[Martin Taylor 2018.05.21.10.24]
In today's (Toronto) Globe and Mail there is a brief interview with
a Michael Pollan who is starting up psychedelic research again.
.
He has written a book about which I know nothing except what is said
in the interview. The title is “.”
Some of the things he says in the interview about his research
remind me of a randomized version of MoL, in that they might be
interpreted as identifying consciously in the psychedelic flow
conflicts of which the drug-taker had been unaware, sometimes with
strong emotional effects. It occurred to me that there might be a more than coincidental
relationship between the incoherent effects, some beneficial, some
damaging, of the drug and the more directed (by the same “subject”
person, not the experimenter or therapist) bringing to consciousness
sources of conflict in MoL. If there is any truth in this beyond
superficial resemblance, might not very small doses of the right
psychedelic drug enhance the effectiveness of MoL in the same way
that a small amount of noise enhances the optimization of a variable
in a complex high-dimensional environment whereas a large amount of
noise just causes the variable to jump all over the fitness
landscape? Just a thought.
Martin
PS. Warren, I sent this to you personally as well as to CSGnet, so
you will get this twice.
···
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/article-after-decades-of-dormancy-psychedelic-research-makes-a-comeback/* How to Change Your Mind: What the
New Science of Psychedelics tells us about Consciousness, Dying,
Addiction, Depression and Transcendence*
[Bruce Nevin 2018-05-21_12:00:50 ET]
A fascinating connection, Martin.
Yes, “hallucinogens can sometimes bring to the surface latent psychological problems”, not limited to the blatent pathologies referenced by that phrase in this NYer account:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment
The decades of clinical research results which were cut off by Nixon in 1970 (when all uses were made illegal in the US) dropped from sight and memory and are only recently being discovered.
Pollan is out there in many venues. Here, an interview in the UK:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/may/12/michael-pollan-reluctant-psychonan
aut-psychedelic-drugs-how-to-change-your-mind
Interviews by Terry Gross (NPR) are always excellent:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/05/15/611225541/reluctant-psychonaut-michael-pollan-embraces-the-new-science-of-psychedelics
The proposal that these substances may still traffic around the 'default mode network" in the brain is intriguing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_mode_network
It is claimed to be the neurological basis for “the self”. Obviously a lot to unpack. But a suggestion that the changes in MoL are facilitated by reducing gain on control of self-definition.
···
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Martin Taylor csgnet@lists.illinois.edu wrote:
[Martin Taylor 2018.05.21.10.24]
In today's (Toronto) Globe and Mail there is a brief interview with
a Michael Pollan who is starting up psychedelic research again.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/article-after-decades-of-dormancy-psychedelic-research-makes-a-comeback/ .
He has written a book about which I know nothing except what is said
in the interview. The title is “* How to Change Your Mind: What the
New Science of Psychedelics tells us about Consciousness, Dying,
Addiction, Depression and Transcendence*.”
Some of the things he says in the interview about his research
remind me of a randomized version of MoL, in that they might be
interpreted as identifying consciously in the psychedelic flow
conflicts of which the drug-taker had been unaware, sometimes with
strong emotional effects.
It occurred to me that there might be a more than coincidental
relationship between the incoherent effects, some beneficial, some
damaging, of the drug and the more directed (by the same “subject”
person, not the experimenter or therapist) bringing to consciousness
sources of conflict in MoL. If there is any truth in this beyond
superficial resemblance, might not very small doses of the right
psychedelic drug enhance the effectiveness of MoL in the same way
that a small amount of noise enhances the optimization of a variable
in a complex high-dimensional environment whereas a large amount of
noise just causes the variable to jump all over the fitness
landscape?
Just a thought.
Martin
PS. Warren, I sent this to you personally as well as to CSGnet, so
you will get this twice.