• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

DMT: The Spirit Molecule

DrZoidberg

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
11,216
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Here is a WPP interview with Mitch Schultz, creator of the famous documentary "DMT: The Spirit Molecule". It has received quite a lot of criticism for being pseudo-scientific.
What is striking in this interview is the depth of this guys ignorance. He's a scientific illiterate. Does not understand anthropology or history. Clueless about medicine, psychology or neurology. Everything this guy believes seems to be based on wishful thinking. Since the interviewer is about as ignorant it becomes a cringeworthy soup of stupidity. Yet he was able to secure funds to make this documentary. And is securing more funds for another one.

So remember kids. Don't believe everything your told. And just because somebody is given attention and a platform to express themselves, doesn't mean they actually know what they're talking about.

http://www.warriorpoet.us/2012/07/13/wpp-podcast-6-mitch-schultz-dmt-the-spirit-molecule/

Worth noting is that after the highly publicized experiments (of dubious scientific value) of Timothy Leary in the 60'ies and 70'ies serious research on psychadelics was effectively shut down. We don't actually know all that much about them. It's very hard to secure the funds and permits necessary to conduct the research. So for understandable reasons the experiments referred to in the documentary should be taken with a super-sized tanker of salt. It's basically just free form speculation sprinkled with science.

But it's always informative to learn just how stupid the world's idiots are. Enjoy.
 
It's just an endless flood of idiocy. It starts off with the noble savage myth regarding Native Americans. There's few things I despise as much as racists who don't understand they're racists. They called DMT medicine and ascribed it all kinds of healing properties. They did this as if it was fact. As if they were completely oblivious to cognitive biases. The kicker is when they mention it, but use it wrongly. I rolled my eyes. Had misunderstood what is meant by double blind studies. Then go ahead and make a bunch of statements about toxicity and human physical reactions, we know absolutely nothing about. When they veered into the realm of psychology it did sound like fantasy land. But my grasp of psychology isn't the best. So I really shouldn't judge. Anyhoo. I'm sure there's a ton of stuff I've simply forgot.
 
Oh, look. Released today is the first (scientific) study on psychedelics in forty years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...st-lsd-on-humans--and-youre-next-9667532.html

And this was just the most basic science conceivable. He simply dosed people and scanned their brains in an fMRI scanner. No hypothesis. He just wanted to collect data.

We are utterly and completely clueless on what these drugs do to the mind. That's as true for the people who are for legalisation as those against it.
 
As an individual with impeccable credentials in this area (dude, I've taken, like, every chemical known to man, and some that are only known to aliens), I can sum up what i have learned from taking psychoactive drugs in one simple sentence: Never trust any conclusions you reach while tripping your face off.

This guy appears to have bypassed that bit of sage advice and gone straight to the "it feels so real, man!" phase of drugged-out idiocy. His psychobabble is extremely common stuff in the world of trip-heads.

What I find vaguely amusing is that these types of "experimenters" attempt to be both subject and observer at once, thus shredding the entire concept of the Scientific Method while simultaneously claiming to be embracing research. It reminds me of a classic Firesign Theatre bit, "Beat the Reaper." (Danger: This is three minutes of your life you'll never get back. So pay attention, dammit!)
 
Davka said:
As an individual with impeccable credentials in this area (dude, I've taken, like, every chemical known to man, and some that are only known to aliens), I can sum up what i have learned from taking psychoactive drugs in one simple sentence: Never trust any conclusions you reach while tripping your face off.

This guy appears to have bypassed that bit of sage advice and gone straight to the "it feels so real, man!" phase of drugged-out idiocy. His psychobabble is extremely common stuff in the world of trip-heads.

What I find vaguely amusing is that these types of "experimenters" attempt to be both subject and observer at once, thus shredding the entire concept of the Scientific Method while simultaneously claiming to be embracing research. It reminds me of a classic Firesign Theatre bit, "Beat the Reaper." (Danger: This is three minutes of your life you'll never get back. So pay attention, dammit!)
Click to expand...

Great to hear of another psychonaut who have reached similar conclusions as me. I'm very happy I've taken them I've never had any problems from them. But all they have really taught me is that we can't trust our senses. The exact opposite of what these guys are saying. As if the drug world is the real world. When (most likely) all realities are figments of our imagination more or less.

I hate it when you don't know if you're the only sane one or the only crazy one.
 
This is just a continuation of the same bad logic that has become popular elsewhere.

Dying brains are deprived of oxygen and produce "near death experiences," which proves the existence of the afterlife, which therefore proves that Christianity (and not any other religion) is true.

It is inevitable that someone else would use this same "logic" to show that drugs "prove" that toasters can talk.
 
Underseer said:
This is just a continuation of the same bad logic that has become popular elsewhere.

Dying brains are deprived of oxygen and produce "near death experiences," which proves the existence of the afterlife, which therefore proves that Christianity (and not any other religion) is true.

It is inevitable that someone else would use this same "logic" to show that drugs "prove" that toasters can talk.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that your's can't? My mind is boggled

toaster.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom