There's a fascinating article in the latest Vanity Fair (not online) about the prevalence of LSD (aka lysergic acid diethylamide) among movie stars in 1950s Hollywood:
Aldous Huxley was one of the first in Los Angeles to take LSD and was soon joined by others, including the writer Anais Nin. The screenwriter Charles Brackett discovered "infinitely more pleasure" from music on LSD than he had ever before, and the director Sidney Lumet tried it under the supervision of a former chief of psychiatry for the U.S. Navy. Lumet says his three sessions were "wonderful," especially the one where he relived his birth...Another early experimenter was Clare Boothe Luce, the playwright and former American ambassador to Italy, who in turn encouraged her husband, Time publisher Henry Luce, to try LSD. He was impressed and several very positive articles about the drug's potential ran in his magazine.
[SNIP]
There is no question that, at least for a period of time, LSD truly transformed Cary Grant...Much to his friends' surprise, Cary Grant began talking about his therapy in public, lamenting, "Oh those wasted years, why didn't I do this sooner?"
"The Curious Story Behind the New Cary Grant," headlined the September 1, 1959 issue of Look magazine, and inside was a glowing account of how, because of LSD therapy, "at last I am close to happiness." He later explained that "I wanted to rid myself of all my hypocrises. I wanted to work through the events of my childhood, my relationship with my parents and my former wives." More articles followed, and LSD even received a variation of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.
Of course, celebrities no longer brag about their hallucinogenic experiments. (Instead, we're stuck with the slow motion tragedy of Lindsay Lohan.) Furthermore, the government now treats hallucinogens (such as LSD and mushrooms) as legally equivalent to heroin, crack and opium. Because LSD is a Schedule 1 drug, if you're arrested with more than a single dose (roughly .5 grams), and it's your first offense, the federal sentencing guidelines are as follows: "Not less than 5 years, and not more than 40 years". State penalties are similar, with possession typically leading to 1-3 years in jail. (This despite the fact that study after study shows that prescription drugs kill more people by overdose than illicit drugs.) If it were up to me, our classification of drugs would depend largely on their addictive potential, so that drugs with limited addiction potential (such as LSD) were far less regulated than highly addictive substances, such as crack, oxycontin, heroin, etc. But don't get me started on our endless war on drugs, which is an incoherent disaster.
Back to LSD. Because the drug is so tightly regulated, there has been minimal research on how the drug works in the brain. Just look at these search results: The most cited papers are more than thirty years old. (One scientist I talked to last year said the two main disincentives to use LSD in the lab were the lack of grants - the big funding institutions are only interested in addictive drugs - and the paperwork.) The end result is that we really don't know how LSD alters our sensory experience, except that it binds to a vast array of G-protein coupled receptors, including every dopamine receptor subtype and various serotonin receptor subtypes. All this excess neural activity leads to excitation in the upper echelons of the cortex, such as layers IV and V. And, somehow, those squirts of chemical lead people to conclude that they've found the secret of the universe.
What's unfortunate is that LSD could be a powerful experimental tool. And not in the Timothy Leary sense: I'm talking about rigorous investigations into the neural substrate of consciousness. After all, one of the challenges of investigating human consciousness is that it's a continuous stream. As William James noted in 1890, "Consciousness does not appear to itself chopped up in bits. Such words as 'chain' or 'train' do not describe it fitly as it presents itself in the first instance. It is nothing jointed; it flows. A 'river' or a 'stream' are the metaphors by which it is most naturally described." The paradox, of course, is that the brain is composed of a trillion different joints, a seeming infinitude of binary neurons switching on and off. So how does that create this? How does three pounds of wet stuff give rise to the ceaseless cinema of subjective experience?
To begin to answer this profound mystery - and it is the mystery of modern neuroscience - researchers have come up with a clever set of experimental paradigms. My favorite is Christof Koch's version of binocular rivalry. In theory, binocular rivalry is a simple phenomenon. We have two eyeballs; as a result, we are constantly being confronted with two slightly separate views of the world. The brain, using a little unconscious trigonometry, slyly erases this discrepancy, fusing our multiple visions into a single image.
