"how does your Objectivism answer Mary's room? Can you really understand what it is for something to be orange, if you've never experienced the colour orange? "

My philosophy doesn't explain things that don't exist in my reality. If my reality does not include the color orange, then it's a dishonest question to ask my philosophy to explain it.

And you've missed that I'm not arguing about the saftey of drugs at all. I don't care. I consider all things that alter ones brain chemistry to be evil, because they interfere with a logical perception and/or analysis of one's world.

All the studies I looked at found the users of moderate to heavy cannabis users (5 or more joints a day) had progressively DEgenerative nuerological function. Please note, I did not include alcohol in my statement, nor did I include inhaled tobacco product. Most people puff, not inhale, cigars which is why the biggest cigar, pipe, and chew danger is mouth cancer. You attempt to misdirect by putting words in my luth is noted and not appreciated. Stick with refuting what I actually say, not a strawman argument against something I never proposed to begin with.

god, the typos. mout not luth, neurological not nuerological, and a couple typos that came out as grammatically incorrect.

grrrrrr mouth, not mout or luth

I'm literally just jumping in here having only read the last two posts so forgive me if I'm way off base of if I miss some important points, I'll try to go back and read the rest of the thread when I have more time.

@rlumley - do you think that your brain chemistry is not constantly being altered, not just by your body but by just about everything you're exposed to? It is certainly not in a static state, and to be perfectly honest I don't see how consciously altering that chemistry is in any way inherently "evil." Many people's brain chemistry is naturally "faulty" in some way that can very easily effect the way they see "objective reality" (whatever that is...), and altering that chemistry is often the best, or even only, way to allow someone to see things more clearly. Taken further, people willingly changing that chemistry in other ways isn't necessarily a bad thing, it can certainly allow you to see and experience things in a different way which might give you a much better (and more realistic) perspective on something. The same way that something can seem one way when you view it while angry or sad, and might seem completely different when viewed while happy. You can then combine these perspectives to get a much better and fuller view of the thing being observed. These different perspectives are, I think pretty obviously, largely due to changes in your brain chemistry, and yet I doubt that you'd look on them as all being false or useless, or "evil." Purposely changing that chemistry in a safe and controlled way isn't really necessarily all that different and I hardly think it's "evil."

@Draugnar - if you smoke more than 5 joints a day you'll be stoned the whole time. Of course you'll get stupid if you spend every day sitting around like a happy vegetable - does not matter what the drug does :)

rlumley; "interfere with a logical perception and/or analysis of one's world";

Didn’t Dali, Picasso, DeKooning, etc. create paintings that ‘challenge’ the logical perception of things? When Einstein introduced E=MC2 it too changed\challenged the logical perception of things. Taking into account that we’re talking about a situation in which “no permanent damage” is done to the brain aren’t any ‘stimuli’ drug or otherwise going to potentially changed\challenged the logical perception of things? Books? Movies? Food? Sugar? Caffeine? Is not the brain constantly\continually readjusting itself?

@ Oct:
Yes, but your brain is designed to react to the changes in your environment. It is not the change that is evil, but rather the intention behind the change. (Admittedly, I phrased that poorly above, but didn't really have time, and don't have much now - my physics lab is about to start) Your intention behind using drugs is to create an artificial happiness, which is what is evil, because it is done through artificial means. Mans purpose is to create happiness in himself through his actions, not artificially through drugs.

@Carp: Challenging and interfering with are two different things.

Challenging implies an argument against something, which, in and of itself, must be logical. Interfering with implies obstruction, which is the exact opposite.

@rlum; "using drugs is to create an artificial happiness" that is pure crap! Maybe for some that is ones intent but not for all.

@DrOct - assuming that you're right and that the only reason someone would be taking a drug is "artificial happiness." (I'm not going to get too far into that as I think the main goal of most activities if ultimately happiness but it doesn't necessarily follow that one's direct goal with taking a drug is happiness that comes directly from that drug, well except maybe with something like E...). Why is that inherently evil? Who defined this purpose for humankind? How do you know that is the purpose? Who is defining it as "evil?" Is it "evil" for someone who suffers from depression to take anti-depressants that help to correct the brain chemistry that is making it difficult for them to experience happiness? What about people with severe depression who undergo electro convulsive therapy toward the same end? Where does the line get drawn?

I find making blanket statements about what is an isn't "evil" in most contexts to be pretty close to useless, especially when it comes to actions that largely only effect the individual. I'm much more interested in actually discussing the effects and consequences of actions, and deciding whether they are useful, or a good or bad idea based on those criteria than I am in making those decisions based how those effects relate to some vague "purpose" that mankind may or may not have.

@ Oct: One does not bargain about inches of evil.

cannabis is a just a plant, and THC is a natural chemical found in a plant. It is not poisonous or toxic in any way.

Draugnar, I wasn't attempting to put words into your mouth, but you didn't exactly give me anything to work with. I worded my paragraph as a query to clarify what you meant. You said you didn't want anything to do with anything that damaged the brain, so I suggested that you were suggesting hallucinogens and cannabis damaged the brain more than alcohol and tobacco. You're free to correct me as you've done, but it was not meant to be a strawman. It doesn't change my argument at all. I already mentioned that heavy cannabis users have lower IQ's than non-users, but you haven't addressed that moderate users of cannabis have been found to have higher IQ's than non-users. Too much of anything is bad, it doesn't make the anything itself necessarily bad. Too much oxygen causes brain damage...

rlumley, if you're going to make the assumption that the human mind is some well crafted tool for seeking truth through reason, I suggest you actually read up on the extent to which this is not at all true. The human mind is primarily designed with survival and reproduction in mind, not happiness or truth. Happiness is just incentive, and truth is just a useful tool in the grand scheme of evolution. Your mind is altered all the time while you are sober, and not all of it is some well designed reaction to your environment. Simply staying awake for too long or not eating or drinking for too long can quite significantly impair your mental function. Many of the function we have now are completely obsolete in the modern and much safer world. Our fight or flight response finds little use when we don't have to worry about wild animals or fighting someone, and instead leads us to higher blood pressures, increased heart problems, and much social anxiety. Cognitive dissonance is an incredibly powerful process in the mind that allows us to smooth over the flaws in our reasoning by assuming the end so as to preserve our mental state and beliefs. It actually counteracts our faculties of reason, and when we've created a rationale, we are actually rewarded in our brain! If man's purpose is to create happiness through himself and at the same time use logic and reason to ascertain the truths of the world, then why is it that it has been shown that people who are depressed have higher analytical faculties and reasoning abilities? The brain is a magnificent thing, but it is not without it's flaws, and it's quite absurd to assume that it cannot be improved by alteration. I have no doubt that it would be difficult to alter it in a wholly positive way, but that is not to say that any alteration is necessarily bad.

@Chrispminis - in the comment about heavy users have a lower IQ I'd like to add that in no way does the statistic show that the heavy use in any way lowers IQ. Who is to say lower IQ users naturally allow such a gluttonous nature to take over? Also, it is prove that yes brain cells are damaged but actual memory loss doesn't occur, the synapse connections become weak but not reviewing information in your head does that, nothing a good mind stream wont fix (Another discussion)

Also, I would comment on your second paragraph but it is a philosophical outlook and apparently philosophy has no place around rlumley so I'll avoid being his perception of a troll lol ^_^

**in no way is the concept of happiness or logic the reason for our existance other than the byproduct of our special survival. Why is it that people put a paralinguistic species above any other animal when it is just a different way of life? We have more options by why is that better?

I'm not correcting grammar, I don't care how an English snob reacts to it.

@rlumley - Who's bargaining? You still haven't done anything to support your assertions about what is or isn't "evil." Use that logic an reason you've been talking about so much, define your terms and show me why such things are "evil" rather than just declaring them so.

As I've defined it many times, that which contributes to your survival that you obtain through the fruits of your labour and though is good, all that which does not fall into this category, is evil.

I don't have time to respond to you yet Chrisp, but I'll try to later.

@rlumley - What if a situation calls for using drugs to survive? Just as an inane example, say one is starving in the jungle and eats some mushrooms. The mushrooms turn out to be hallucinogenic and suppress his appetite which isn't healthy in a sense but say the duration he is affected he comes to a realization and becomes more motivated than ever to fight for survival.

rlumley, you are a theist are you not?

@ Sayjo, I'm pretty sure that's obvious...

I don't see how theism is at all related... I know for one I've never discussed my religious beliefs on this site at all, so saying that is just a complete guess on your part...

But such a definition is very vague.

So... anything that isn't related to labor or survival is evil? Is playing video games evil? How about diplomacy? I don't see how either of them contribute to my survival. I certainly didn't create them through my labor.

