@Draugnar - every reply you made wasn't at me, you either misread what I said or skimmed it. Looked more like you were reacting to how rlumley misread it instead of reading it for yourself.

Sayjo are you just replying for the lulz?

@Sayjo...

I was referring to people who dropped out, some who had to - they were pushed; some who became suicidal and some who died very young. I do not consider these individuals to have achieved success. I tend to go with Josey Wales on this one,

"Dying ain't much of a living boy..."

Flash. They stopped arguing. Or at least Sayjo has.

The logic was too much for him.

(I really wanted to say the logic was too much for his pot addled mind, but thought better of it, so I'm putting it in parenthesis instead.)

; )

I'd been away and didn't want to make it look like I'd done a runner.

@rlumley - No, I actually have things to do, if there was logic to correct I'd have done it but you have the inability to read or follow someone else's post outside of your own method of seeing things.

@Flashman - Plenty of non drug users do the same thing, good job with vague correlations.

Sayjo... I really don't know what to say. Are you honestly so incompetent that you can't follow my basic logic? You have yet to refute a single point I made, and I guarantee I made them clearly.

At any rate, my theory now is that you're just trying to troll. So I'm not going to feed the troll anymore.

Chrisp, if you're still reading this, if you'd like to have a mature, intelligent conversation, I'd love to.

lol at Draugner, as if smoking cigars and drinking and gambling is any better than smoking a few joints. He's probably one of those people that'd refuse a cigarette, but think cigars are ok, when really, its just more tobacco.

You don't inhale cigar smoke. This isn't exactly string theory, folks. :/

PS cigars and alcohol are legal. apples, oranges, you know the drill

Rlumely you made a point earlier about about not "knowing" anything that isn't a "universal fact." I am not familiar with this term. Out of interest would you please provide a few example of what is a universal fact. Are propositions that we consider likely to be true (that is the bulk of human knowledge) universal facts? Is biological evolution a universal fact? Or general relativity?

so is speeding, please tell me you've never sped. Being illegal does mean that something is wrong, there are plenty of ridiculous laws on the books. It used to be illegal to be Jewish in england.
inhaling smoke is a choice, you can inhale cigar smoke,and you can not inhale cigarette smoke. either way, both are far more toxic and dangerous than a joint.

If either p or p then p. There's a universal fact. Glad to end that discussion utterly! (seriously, I am glad to end any discussion that doubts what cannot be doubted)

Speeding won't get you several years in federal prison. Marijuana can do that! You have to weigh that cost (risk-adjusted, of course) against the benefit of smoking up (a benefit probably exaggerated due to some social factors). All in all, I'd rather drink! It's a real high, not a socially-conditioned belief in a high, and it's legal.

I suppose people can inhale cigar smoke, but then people can also shoot themselves in the head. But surely you wouldn't say that pistol owners are all going to die from gunshot wounds; similarly, cigar smokers are not all going to get lung cancer. It's just not aesthetically pleasing to inhale cigar smoke.

Is cigar smoke more "toxic and dangerous" than a joint? Citation needed. In any case, it's not very toxic, and it's quite enjoyable. In fact, nicotine is quite the little drug, and it's legal, too! Man, the awesome times you can have with legal drugs, huh? Well, have fun in prison.

So Acosmist you are saying that only tautologies are universal facts? For example, 2 + 2 = 4. Have I understood you correctly? Or are you kidding?

"So Acosmist you are saying that only tautologies are universal facts?"

No.

Sorry I am bit slow. Could you provide a real world example of a universal fact?

@Hamilton - You are showing your ignorance of tobacco products. Cigarettes are made form the scraps of tabcco with more than 500 potential added ingredients. Over 4000 chemical compounds are created by burning a cigarette, many of which are toxic and/or carcinogenic. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen cyanide and ammonia are all present in cigarette smoke. Forty-three known carcinogens are in mainstream smoke, sidestream smoke, or both.

Cigars, on the other hand (at least the quality ones I smoke) have NO additives. They are made (at least the ones I smoke) from premium whole leaf tobacco. No ammonia, tar, or nicotine are added to them. Just what is in them naturally. Point in fact, quality cigars are NOT more harmful than pot. Yout fact checker needs to be fired. Oh wait, you don't have one cause you're full of SHIT!

Get your facts straight before you look like an ass.

I am pretty sure that if P or P then P is a tautology.
Wikipedia say this:
In propositional logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a propositional formula that is true under any possible valuation (also called a truth assignment or an interpretation) of its propositional variables.

As possible worlds go, I always liked this one. But then, in this world, or any world, what I said is true.

This world, at least, is real.

"Rlumely you made a point earlier about about not "knowing" anything that isn't a "universal fact." I am not familiar with this term. Out of interest would you please provide a few example of what is a universal fact. Are propositions that we consider likely to be true (that is the bulk of human knowledge) universal facts? Is biological evolution a universal fact? Or general relativity?"

A is A. The law of identity is the foundation of all knowledge, because without it, we can not identify anything, and thus can not draw a conclusion from it, and I've provided several examples of those conclusions.