But Koch throws a wrench into this visual process. "What happens," he wondered, "if corresponding parts of your left and right eyes see two quite distinct images, something that can easily be arranged using mirrors and a partition in front of your nose?" Under ordinary circumstances, we superimpose the two separate images from our two separate eyes on top of each other. For example, if the left eye is shown horizontal stripes and the right eye is shown vertical stripes, we will consciously perceive a plaid pattern. Sometimes, however, the brain gets a little confused, and decides to pay attention to only one of our eyes. After a few seconds, we realize our mistake, and begin to pay attention to our other eye. As Koch notes, "The two percepts can alternate in this manner indefinitely."
The end result of all this experimentally induced confusion is that the subject becomes aware - if only for a moment - of the artifice underlying perception. We realize that we have two separate eyes, which see two separate things. Koch wants to know where in the brain the struggle for ocular dominance occurs. Which neurons decide which eye to pay attention to? What cells impose a unity onto our sensory disarray?
This is an elegant experimental paradigm. But it's also profoundly limited. Even if we can locate the cells that govern binocular rivalry, that's only a single "neural correlate of consciousness". It remains entirely unclear if those to-be-determined cells in the visual cortex govern all visual experience, or just the contradictions between our eyeballs.
And this leads me back to LSD. Here's a compound that can consistently alter our entire sensory experience, so that the brain is made aware of its own machinery. We see ourselves seeing the world. (I wish Kant had tried LSD - he would have loved it.*) From the perspective of neuroscience, the hallucinogen is like a systematic version of binocular rivalry. If we knew how LSD worked, we might also gain insight into how ordinary experience works, and how that chemical soup creates the feeling of this, here, now. In other words, the molecular "joints" tweaked by the illegal compound can tell us something very interesting about the source of our unjointed stream of consciousness. Cary Grant was on to something.
*Kant: "The imagination is a necessary ingredient of perception itself."
- Log in to post comments
Christof Koch!! yes
I have made the same observation about Kant and hallucinogens many times. There is no better argument for transcendental idealism than one's first trip.
Johah, LSD doses are measured in MICROgrams. If you took a half-gram of LSD, you wouldn't come back for weeks.
First, more people overdose on prescription drugs because more people TAKE prescription drugs. Sheesh.
Secondly, to characterize LSD as having "zero" addictive potential is to seriously misunderstand the nature of chemical dependency (or any compulsive behavior, actually). Absolutely, we don't hear of acid addicts and they're probably hard to find, for a variety of reasons, but read the DSM IV criteria for abuse or dependence and it's not hard to imagine someone being "addicted" to LSD. We heard the same myth about marijuana, and treatment centers are full of pot addicts.
Otherwise, I'm in complete agreement.
Ooh, an article on my favorite blog about my favorite drug. It's time we put this amazing and undeservedly illegal substance back into the labs. Thank you Jonah for the treat :)
Chuck, if you want to classify drugs depending on _psychological_ addiction (opposed to physicial addiction, which has indeed zero potential with LSD), you'd have to admit that activities and interests can also be addictive, and thus psychological addiction tells you more about the person, and less about the thing the person is obsessed with. It can be a drug, but it can also be a videogame, or sex, or hiking; all things which can be deadly or at least life-hampering in excessive doses.
Leonard Ritter is right. LSD is not physically addictive, and I'm fairly confident that it's one of the safest drugs out there (in terms of physiological damage). The legality of a drug should never be based on psychological addiction, as that depends on the person, not the actual substance.
Though I do believe LSD should be legal (or at least decriminalized), it can still be quite a dangerous drug, since it alters your state of mind quite a bit. However, as usual, a decent education on the subject is enough to prevent people from doing stupid things.
And yeah, LSD is one of my favorite drugs as well :)
Never done acid, but have had this experience with mushrooms and agree with everything said here. I have met people who have become addicted to the "trip" and have taken these psychedelics too often, leading to depression. But, it all depends on the person, and I think this drug is very safe with a little education. Unfortunatley, most people are too stupid and we'll always here of the bad things such as this...
http://sfist.com/2010/05/26/stay_away_from_the_brown_acid_in_hu.php
Jonah,
If you're interested in this then you should go to either the MAPS conference, or else the Horizons psychedelic conference in NYC. Both are just full weekends of people presenting academic papers on psychedelics.
