From: Holger Wagner (Holger.Wagner@lrz-muenchen.de)
Date: Thu Feb 05 1998 - 07:07:27 MST
Anders Sandberg wrote:
[...]
> The goal IMHO should be drugs that are as independent of set and
> setting as possible - they should work even if you don't believe in
> them. Sure, set and setting can build a lot on this, but without a
> strong pharmacological basis you could as well eat sugar pills and use
> the placebo constructively.
Most drugs (at least those forbidden by law) DO have an intense effect,
no matter what you think about them. I think set and setting is less a
question of whether it does work or not, but whether it will be useful
or useless for you (maybe that's what you actually meant).
I'm quite sure that the less a drug is dependent upon set and setting,
the higher the risk of abuse in terms of "making the drug do something
that you should do yourself". According to a study about drug-abuse,
hallucinongenics (which are totally dependent on set and setting) have a
rather low "abuse-potential", while opiates are frequently "abused" (if
anyone's interested I can dig it out - unfortunately, I have the mail on
another computer...)
later,
Holger
-- o---------------------------------------------------------------o | "That's the funny thing about memories, isn't it? We are not | | what we remember of ourselves, we are what people say we are. | | They project upon us their convictions - we are nothing but | | blank screens." +$+ Trevor Goodchild in "Aeon Flux" | \_______________________o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| "Best do it so" -?- \ mailto:Holger.Wagner@lrz-muenchen.de | ! http://www.extropy.org ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^% PGP-Fingerprint: BD 78 AE 5A AD 20 91 AC E6 77 A8 B4 12 D1 9C 39
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:34 MST