It is a universal fact that F = ma. Everyone (Or at least educated people) knows that it does. It always has, and it always will.

I know that a glass will hold water. Water takes the shape of its solid container. It always has, and it always will.

You can also know artificial things that humans have defined and everyone accepts to be true, like language. Men will always have a Y chromosome. iPods will always play music, and textbooks will always be expensive. I mean be required for class. :-P

I like how this discussion of hallucinogens has turned into an epistemological argument.

@RLumley - you last one about text books always being required for class is not a fact, universal or otherwise. Many people take online classes and their "books" aren't books at all, but electronic media. To say educational texts will always be required for class may be factual (although the text part may be false at some point) but books most definitely aren't.

It was a joke, hence the :-P

Several points here.

From rlumley's first long post, "The defining charcteristic of mankind is their ability to think logically. Since a drug alters that ability, the use of a drug, at least temporarily, makes you less human.

If it were possible (And I will discuss this later) I suppose a drug that made you think more logically wouldn't be evil, as it enhances your human qualities, as opposed to diminishes them, however this is relatively impossible, since there are no degrees of logic. Logic is not a quantitative variable, but rather a qualitative variable. Either a statement is logical, or it isn't. I suppose it would be theoretically possible for a drug to cause someone to think logically a higher proportion of the time."

1) In the second paragraph you state that logic cannot be increased because it is qualitative. If that is true, than it cannot be decreased for the same reason. I’m pretty sure we can all accept (as a universal truth) that 99.9% of drugs do not remove ALL logical ability from the user.
2) There are huge categories of drugs that do not affect a human’s mind in any way and therefore have no effect on logical ability.
3) There are some drugs that do enhance various parts of human cognition. Sometimes there is a tradeoff like with marijuana, but I’m sure that all of the people taking ginseng, ginko biloba, etc would argue that there is no downside.

That brings me to my second point. Where is the cutoff between a drug and a food? Draugnar says that tobacco is ok but marijuana is not. They both CAN be purely natural. What about coffee or tea? Is a tea leaf a drug? What makes it ok to put caffeine in your body but not mushrooms?

Third, out of the three biggest drug users that I know: one is an extremely talented veterinarian, and another is a highly paid programmer (the third is averagely successful). All three are well adjusted, personable members of society who get along with their parents and significant others.

Fourth, I tend to agree with Chris that most people should try mushrooms once in their life. I would equate it to saying that most people should see the Sistine Chapel (or read Shakespeare or watch Casablanca). Some people will get more out of it than others, but you don’t have to be an art lover or a Christian to appreciate the experience.

Oh, I missed one of the main things I wanted to say. Rlumley is implicitly arguing that being "human" is the pinnacle of all things, that we should try to be more human. What really does that mean? I can argue that watching FOX news makes someone less human.

What about (and I know I'm opening a whole new can of worms) genetic alterations? If we eliminated the genes for baldness and bad eyesight, does that make those people less (read worse than) humans? Why not the genes for some forms of mental retardation? On the whole, people would have greater logical faculties. Does it make a difference if this is done through gene therapy (drugs) vs. screening fertilized eggs and choosing which one to carry to term?

Ah I keep losing my post!

@dangermouse:

You make a good point. I will admit I was slightly inconsistent in my arguments.

I will attempt to clarify by saying this: There are degrees of illogic, but no degrees of logic. To quote The Big Bang Theory, "It's slightly wrong to say a tomato is a fruit. It's very wrong to say it's a suspension bridge."

Given a set of conditions, there is only one logical answer. But there are many illogical ones, ones that require different levels of, frankly put, stupidity. For example, given the situation in health care (And I'm going to suppose here that my opinion is logical, since health care is not the current debate topic) it is slightly illogical to suggest that the government should control health care, it is very illogical to suggest that the government should murder all of its citizens so there is no longer a health care problem. But the only logical answer (And again, this is my opinion - please don't turn this into a health care debate - I won't respond if you do.) is to move towards a free market approach.

Hope that helps. Good point though.

To respond to your other point, I'll say this.

Morality is that which keeps one alive, and man's mind is his motive force of survival. Thus things that decrease your mind's power are evil, and the products of your mind are good. That's the morality I live by, and I really don't have time to go even deeper into this. If you don't accept my premises, I don't really have much time to argue about those too.

rlumley, I don't accept that definition of reality. I'm no relativist and I believe in the power of science to discover applicable information about our phenomenal reality, but reality is not what "normal" people see. Reality doesn't depend on people at all. Reality is what lies beyond our perception, but is interpreted by our perception... and this is where you may be deceived. You're blowing my words out of proportion. I'm not suggesting any sort of Descartes evil genie here... I'm just saying that it can help you see the extent to which not just your senses, but your very logic and reason, can be deceived. This is not to say at all that you are being deceived or to what extent, it is simply the possibility. But here is where you actually are wrong... our minds are deceived quite often and it's important to know this.