In any event, even if LSD were bumped down to schedule II or III it's unlikely that scientists would rush in to study it. First, because of it's bad reputation it would be hard to get funding and IRB approval. Second, and perhaps more importantly, because an LSD trip lasts 12-16 hours it's impractical for researchers to use for double blind placebo controlled studies. That's just longer than most researchers want to spend at work. Instead, most modern studies are done using psilocybin, which is very similar but only lasts 4-6 hours. This is also better because if the person is having a difficult experience it doesn't last nearly as long.
Anecdotally it also seems like there are much fewer people who have a psychotic break under psilocybin than LSD. And although that's a relatively small risk when done in an academic setting and participants have been properly screened, that's still important to take into consideration.
By the way, here are a couple of outstanding videos from last years Horizons conference:
http://vimeo.com/10931182
http://vimeo.com/10918637
Both very much worth watching!
Leonard, "physically addictive" is another nonsense phrase, sorry. What you're really talking about is withdrawal, and any psychoactive chemical use will result in withdrawal; it's all degree. Marijuana withdrawal is mild; opiate withdrawal is extremely painful; alcohol withdrawal can kill you. And to talk about "psychological addiction" and ignore neurotransmitters, etc., is also goofy. Again, my point only was that it's disingenuous to rate LSD as less dangerous because it's nonaddictive, whatever you think that means (very little).
Some interesting comments. I'll not get into the legal/illegal issues, but will note that there are some interesting new studies being done on the use of hallucinogens such as LSD and psilocybin in exploring some of the symptoms of schizophrenia. Since these drugs appear to affect serotonin levels in the brain, research on their use in treating depression is gaining interest (see my blog Molecules and Mind).
"full weekends of people presenting academic papers on psychedelics"? That must be a hoot. I suspect it would be hard to read a paper with the letters moving all around...I would anticipate a certain amount of digressions from the prepared texts... In the right state of mind it would be endlessly amusing
They think they've discovered the secret of the universe because they have; the secret of the universe is no secret at all, it's the most obvious thing there is, but we usually require a disruption of our thinking to notice It and pay attention for a while.
Regarding Kant on LSD, there is an account in Houston and Masters' "The Varieties of Psychedelic Experience" of someone who, while tripping, observed that Kant's categorical imperative tasted like veal cutlet.
Perhaps Kant would have developed different philosophical tastes... :-)
And re identifying .5 grams of LSD as a single dose, I'd suggest a correction just on the extremely remote chance that someone uses that as a reference and is able to do something about it. Half a gram of LSD is enough for 2000 250-microgram hits, the classic sixties dose, with just one of those being enough in many cases to provoke a life-shattering experience.
One need not travel to China to find indigenous cultures lacking human rights. America leads the world in percentile behind bars, thanks to the ongoing open season on hippies, commies, and non-whites in the war on drugs. Cops get good performance reviews for shooting Phish-fans in a barrel. If weâre all about spreading liberty abroad, then why mix the message at home? Peace on the home front would enhance global credibility.
The drug czarâs Rx for prison fodder costs dearly, as lives are flushed down expensive tubes. My shamanâs second opinion is that psychoactive plants are Godâs gift. Behold, itâs all good. When Eve ate the apple, she knew a good apple, and an evil prohibition. Canadian Marc Emery was extradited to prison for helping American farmers reduce U. S. demand for Mexican pot.
The CSA (Controlled Substances Act of 1970) reincarnates Al Capone, endangers homeland security, and throws good money after bad. Fiscal policy burns tax dollars to root out the number-one cash crop in the land, instead of taxing sales. Society rejected the plague of prohibition, but it mutated. Apparently, SWAT teams donât need no stinking amendment.
Nixon passed the CSA on the false assurance that the Schafer Commission would later justify criminalizing his enemies, but he underestimated Schaferâs integrity. No amendments can assure due process under an anti-science law without due process itself. Psychology hailed the breakthrough potential of LSD, until the CSA shut down research, and pronounced that marijuana has no medical use.
The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) allows Native American Church members to eat peyote, which functions like LSD. Americans shouldnât need a specific church membership or an act of Congress to obtain their birthright freedom of religion. Godâs childrenâs free exercise of religious liberty may include entheogen sacraments to mediate communion with Him.
