[neuro_image2]

That's a surprisingly disparaging and unsupported reply (but I welcome the discussion).

You may want to review your comments and question whether they're a fair response to what I've written. I also wonder why you find it necessary to be so adamant and pejorative. You clearly have a strong negative bias on this issue (without any demonstrable knowledge on the topic).

I'm a physician with subspecialty qualifications and publications across multiple fields in neuroscience, so I would strongly argue against your points on the nervous system (you seam to be talking from the position of someone without biological or neuroscience training).

There is substantial 'non-biased' evidence for the utility of psychedelics. Here are just a a few publications, which may interest you:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01336-3

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2032994

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02698811166755...

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-017-4771-x

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medici...

[lostmsu]

I am not sure what you are arguing here. The studies you linked confirm my statement exactly:

'I am yet to see any unbiased proof for any benefits beyond good mood (and even that one is still doubtful in longer term).'

No study you linked claims any benefits beyond mood improvement. No study checks mood past a few months. No study checks for damage to brain function.

This is what you claimed: 'Openness to more creative ideas'. Any of the links confirm that, or is it simply your wishful thinking under influence?

[neuro_image2]

Did someone who uses mushrooms steal your girlfriend? You clearly have no medical, biological or neuroscience background, yet keep spewing the same bad faith arguments.

I've taken a look at some of your previous posts - you come across as consistently obnoxious and uninformed yet willing to post an uncompromising opinion. Google scholar is great if you actually want to search for evidence that may counter your view (which you don't seam to).

For anyone interested in a good faith discussion on psychedelics and creativity, there are several articles (although the reductionist approach may not be the best one on this topic), but here's an example:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381192...

[lostmsu]

What is it with you starting ad-hominem? You basically don't like that I consider your comments on the topic plainly wrong and therefore dangerous, and you think that stating it along with reasons as to why they are wrong makes me a kind of bad person.

You have not pointed out any of my statements to be wrong with any kind of evidence supported contradiction.

That last link you just posted https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381192... for instance is a philosophical article published in a relatively low quality journal with no model and corresponding research to confirm that model.

UPD. Even that last link points out that research into creativity being boosted by psychedelics is so far inconclusive, which should be read as "does not support the statement, that psychedelics increase creativity". Considering you somehow read it as supporting your point, this kinda proves your point is based on wishful thinking rather than careful reading of research.

[bratwurst3000]

May I just sidekick this link into this argument. There it states the, eventual, benefits and disadvantage of psychodelics.

The science on psychodelics is still a new thing and something maybe worthwile or not. The articles explains the relaxed belief under psychodelics theorie very well. Which is in my opinion the downside of psychodelics…but others are free to disagree and time will tell but time didnt told until know.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/10/ssc-journal-club-relax...