All your faculties of sense, reason, and logic have been built up for evolutionary purposes, and for most uses, especially those that more intimately govern our survival, they do a pretty good job. But, you have to remember that our minds were built to keep us alive and to reproduce successfully, they were not built with the pursuit of truth in mind. You mention physics as evidence of laws that cannot deceive us, but I actually will have to invoke relativity because it's important to note that most Newtonian physics represents only an approximation, albeit a very useful and applicable one. Neuroscience, psychology, and anthropology have shown that humans have an innate sense of physics, but it is one based on a simplistic model of impulse, not even as complex as Newtonian physics. Initial studies in physics all spend time trying to get students to unlearn their intuitive sense of physics by convincing them that a heavy object and a light object will fall at the same speed if air resistance can be neglected and that an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force. And this is the simplest physics and you're already being deceived by your rudimentary evolutionarily built sense of physics. Electromagnetism, relativity, and quantum mechanics all go much farther and the difficulty we have in understanding these phenomena is very much related to the distance from what comes intuitively. Quantum mechanics often seems to violate our classical logic in many cases.

If you take a short look at some neurological disorders, it's quite apparent how easy it is to be deceived and to deny reality. Just a simple change in your brain can make you absolutely convinced your leg is not your own, or cause you to completely neglect the left side of your vision. Yes, you probably don't have any neurological disorders but all of us are affected to a certain extent by neurological biases which operate on a subconscious basis even before your operant logic comes into play. You don't have to be synesthetic to have a certain degree of synesthesia. This is how you can make abstractions and metaphors and know instinctually that a sharp jagged shape is the letter of a sound like Kee, and a bulbous round shape is the letter of the sound Boo. Most people have an innate bias to look at faces, and more specifically to the right side of the person's face (your left), and more specifically at their right eye. This effect can manifest when you're putting on make up or shaving in the mirror. You have a tendency to look at the right side of your reflection's face, which corresponds to the left of your face. You will naturally spend more time and care grooming your left side as a consequence. But when other people look at you, or you look at a picture of yourself, you spend more time looking at the right side of your face, the opposite of the one you spent more time grooming. That's why you usually look better in the mirror than in a picture, and you might think you look better than other people think you do. This is just an example, but there are neurological biases that go far beyond simple sense bias, and encroach on your fortress of logic and reason.

It's not about thinking there's another reality and that we are being deceived. It's about knowing the extent to which we can be deceived to the extent our assumptions may dominate our logic. I believe more in science than I do in our intuitive sense of logic.

"Cigars, on the other hand (at least the quality ones I smoke) have NO additives. They are made (at least the ones I smoke) from premium whole leaf tobacco. No ammonia, tar, or nicotine are added to them. Just what is in them naturally. Point in fact, quality cigars are NOT more harmful than pot. Yout fact checker needs to be fired. Oh wait, you don't have one cause you're full of SHIT!"

Well geez, marijuana is also natural... Please cite the fact that cigars are NOT more harmful than pot. I would like to see evidence of this. From the studies that I have read, nicotine is seen to be more dangerous than cannabis simply because nicotine is highly addictive and dependence forming. It's always bad for your health to be inhaling smoke, whether it comes from cigars, joints, or a bonfire. However, while it has also been shown that cannabis carries carcinogens (cigarettes contain even more) and about 4x more tar for one joint to one cig... nicotine users smoke much more than one cigarette a day, while cannabis users aren't liable to chain smoke joints. As well, many cannabinoids have been found to have anti-cancer properties. In fact, a recent paper showed that cannabis users have lowered chances of head and neck cancers, though this is tempered by the fact that while it has never been definitively tied to lung cancer, lung cancer is still the most lethal cancer. I can even present a paper that shows that moderate cannabis users have a higher IQ than non-users than heavy users of cannabis. I mean higher IQ in the sense that a baseline IQ test was taken before habits of cannabis use formed, and another IQ test was taken after a few years of smoking heavily, moderately, or not at all, and the IQ differences in the age were compared. Have you actually done the research? I can't tell you if a joint is worse or better than a cigar, but I can tell you that cannabis is much safer for your health than nicotine in general, and I can back it up with many papers and reports.

First, Chrisp, thanks for the reply. It was well thought out, and intelligent.

I believe the question of reality came up as my response to your statement that everyone should try a hallucinogen, correct? So instead of tediously arguing the philosophy of reality, which would be pointless and time consuming, I'll just make a different point. You can be wrong. It doesn't bother me. :-)

My point is this: How are hallucinogens any more useful than reading a book of optical illusions? Or reading the paragraph you just wrote? (While I did know some of that, I didn't know all of it)

You don't need drugs to learn about the frailties of human body, which I will certainly agree do exist. They provide no more benefit to the person than do any of the other hundreds of things that deceive us.

I don't understand your point in regards to the question of physics and relativity. Isn't relativity just one more thing that man has discovered with his mind? The laws still hold, they're just more complex than we first thought. It's not as though F = ma on Tuesdays and Thursdays and the formula for force on Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays is neediness * dress size squared (10 if you catch this) and on Saturday and Sunday they just pick one at random... The laws are the laws. And they always hold. And I believe that was my original point, if I remember correctly.

Ahh! When i say "points" (And it probably changed it) it changes it to the (D)!