Freedom of speech presupposes freedom of thought. The Constitution doesnât enumerate any governmental power to embargo diverse states of mind. How and when did government usurp this power to coerce conformity? The Mayflower sailed to escape coerced conformity. Legislators who would limit cognitive liberty lack jurisdiction.
Common-law holds that adults are the legal owners of their own bodies. The Founding Fathers undersigned that the right to the pursuit of happiness is inalienable. Socrates said to know your self. Mortal lawmakers should not presume to thwart the intelligent design that molecular keys unlock spiritual doors. Persons who appreciate their own free choice of path in life should tolerate seekersâ self-exploration. Liberty is prerequisite for tracking drug-use intentions and outcomes.
Well Joan Halifax and Stanislav Groff did extensive studies on LSD when it was legally available for researchers and there are videos on Youtube where Groff explains his involvement. Do a google search - revelatory - great stuff.
Hi Jonah, the article of Vanity Fair is available here:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/
very interesting stuff!
Sorry, wrong link!
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2010/08/drugs-in-hollywood…
This blog post contains my exact thesis in an English 101 paper I wrote in '86. Going through card catalogues(!),and closely examining LSD literature of the 50's & 60's I was amazed to find out how much ridiculous hype there was on both sides of the LSD debate: either it saved your mortal soul, or it would rot your brain and corrupt your DNA. The problem was that the "debate" was no debate at all. It never had anything to do with actual research, and poor researchers making huge strides in neuroscience & psychology by controlled, responsible use were boxed out of the hyperbolic din. In '66 the hammer came down. Illegal even for a researcher to experiment with it.
I argued for a respectful revisiting of LSD research, the same as Jonah does here. 25 years later, we're even further off. I wouldn't have believed it.
P.s. LSD is measured in nanograms. Micrograms would turn you into Crispin Glover.
What? No, doses of LSD *are* measured in micrograms, typically 100 micrograms or more. See Erowid.org's dose information:
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_dose.shtml
Maybe you're confusing the metric abbreviations:
ng = nanogram, μg or mcg = microgram and mg = miligram.
("μg" uses the Greek letter mu; sometimes approximated as "ug" if the program has trouble displaying that symbol)
Also, Jack Cowan at the University of Chicago and Paul Bressloff at the University of Utah (and their coauthors) are doing some really interesting research into modeling geometric visual hallucinations as a way of elucidating the functional architecture and connectivity of the visual system. Here are some good online summaries, and you can find their original papers though there; their Scholarpedia article goes over the main points, and there are also two videos of Cowan giving presentations, if I can go find the links...
University of Chicago Experts Guide: Jack Cowan. Available at: http://experts.uchicago.edu/experts.php?id=493
Bressloff, P., Neuroscience Graduate Program; University of Utah: Faculty: Bressloff. Available at: http://neuroscience.med.utah.edu/Faculty/Bressloff.html
Freiberger, M., 2009. Uncoiling the spiral: Maths and hallucinations. Plus, (53). Available at: http://plus.maths.org/issue53/features/hallucinations/index.html
Bressloff, P.C. & Cowan, J.D., Models of visual hallucinations. In Scholarpedia. Available at: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Models_of_visual_hallucinations
Carroll, S., 2005. Hallucinatory Neurophysics. Preposterous Universe. Available at: http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2005/02/hallucinatory-neurophy…
Modeling visual hallucinations. BoingBoing. Available at: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/11/modeling-visual-hall.html
(wrote my BioPsych final paper on this topic last semester!)
Drugs are bad when they ruin relationships or unintentionally limit one's potential.
For the purposes of Law Enforcement, prosecution is not based upon the dosage seized, but instead the weight of the final product. In prosecution and sentencing guidelines, ome variations are given for difference stages of marijuana production, such as seed, seedlings, adult plants, bud, etc. But of course when they Police PR machine kicks in, they use the highest possible Dollar Amount to make it seem like they are winning the War on Drugs.
If you are caught selling any drug you are prosecuted on the weight of what you are caught with... Even if it is FAKE! Truly a thought crime, because you "thought" you were legitimately selling the drug, or you're a fraud, but the other way is actually easier to prosecute.
If you are growing psychedelic mushrooms in a bucket of dirt, the worst case scenario is that they weigh the bucket and dirt, for the prosecution amount.
