It's not an insult. Psychedelics can profoundly change how someone perceives things. GEB has that sort profound shift in POV that many would associate with psychedelics.
Getting hit in the head can also change how someone perceives things. I think the above commenter was expressing frustration with the popular notion that taking drugs is some sort of shortcut to understanding consciousness, dynamic systems, etc
Note that I said "profound change" not "arbitrary change". What a faithful argument you've blessed us with.
If you think drinking alcohol or taking cocaine has the same mental effects as psychedelics, then, I guess all I can say is don't talk about what you don't know.
For someone who is complaining about someone supposedly not reading the exact words you wrote - you're awfully quick in putting words in their mouth. I don't see "alcohol" or "cocaine" mentioned, and yes, the public does put psychedelics in the generic term 'drugs'.
"Shortcut" is overstating it. It can steer one's thinking in a direction that makes those topics seem more relevant or interesting. This in itself can be very valuable.
> Getting hit on the head
Well - there are recorded cases of brain damage unlocking abilities and aptitudes (albeit with great rarity). So probably not recommended.
But rest assured, psychedelics are less painful, cause less damage and have a higher probability of beneficial effects.
The insult is the implication that thinking like this is somehow due to use of and exposure to psychedelics. Maybe some people need assistance in thinking deeply, Hofstadter certainly is not one of them.
Do you think that you feel better than others for not taking drugs, and that this superiority is assailed when people who take drugs find common ground with one of your favorite thinkers? Because that's the only explanation I can think of for this blatant assholeishness and gatekeeping.
Hofstadter doesn't own thinking about consciousness, thinking deeply, or thinking philosophically. As a matter of fact these sorts of things, to many people - many more than who have even heard of Hofstadter - associate them with psychedelics. So it's not unreasonable, it's not an insult, to think Hofstadter going pretty deeply into questions of meaning, putting mind-bending Escher works in his book, referring to the person that wrote GEB as different from Hofstadter himself, etc... is psychedelic. These are things that most people find eccentric, and what psychedelic users find psychedelic.
The only way I could find insult in such comparisons is if I felt psychedelics themselves were morally inferior or insulting. I would examine that.
Oh, to be clear it has nothing to do with morality. Similar to someone elses comment above, having the experience of thinking you can salsa dance while drunk and actually being able to salsa dance are very different. In the same way, Someone might gain some understanding of H's thinking by taking psychedelics, but that does not lead to the same understanding as actually processing, imagining and writing the material does. I also think you might be devolving a little into flamebait here, as it seems you have taken my statements personally but they were not directed in any way at you.
I took a lot of psychedelics in my life, and in that period I also read GEB quite religiously. And in my experience, I think it could have taken me a lot longer to empathize with the book than if I weren't taking psychedelics; not because of a false sense of understanding but because of a similarity in mental context. I felt like on LSD, I could look behind the curtain, so to speak. This isn't the same feeling as when you're drunk. Nothing else triggered my 'looking behind the curtain' sense as reading GEB. FFS Hofstadter had a place for the non-things - Tumbolia. To a sober person, it's obviously very silly. But on psychedelics, it's quite fantastical and intriguing. Imagine if, there was a place where non-things are. You begin to follow that thought more closely if you've taken psychedelics. You might leave it as nonsense if you haven't.
So from my point of view, it devolved into flamebait the moment you said comparing GEB to psychedelics is insulting. Because to me, it makes sense on a lot of personal levels.
As I've said in another comment. If you think drinking alcohol and taking psychedelics have similar mental effects. Then I suggest you stop talking about what you don't know.
I truly am not intending this upcoming statement as an insult:
I did not struggle with 'looking behind the curtain' while reading GEB, nor did I find the concepts silly - I was rapt with curiosity the whole reading and came to many profound conclusions about the book and it's ideas - and I was not on LSD. Whatever helps you personally understand the world in a more meaningful light is wonderful, but it certainly was not needed for me and I doubt (based on what I know about the author) it was needed for him when writing this book.
You explicitly "wondered" if H was "experienced" with psychedelics, implying that you thought so since you found it "trippy". Go back and read your original comment. No one here is saying psychedelics are morally suspect, they're saying that your explicit suggestion that H was "experienced" is insulting.
Because it is. And your trying to move the goalposts after the fact is just digging that hole deeper.
That's really quite funny. Tell me again how I should read 'my' original comment - after you've compared my username with the one who made it.
The suggestion that Hofstadter has tripped isn't insulting because GEB is a trippy book. Even if it weren't it wouldn't be insulting, only confusing, unless you think that trippy is a bad quality. Examine that.
GEB is whimsical, fun and mind-bending. If it were written any other way it wouldn't be trippy. There is nothing wrong with that.
(upvoted!) can you say more about this sensibility of yours? I'm genuinely intrigued, as I haven't heard a take like that before :)
At risk of asking a leading question: is it some idea that deep truth should come from reason rather than the noise and chaos of psychedelics? (I don't do them myself, but hold them in very high regard as a force in the world)
Your question is loaded in a different way than you might have anticipated, it presupposes that truth DOES come from psychedelics as well as from reason.
It's true that many people feel a deep connection to and understanding of consciousness during a psychedelics trip. Did they actually gain any knowledge about how their own brains work in the same way that a neuroscientist or ML expert might understand it? I contend that they did not, even if they feel that they did.
In a similar way a drunk might suddenly feel that he has the ability to dance. That's hardly a replacement for salsa classes.
Of course there are exceptions. Many brilliant people take psychedelics and credit them with breakthroughs in their fields, that can't be ignored. But you'll notice that its always _in their field_, ie they were already thinking about a problem and psychedelics offered them a new perspective.
I have no problems with psychedelics or their use. I took issue with the implication that they are needed in order to think in the way Hofstadter does - it's kind of like asking what flippers Michael Phelps uses when he swims in the olympics.
I didn't mean to imply that and certainly don't think it is required. My question had little to do with the content and much more to do with the style, and the author's intended effects upon the reader.
i might feel a bit differently, but I think I hear where you're coming from: that it does a disservice to great people when we flippantly imply their greatness originates from simplistic things outside themselves (if I'm still way off, feel free to correct, but pls don't feel obligated to engage :) )
That might be a good way of putting it. I think also that the question to me implied a cynicism about how people can be curious and creative while also being scientific, but the original commenter has already clarified they did not intend this interpretation at all
He doesn't say it was written while high. He is wondering if H knew the effects of psychedelics and maybe tried to replicate the feeling in the reader.
In large doses over extended periods of time, they do change how someone thinks and perceives the world, perhaps for the worse. See stories of amphetamine psychosis. Those somewhat mirror a type of extended bad experience after using psychedelics, often called dark nights.
It just shows you can be an avid drug user and still make enormous contributions to STEM. It only takes n=1 to provide a counterexample to an absolute like "drugs never produce anything substantial."
That's quite the strawman, I don't know anyone who says that. And if they did I would ask them if they drank coffee or if they were aware that a good chunk of young professionals are on ADHD medication
Yes that is an absolute statement (and maybe an incorrect one!) but it's scope is psychedelics in relation to GEB, not all possible drugs in all possible situations
