Disapointed with LSD

The simplest explanation is often the right one.

 

^well put my friend

 

Exactly.
And the simplest answer does not involve mushrooms as a species that exist for the sole purpose of human consumption and the psychedelic state nor some idea of God.
Offering unfounded beliefs as explanation does not simplify the answer, it only complicates it by adding more questions.

 

The belief that it exists as defense is more the unfounded belief. There is no evidence that these chemicals prevent mushrooms from being eaten and much that it actually encourages the activity.

 

The notion that considering psilocybin as a defense mechanism is more unfounded than God and considering the existence of mushrooms is accountable only for the sole sake of humanity is laughable.
I can tell that this conversation is not objective for you and that you have long since decided what is truth in this matter and aren't very open to outside pespectives.

The evidence is the state of mind it causes. Mushrooms are not a "feel-good" drug, they do have their moments of euphoria, but they also can cause intense fear, negativity, confusion, disorientation, and panic, and they usually do. Those things are not something most modern people strive for, and I cannot imagine a primitive human being any different.
The vast majority of the human population wants nothing to do with psilocybin or the psychedelic state of mind that it causes. Sounds like a pretty damn good defense mechanism to me.

 

@ debate : so what?

 

Well that it not so. I had no iron in the fire until I heard your hypothesis and recognized a weak and poorly considered argument in relation to the evidence. The evidence is not the state of mind it causes, the evidence is that is purposely sought after and eaten. The friggin things haven't the palatability to be on our diet for any other reason.

 

If my hypothesis is weak, then why didn't you offer an alternative when I directly asked you what other purpose psilocybin might serve? I believe you stated we can't say why it's there, and then quoted a dismissive and extremely assumptive comment about God and misappropriated Occam's razor.

By who?
The psychedelic community that somewhat enjoys these chemicals represents a very small, insignificant even, minority of the overall population.

 

I did directly answer you with an array of possible functions. I dance around to encourage you to up your level of scrutiny. You must see the position for yourself, you do not believe me. There was a level of playful sarcasm involving God and occams razor although I find Mckenna's theory intriguing.

But the population eats them not at all regardless, because they simply do not provide the nutrition or flavor to make them a desirable food source. So it is the chemical that actually produces the behavior you postulate that it prohibits.

 

No you didn't, you made a laundry list of possibilities that may occur from the absence of secondary metabolites. There was no answer regarding psilocybin or the mushrooms containing them. It was an extremely general reply that sidestepped what I asked you. You call it dancing around to apparently "teach" me something, I think you are dancing around because you can't offer up a realistic alternative hypothesis.

The population does not eat them because they fear a chaos-ridden state of mind. People eat lots of things that doesn't provide nutrition. And almost nothing has flavor until you add spice.

 

Psilocybin is a secondary metabolite which occur in many classes of life including plants, animals, and fungi. I was being very specific, with out spelling it out for the uninitiated.

Quite the opposite is true for fungi. Culinary mushrooms are sought after specifically for their flavor.

 

i can spell disappointed!

 

btw, psylocin, once processed by your body, is the shit in shrooms that gets you off.

 

Defining psilocybin as a secondary metabolite, then stating it's absence COULD impair long term survivability, or it COULD do nothing.
So in other words it's a firm "we don't know, we can't definitely say"
Thankfully us lowly uninitiated have you around to teach us (without spelling it out that is)

Wow, that's amazing, but no one is discussing culinary mushrooms.

 

mushrooms > lsd IMO


but you just didn't take enough

 

do you people ever bother to learn about how these plants actually work? oh, and i know fungus isn't a plant, i've bothered to grow both. whatever your comeback is, it's made out of ego.

 

Yes we know psilocybin breaks down to psilocin. Have you forgotten baeocystin.

 

There is nothing lowly about the uninitiated, they are simply inadequately informed. And yes in other words that is exactly what I was saying, and the fact that you are so attached to the notion of it being defensive in purpose, to defend it in the face of contravening possibility, makes me think that it is you that is over attached to a view. How ever I do not wish to offend in any manner.

I use culinary as a term representing those mushrooms that are eaten. Mushrooms are eaten for their beneficial properties, be it flavor which is predominately the case or medicinal properties of which psycho actives are one type. I am talking about culinary mushrooms and the reason this line is relevant to the discussion is your claim that foods don't have much flavor without seasoning. What do you think is used for seasoning besides salt, plants. Part of the life cycle of truffles is that they are eaten by squirrels. They are purposefully aromatic and tasty. There are multitudes of edible mushrooms that are not consumed because they have nothing to offer in the way of enhancing the dinning experience.

 

So, even though some growths 'contain' chemicals, they didn't 'produce' them but other growths contain chemicals because they do produce them?

 

Jerry!!!! Jerry!!!!