I know a couple of people that claim they have eaten more than 100 hits of acid. I'm telling you these people are f**ked up! Same thing with most frequent, habitual pot smokers and alcoholics-numerous problems. The vast majority of people who use drugs do so for entertainment not enlightenment.
The culture in America canât handle open access to such powerful substances. People are to busy trying to exploit each other or make the other guy look stupid to worry about enlightenment anyway.
Please take a moment to check out my LSD Documentary LSD:Power & CONTROL. Features Paul Krassner's trip with Groucho Marx, The CIA MK ULTRA LSD Brothel in SF...New interview with Ram Dass...JFK and acid plus more. link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZdz0G4lG6k
Posted 7/17/2010 5:20:48pm
by Realitysurfer
I had a friend at Tufts, he was a freshman, I was a junior, he took LSD in 1969, he went crazy and had to be put in a mental hospital, never came back to college. Never heard from him again. True story. I took acid a few times myself but I never swallowed. SMILE.
Kidding, above, about taking LSD. Never did. But that freshman who never came back to school, true story, has stayed in my mind ever since. I visited him once at the asylum, he looked really bad. Sigh.
That said, the secret to the universe, of the universe, is easily accessible without acid or drugs. Simple: there is no God, no gods, no New Age gods, no Native American shamans, nada, no Jesus as son of imaginary god, no virgin birth, no afterlife, no previous lives, no other life in the Universe outside Earth, and death is final. Got that?
Here is anther link that features an interview with the scientist that first discovered and worked with LSD. Sure it has it's place in the lab, hard to argue otherwise with all of the research on prescription medications.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzq_sBsjbAU&feature=related
Just a point of note and safety. One dose of LSD is NOT half a gram, a dose is roughly 0.0001 to 0.0005 grams. If a person were to ingest half a gram of LSD they risk send themselves into a permanent state of psychosis.
A single dose of LSD is between 100 and 500 *micro* grams. Not milligrams, so your article is off by three full orders of magnitude.
LSD is an incredibly powerful substance. No mater how much you take, your physical body will suffer no negative consequences but your mind very well may never come back.
I know it's a technicality, just be careful out there.
-Jeff
The magazine article in Vanity Fair "Cary in the Sky with Diamonds" was definitely an interesting read; so much so that I've began researching LSD psychotherapy treatment of the 1950's....if you haven't read this article, please pick up a copy..
When Jonah Lehrer stated that a single dose of LSD is "roughly .5 grams", he said that in the context of the federal U.S. government mandatory-minimum sentencing guidelines. The way the government figures the weight of a pharmaceutical is to include the weight of any inert substrate which it may be distributed on. Which of course is a dishonest practice used to charge people for more mass of pharmaceuticals than they actually possess. Further, it makes application of the law arbitrary, since the weight of an inert substrate can be anything, and the inert substrates themselves aren't illegal. Ergo, people get much longer sentences, and get disparate sentences for possessing the same amount of pharmaceuticals, merely because of the mass of the inert substrate.
Dan Bloom, Carlitos is correct. Double-blind scientific studies have shown that the archetype psychedelics induce genuine religious mystical insights. See the Good Friday Experiment at Boston University's Marsh Chapel on April 20, 1962, conducted by Walter N. Pahnke and assisted by Timothy Leary using psilocybin. See also the 2006 Johns Hopkins University's experiment with psilocybin conducted by Roland R. Griffiths et al.
All the below works are available in full for free at the website of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS).
Walter Norman Pahnke, Drugs and Mysticism: An Analysis of the Relationship between Psychedelic Drugs and Mystical Consciousness, Ph.D. thesis at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (June 1963).
Rick Doblin, "Pahnke's 'Good Friday Experiment': A Long-Term Follow-Up and Methodological Critique", Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1991), pp. 1-28.
R. R. Griffiths, W. A. Richards, U. McCann and R. Jesse, "Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance", Psychopharmacology, Vol. 187, No. 3 (August 2006), pp. 268-283, doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0457-5.
R. R. Griffiths, W. A. Richards, M. W. Johnson, U. D. McCann and R. Jesse, "Mystical-type experiences occasioned by psilocybin mediate the attribution of personal meaning and spiritual significance 14 months later", Journal of Psychopharmacology, Vol. 22, No. 6 (August 2008), pp. 621-632, doi:10.1177/0269881108094300.
