the uses and abuses of it's possibilities. i bet the latter, and i often think that whatever mind-bending realities the new-age/newworldorder/posthuman/transhumanist paradigm may hold, that it will be necessary be solve a lot of our social and individual problems first, if the future still is to have space-time left for itself.

i realize it's kind of a chicken-egg kind of a problem... all is to stoners, isn't it? :o

[Entheogenic Scientist]

i completely support what you're trying to do. i think the idea of getting all these people of racially different epistemic orientation in a room together, tripping their asses off on lsd might be the most interesting (entertaining) sociological experiment one can come up with!



Hey, Thanks for the encouragement!

Yeah, I agree with this in that getting these people in a room together tripping their arses off on LSD will probably be interesting in itself and my own personal motivations for setting this up will probably only serve the purpose of actually getting this project off the ground.

So, in regard to the volunteers of this experiment; do you think that they should be Psychedelic Virgins? What about their credentials? I am personally leaning towards PhDs currently engaged in research/ employed as lecturer in a higher educational institute. I don’t necessarily think that for this project having a PhD is important in itself, BUT if an account of this experiment is going to be published as a book then it will only be taken seriously if the volunteers are respected members of the academic community.

So, if I did get hold of pharmaceutical grade LSD:

Should they be given a low or high dose? (remember the purpose is the obtain knowledge rather than increase problem solving skills) – I personally think that a high dose would be the most suitable for this experiment?

For reasons of logistics I am considering three psychedelic sessions over a two week period (I’m aiming for the summer of 2008)

Of course, the pharmaceutical grade LSD is going to be difficult to find and probably illegal so………….as mentioned previously, if I work with shrooms then the whole experiment can be done during a lovely two week vacation in Holland! I’m thinking, three/four psychedelic sessions aiming at level 4 states?

So if you have a strong interest in evolution and want to spend two weeks ingesting psychedelics next summer then let me know!

[Caprinardo Delirio]

i have a strong interest in evolution and want to spend two weeks next summer ingesting psychedelics!

but really, you should aim high, see if you couldn't get some of the actual movers and shakers from the mayor scene of popular evolutionary debate in the mix. i mean, you must get daniel dennet and richard dawkins, you just must! also strong theistic literalists.. some young earth creationists, or whatever, just pick any berry of the any of the fundamentalist bushes growing wildly in the us. if you write the invite up beautifully enough, i'm sure you could bag some interesting people.. it should be video taped, definitely!

really, i think there have been enough attention recently on psychedelics that it could probably even be publicly announced.. meaning you could get a permission of some sort... maybe!? talk to MAPS, they're fairly heavily experienced in legal procedures regarding psychedelics, they'll probably be able to give you a quick estimate.

i think you're right about the strong dose. low doses doesn't necessarily reach foundational levels of one's world view (though it may do so quicker particularly in scientists and theists) - i am wondering if you have heard about the experimental method called "driving the brainwaves" that was what stanislav grof was subjected to in the middle of (believe it was) his first lsd-experience? some electrodes were pasted on his head, and this ensuing driving of the brainwaves caused him to first loose contact with his body, then the city of prague and then the planet, and he describes this cosmic consciousness he was experiencing as then including things he thinks must have black holes, white holes, quasars ect.. now, get you typical materialist "consciousness is solely created and isolated in the brain" cognitive cuckoo mixed up in that shit, that's some post-traumatic confessional reality-tv, i'd pay to watch!

grof, who was recently awarded an award from the vaclav havel foundation, also testified that he doesn't think there's a substance that hold as much potential as lsd. apparently my friends get their hands on what they at least believe to be pharmaceutical grade lsd-25 from time to time. i haven't tested it myself, yet, but it seems to so sound from the more serious psychedelic community that it sure is in existence and possible to get a hold of too...

psychedelic virgins, sure, that's like the definition of a person who either thinks the universe created us by a series of blind causes or alternatively by an entity with both genitals and traditional family values! :razz:

[bopes]

No, this isn’t a joke. I’m not sure what you mean by that so please clarify.

I want the subjects in the experiment to have radically different views about evolution and the origin of life.

