←back to thread

Messages that can only be understood under the influence of psychedelics

(qri.org)
637 points robinhouston | 8 comments | 05 Jun 23 07:27 UTC | HN request time: 1.052s | source | bottom
Show context
IIAOPSW ◴[06 Jun 23 11:36 UTC] No.36211147[source]▶
>first clear demonstration of a real perceptual computational advantage of psychedelic states of consciousness.

I feel like this is technically true but also misleading towards the belief that there is an overall perceptual computation advantage of psychedelic states. You can maybe get a higher score on certain tests, but it comes at a loss on other tests. I'm willing to bet basic tests like an eye exam will score worse when all the letters are dripping. The reality is psychedelics effect a particular band of brainwave frequencies, and so is not like the blunt general stimulation or inebriation of other drugs. It may be better for your brain to be in a psychedelic state on certain tasks, but if it was better in the general case evolution would have already made it so. Remember, I can rig a system with absolute perfect perception just so long as you don't mind a rate of 100% false positives.

Still congrats to QRI on this research. Very impressive result. Seems like they had some of the same method ideas I've had, or thought my ideas were worth taking last I spoke with them.

replies(1): >>36214087 #
mistermann ◴[06 Jun 23 15:14 UTC] No.36214087[source]▶
> It may be better for your brain to be in a psychedelic state on certain tasks, but if it was better in the general case evolution would have already made it so.

Would the same not be true of delusion, psychopathy, and various other human shortcomings?

replies(1): >>36214625 #
1. IIAOPSW ◴[06 Jun 23 15:46 UTC] No.36214625[source]▶
In the general case, having delusions and other psychotic issues are not selected for traits with positive outcomes for the individuals having them. Your life is hard if you have them and conventional success is rare.

They persist in the general population to an extent for the same reason other hereditary illness persists. "I would die for two brothers or 8 cousins". A gene that is to your detriment in 1/3 cases but carries an advantage in the other 2/3 is still selected for. We have lots of examples of this in other heritable disease types, though admittedly no one is quite sure what advantage there might be to you if your brother or cousin is schizophrenic (for example).

replies(3): >>36215932 #>>36218742 #>>36247235 #
2. alecbz ◴[06 Jun 23 17:08 UTC] No.36215932[source]▶
> We have lots of examples of this in other heritable disease types

You're saying that diseases persist in humans because they're selected for, because they're beneficial to others? That's interesting, do you have some examples?

replies(3): >>36218696 #>>36218755 #>>36220267 #
3. TremendousJudge ◴[06 Jun 23 20:30 UTC] No.36218696[source]▶
sickle cell anemia is the classic example; one copy of the gene gives you malaria resistance, two copies gives you the disease
4. TremendousJudge ◴[06 Jun 23 20:34 UTC] No.36218742[source]▶
Here's a lecture by Robert Sapolsky where he goes into some theories involving schizotypal individuals (and other mental disorders) and culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WwAQqWUkpI

Long story short, the theory goes that being schizotypal (but not full-blown schizophrenic) could be an advantageous trait in human society, usually by filling some spiritual, ritual, or religious role in the group. These people are high status in their societies, and have many chances for passing on their genes.

replies(1): >>36220343 #
5. DoreenMichele ◴[06 Jun 23 20:35 UTC] No.36218755[source]▶
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235230421...
6. IIAOPSW ◴[06 Jun 23 22:59 UTC] No.36220267[source]▶
I would phrase it as the genes are selected for, not that the diseases are selected for, but yeah you understand correctly. Others have already filled in examples like you asked for.
7. IIAOPSW ◴[06 Jun 23 23:07 UTC] No.36220343[source]▶
Yep, that's exactly the lecture I had in mind for my original comment. I decided to shorten down to "no one is sure what the advantage is" rather than try to both explain Sapolsky's conjecture and not mislead people into thinking its an established scientific fact.
8. mistermann ◴[08 Jun 23 19:21 UTC] No.36247235[source]▶
> In the general case, having delusions and other psychotic issues are not selected for traits with positive outcomes for the individuals having them. Your life is hard if you have them and conventional success is rare.

It varies per delusion - for example, most successful people suffer from the delusion that they have ~omniscient level knowledge of what's going on - if it were not for this misplaced confidence within human consciousness, I suspect it would be much more difficult to get things done (though, a lot of the dumb stuff that's done would get avoided as well, so it's a tough call what's net best).