There is an ultimate insight provided by the archetype psychedelics (e.g., LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, DMT, etc.), but most people only catch glimpses of it, and are unable to hold on to that insight as they come down from the psychedelic. Which, even so, is still an utterly profound and life-transforming experience. Those who have had an entheogenic dose of an archetype psychedelic are typically familiar with the experience of having a transcendental sense of understanding, of everything in the universe making perfect sense, of there being a deep interconnectedness and purpose to all things, but as they come down, the typical case is for that deep sense of understanding to be lost, and to be merely left with the impression that one once understood the great secret of existence. If one is able to give the correct name to this ultimate insight, and further, to properly understand one's own relation to it (i.e., to give the correct name for oneself), then it is possible to bring this ultimate insight down with one: for then one has the terminology, the label, for this ultimate insight and one's own relation to it, which greatly facilitates apprehension and cerebration of the matter. That ultimate insight is this:
You are God. It's all just You. You are all that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist. You are the totality of existence, forever and all times. Now of course the conscious portion of your presently limited viewpoint is not the totality of existence, it is just a finite subset of the infinitely greater consciousness of God. But at the ultimate level, you are that greater consciousness, i.e., God.
You are God experiencing and discovering Yourself.
Thus, the word "entheogen" is quite an apt name for the archetype psychedelics.
An equivalent formulation of this is that God, who is existence itself, is the Logos: i.e., computation, logic, thought, reason, cogitation, ratiocination, cerebration. That is, God is logic itself, i.e., mathematics itself. And mathematics is infinite. God is Georg Cantor's Absolute Infinite. And the set cardinality of God is that of the continuum: 2^aleph-null.
Interestingly, God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper, which in addition to giving the Feynman-Weinberg-DeWitt quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, also demonstrates that the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God):
F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T; available at Tipler's website. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.
Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics website.)
Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once).
See also the below resource for further information on the Omega Point Theory:
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist. (A website.)
Tipler is Professor of Physics and Mathematics (joint appointment) at Tulane University. His Ph.D. is in the field of global general relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed), and he is also an expert in particle physics and computer science. His Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of prestigious peer-reviewed physics and science journals in addition to Reports on Progress in Physics, such as Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, etc.
There is no more freedom of speech for art in the usa:
without consequence of publication of thought, in the
visual arena. Ideas are taken and exploited, wisdom
is variegated (yes I know I have extended that word) expression is regulated from the color "RED" to "GRAY",
everything you are trying to express from accumulated
observation of innocent international talent is exploited
by the present technological expression you have just received. The bug of tommorrow will be a roach for it's
survival mechanisms, and astounding mosaic insight.
When crayons depict the imperfect thalamaus: regions of followers will unite in similar opinion. By the time genetics accomplishes equal treatment of brain differentiation: liablility in it's cocoon will sprout to dehabalitate the purified intellectual free thought that was our primal existence: and, the very knowledge of which we should respect for experimentation and answers, will become distorted for approval by the masses.
My insightful friends will gather in fury, wishing that
they had recognized modern day genius without the identification of grid imprints on their foreheads, or
wiring signals miscommunicated by fools.
ive taken lsd 3 times, but the last time i took it was the real deal. i had this feeling that i was being monitored by the government and this did not go away for about a month...this shit can cause disturbances to where you look back and feel like an idiot
Ha , ha nice movie and the concept really help me to bind to the theater sheet ,but this should be limit to the only movies otherwise our society gonna burn the hole in the life.
interesting article
When crayons depict the imperfect thalamaus: regions of followers will unite in similar opinion. By the time genetics accomplishes equal treatment of brain differentiation: liablility in it's cocoon will sprout to dehabalitate the purified intellectual free thought that was our primal existence: and, the very knowledge of which we should respect for experimentation and answers, will become distorted for approval by the masses.
ive taken lsd 3 times, but the last time i took it was the real deal. i had this feeling that i was being monitored by the government and this did not go away for about a month.
I disagree with chuck. addiction should ultimately be measured by a degree of physical withdrawl. thanks
This has worked very well for me!