What about sports? Are they evil? I don't need to play them to survive, and in fact some could actually threaten my survival! What about watching TV or listening to music?

Why is it evil for someone to want to use a substance to help explore and understand them self better; to think about things from a different perspective? (Perhaps you're under the impression that hallucinogens only involve "seeing" things that aren't there? rather it seems to be more of an, admittedly difficult to describe, change in the way one thinks or perceives things, It can be very illuminating, especially in hindsight, about one's own biases or ways of thinking about things). Is it because it's facilitated by something external? If so, should we give up the use of other tools?

How about reading fiction? Isn't that just escapism that takes you away from reality, even if just temporarily? Doesn't it alter the way you think (especially with a very engrossing book that you "lose yourself" in)?

And what about my examples of people suffering from depression (or mania for that matter) or other conditions brought on by an imbalance in brain chemistry or some other such problem? Is it "evil" for them to use prescribed drugs, or other treatments to try to deal with their issues?

I'm not necessarily arguing one way or the other that hallucinogens are good for people, or supporting the idea that "everyone" (and i realize no one was suggesting that LITERALLY everyone should try them) should try them. I'm simply taking issue with your declaration that they're inherently evil and of no possible use to anyone.

Just declaring things you don't like "evil" smacks to me of dogma without any real depth of thought or consideration. Things should be evaluated on their merits, on the results, outcomes and risks they represent, not on some vague idea that they violate some fuzzily defined "purpose" for mankind.

@rlumley - I just assumed because you're a jackass ^_^

You know, reading through this it may come across as a bit too harsh. I don't mean to imply that you don't think about things at all, clearly if you didn't you wouldn't have taken part in this discussion so much. I just get rather annoyed with absolute blanket statements.

@DrOct - Was that towards me? Or Rlumley who is a fan of such things?

@ Oct:

Relaxation is psychologically healthy, and is therefore not evil. Of course in more than moderate amounts, it is certainly not a good thing.

It's evil because you are using artificial means to change the way you are. It's cheating. You're supposed to change through natural means - your brain (ie you) change(s) in response to your surroundings. That's how personal growth takes place. Cognatively, you observe and react to your surroundings, and those thoughts manifest themselves as changes in your brain chemistry. Artifically bypassing this sequence is what makes it wrong, since it's not how your brain naturally works. Mans mind is his motive form of survival, and violating that mind is therefore wrong.

About reading books - that point is just kind of foolish. Sorry to be so blunt, but I addressed it in the previous paragraph.

And to mental disease (sorry if I missed that - as a Uni student taking 19 hours of hard sciences I don't have much time to spend on these forums :-P ) that is perfectly acceptable, since it is an unbalance in the brain that you are correcting, as opposed to creating.

I'll admit that I have little to no knowledge about hallucinogens, and if they are, as Chrisp has claimed, (And I don't really believe, but don't care to do any research into) harmless if taken correctly, than they are far less evil than most drugs. But the far more likely situation in my mind is that you all want some way to justify your use of them, so you claim that they have psychological benefit, thus trumping up their benefits, and claim they are less dangerous than they are. I generally try to steer clear of psychoanalyzing people other than myself, but I've been thinking it this whole time and haven't said it. Like I said, I have no knowledge of such things (nor do I care to) so I could be completely wrong.

@rlumley - This is the most decent post you've put up :p My only problem with your view on good and evil is the cheating aspect. You seem to not understand that this entire concept is relative and you are trying hard to prove that it isn't and that it is absolute, which is why I made the theist comment you claimed was a complete guess.

In the point that it is artificial I do have one bit of input to add, your brain has receptors that are specifically designed to accept cannabinoid and opiate chemical signatures. It is thought that they exist because our brains may naturally output them. (I am in no way suggesting it makes them okay to do, regardless of everything said I am anti-drugs... for me :P) My point being blending that concept and the mental illness is this, mental illness is a very vague concept. Other than blatant unfunctioning people, there is a huge gradient that drugs are used to correct them. Who are you to say that someone's current state couldn't be corrected and balanced by the "evil"? If such things allow a person to focus on reaching their goal. (Artificial happiness, cheating, blah blah blah. These are just labels that in no way can be applied to everyone)

What about Michael Phelps? He smoked evil and performed amazing in a physical peak competition. Every part of what makes him who he is is what allowed him to work towards his victory and condition himself. You cannot deny one aspect because it doesn't fit your formula, everything is a factor. "Consciousness is a temporal stream of existence" - Emmanuel Kant. (Since you like quoting him :P)

Also the "correcting, as opposed to creating" is to be blunt, stupid. You don't know any of these people, reasons, or situations. Nor are you an expert in anything you've argued, you like "logic" "knowing" etc yet you argue what you don't know and while finally agree that you don't know (good that you are remotely aware) still continue to pass judgement without any sort of logical foundation.

