From: Anthony Tross (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jan 04 2008 - 00:29:07 MST
I think that Shulgin and his wife are undoubtedly brave psychonauts and
should be greatly thanked for their tireless efforts. As well, I don't think
that there is any question that triptamines, ergotamines, and various other
neuroactive substances are in some way responsible for our ability to be
insightful. It is widely accepted that psychedelics can precipitate
synesthesic states, and must have contributed intrinsically to our sense of
beauty. I imagine that we would still be unicameral (biblically, please!)
were it not for drugs, fire, and so language.
Nootropics are an entirely different kettle of brain-bath goodies, primarily
intended for optimal function in the present, and perhaps after the results
of longitudinal studies are tallied, valuable in neuroprotection as we age.
With computed intelligence we don't have to worry about ageing, as such, but
must consider instilling psychedelic or, more accurately, standalone
algorithmic creativity that runs as a complementary process.
On Jan 2, 2008 11:59 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 03/01/2008, Bryan Bishop <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > The Shulgin phikal story seems to be an excellent example. From what I
> > can tell, Shulgin became a biochemist and started experimenting with
> > nootropics in the 1970s, meticulously recording experiences and results
> > starting with the smallest of dosages of each of his synthesized
> > compounds. Frankly, you have to be smart to not kill yourself.
> > Nootropical experimentalism is *not* for everyone.
> Mostly hallucinogens and stimulants rather than what is commonly
> referred to as nootropics. It's an almost unique example of
> systematic, rigorous research and self-experimentation in
> psychopharmacology. Predictably, Shulgin was prosecuted by the US DEA
> for his efforts.
> Stathis Papaioannou
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:01 MDT