If you're serious, how do you propose to use your ‘materials’ to test the accuracy of your specific hypotheses: (1) Intelligent causes drive biological evolution; and (2) Psychedelic states of mind can be used to access the mind driving evolutionary change?

Otherwise it sounds like the set up to a joke. A supporter of neo-Darwinsm, a supporter of intelligent design, a supporter of self-organization theory, and a supporter of theistic evolution walk into a bar . . .

[Caprinardo Delirio]

in the phase space between empirical observation and silenced psychosynthetic insight?

[craazyman]

A supporter of neo-Darwinsm, a supporter of intelligent design, a supporter of self-organization theory, and a supporter of theistic evolution walk into a bar . . .

. . . on a warm and clear summer night at a hot beach resort and saw four beautiful girls sitting at a corner booth getting drunk.

"Hey" said the neo-Darwinist, "let's go grab those babes and drag them down to the beach and have some hot sex."

"Shut up you fucking ape", said the self-organization theorist, as he whacked the neo-Darwinist on the head, "Listen. We're going to walk past them and look at them knowingly. They'll just follow us down to the beach and they'll know what to do. It's their nature."

"That's partly true," said the intellient design theorist, "but we need someone to set it up for us. I'll give the bartender a $100 to tell them there's a VIP party at the beach and they're invited. That'll get them down there. Then nature can take over."

Meanwhile, the girls were getting drunker and seemed to be flirtateously eyeing the four scientists. The theistic evolutionary specialist was carefully analyzing the scene.

"Hold on fellas", he said. "I'm not going to let you guys blow this one for us with your knucklehead theories." So he walked over to the PA system, grabbed the microphone and announced, "Ladies in the corner booth. This is the voice of God speaking. I command you to finish your drinks at once, go down to the beach, and practice the propagation of the perfection of the human race in tantric ecstasy with the four male gods I have appointed for you to find there."

After 15 minutes the girls had not arrived. So the four scientists headed back to the bar. The girls were gone.

The theistic evolutionary scientist flagged down the bartender. "What happened?" he asked.

The bartender shrugged, "They didn't believe it. They said it sounded too good to be true and that they must be hallucinating. So they went home."

Whoa!

[Isaiah Mpski]

I know you must have been sitting in some pie squared cubicle all day to think of that tail.Lol.
The truth is,woman kind didn't eat and are still trying to figure out the truth of it all.
That'a why we need more squaws in this world and less male-kind.

[bopes]

. . . "They didn't believe it. They said it sounded too good to be true and that they must be hallucinating. So they went home."



Heh. Good one.

[Entheogenic Scientist]

really, i think there have been enough attention recently on psychedelics that it could probably even be publicly announced.. meaning you could get a permission of some sort... maybe!? talk to MAPS, they're fairly heavily experienced in legal procedures regarding psychedelics, they'll probably be able to give you a quick estimate.

I am going to organise my ideas about evolution into a more coherent form and then contact MAPS to see if any funding is available. This weekend I have been thinking a lot about the definitions of evolution and from the top of my head have come up with the following:

Evolution – descent with modification from a common ancestor

Darwinian Evolution – Evolution driven by natural selection

Neo-Darwinian Evolution – Evolution driven by natural selection acting upon genetic mutations that are believed to be ‘random’ and ‘blind’ i.e. unintelligent and non-teleological

I want to get these definitions down at the beginning of my proposal because they are often misused especially in the so called quality press in the UK.

There also seems to be a misunderstanding of intelligent design and misinformed members of the media seem to think that intelligent design is incompatible with evolution. However, it seems to me that a lot of intelligent design advocates support evolutionary theory as defined above but support the idea of intelligent and teleological causation acting to bring about genetic changes. Therefore, instead of using the loose term of intelligent design I prefer:

Evolution as a Cognitive Process – Evolution driven by intelligent causes acting to bring about change at the DNA level (natural selection only playing a role in maintaining and selecting pre-existing forms).

Creationism – creation of new forms that have no direct ancestral relationship to previous forms

Most peer review journals do not accept intelligent design papers so a redefinition of terms is necessary in order to help heavily conditioned scientists to evolve their thinking about biological evolution.

I think that these definitions are important and a new language is needed to take the study of evolution to a psychedelic level. I would welcome any suggestions and comments from the forum. :)