You believe Chrisp may be misinformed and self justifying it's safety but that is again to be blunt fucking retarded. THat is like saying a sky diving instructor who creates artificial adrenaline does it because he is misinformed and self justifies his actions with danger reducing logic. No, informed people are who do these things and want to do these things, they are more aware of the dangers and various aspects of danger which makes them more able to handle it and prepare for it. You're like a lawyer telling a doctor the dangers of his profession. (They are just random disciplines and in no way do I associate you or this with anything) They don't tell either how to do their job because ethics and disciplines teach you what you don't know, the degrees in which you learn what you know regarding your chosen profession should make you more aware of the intricacies of any other form of knowledge in which you have no experience. You're the cat teaching the dog how to properly bark. Want more analogies? They are fun, really I don't mind.

@rlumley - "It's evil because you are using artificial means to change the way you are. It's cheating. You're supposed to change through natural means - your brain (ie you) change(s) in response to your surroundings."

See that's where we differ. I don't put moral imperatives on things like that. Again I try to evaluate them based on the actual effects they have. Frankly, I find arguments based on what people are "supposed" to do to be bullshit. Who on earth is determining what one is or isn't "supposed" to do? Where does this standard come from? Who is the arbiter of it?

You keep trying to argue that there is some universal "purpose" for mankind, without backing that up. Where did that purpose come from? How do we define it? How do YOU know what it is? What happens if we violate it? What happens when we fulfill it? Do we get some sort of cosmic trophy from the universe?

And you're assuming that I use hallucinogens. I don't. The most psychoactive drug (aside form prescribed Ritalin for ADD) I've ever taken was marijuana, and I haven't used that in many years. As I said I'm not actually arguing about whether hallucinogens are actually good for people or not, I'm arguing with your assertion that they're somehow inherently evil, based on nothing more than some vague idea about the way things are "supposed" to be.

As to your argument about safety, I'll take my information on safety from studies and statistics (such as those pointed out by Chrispminis) rather than the vague feelings of some guy on the internet who's never really looked into.

@ Sayjo: Again, I don't have much time - I'm in class, but it's a worthless class. I'll try to hit the highlights.

About the brain: The receptors aren't designed to handle those chemicals in the quantities that they get in drug use. It's like drinking a glass of water vs drinking the Gulf of Mexico.

About Phelps: Are you arguing that his drug use helped him perform better? At best, I think it didn't hurt, but it probably didn't help him...

About Kant: I absolutely hate Kant. He has done more singular damage to philosophy than any other man. I debated about using his quote, but figured it probably wouldn't come up. Guess I was wrong. :-P

Next paragraph: I don't know these people, and I'm not talking about specific uses. I'm speaking in general. Of course, some drugs can be used appropriately (Medicinal marijuana) but the vast majority are done for other reasons. Those are the ones I have a problem with.

Hahaha, some good analogies, and why I try to stay away from psychoanalyzing other people. I didn't necessarily say it was a large part, but I do think it is a part.

@Draugnar - Of course, us being sentient beings could no more want anything else as to want death.

@rlumley - I'm not going to argue that science is based on assumptions and perceived constants with you because it's not "logic" it's philosophical which is just as much of a science.

No actually that is not my point, you seem to be using Chrispminis perception as my own, or at least that's what I got from his posts.
My point tends to be you can believe what you want as with anyone else, just don't make it absolute because you are many many steps below a God.

I lost my post?? >.< lol

@Draugnar - You damage brain cells with your smoking and drinking, you just keep at at a minimum. Who wouldn't want this sentient existance? Anything else is the same as wishing death.

@rlumley - No, that is more Chrips view as I read it. My point has always been, your demand of concepts and logic being absolute are absurd. You're many steps below God so humble thyself. *psst, you're showing your age. Is your Jesus white with long flowing hair? lol