Zen Peddler Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) because it is meth, it is Methylene-Dioxy-Meth-Amphetamine=MDMA I used meth several times over a decade ago and find that MDMA is very reminiscent of it, though I had more intense orgasms on meth. there are several aspects to the MDMA experience that mirror Meth as well, such as the jaw clenching and the suppression of appetite. Sure they come from the same class of substances but that doesnt automatically mean that their cerebral effects parallel each other. One reverses serotonin reuptake and causes a large release of serotonin, the other one's effects are mediated by dopamine excess and sympathetic nervous system outflow. The long term effects from Meth include reductions in dopamine receptors, cardio-vascular/immuno/general aging effectgs are mediated by hyper metabolism, sympathetic outflow and dopamine excess. These problems are the result of chronic stimulant/dopamine-based effects rather than serotonic excess. Edited July 17, 2011 by Zen Peddler BlueGreenie 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Undergrounder Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) Archaea - I'm not saying that the experience is real in an objective sense, i was just saying the experience seems real to them. The experience is real, but at the same time, false. Like the way the people living in the Matrix think they're living a real life because their brains are being stimulated by machines. The world they are living in is objectively fake, but the experience is real (to them). And yes I'm saying that the human mind is neurological phenomena. I think the theory is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_naturalism it is a consequence of love that we experience it, it is not a consequence of experiencing love that we are loved. Feeling loved does not mean you are loved. No, but experiencing love does mean that you are 'in love'. I think you're saying that the objective truth of the matter is just as important as the perception? ie: If you live in Matrix world and you are in love with the woman in the red dress, then it's not real love? I think this is a decent point, but I wonder what is special about the objective truth? If you live your entire life, and die in the Matrix, having lived a full and happy life, loving many people and experiencing what you think is love in return, then what does it matter that it was all objectively false? Our perceptions are our reality, in a sense that as long as we never find out, the objective truth is meaningless to us. Coin - Yeah I know I was being picky just to make the broader point. slightly off topic, but i find this idea interesting. what about the sense of self/self awareness? for humans to be "just" a bunch of chemicals/neurons, then that means, by logical extension, that a single molecule must have, at some point, the ability to become self aware, wouldn't you say? this, to me, has interesting implications. if a chemical can become self aware, then which part of that is responsible fo the self awareness? also then, self awareness (one a supposed molecular scale) must be possible outside of the human mind, which certainly doesn't discount the idea that a "God mind" of sorts could exist as some network of molecular self awareness. Why do you think a single molecule has the ability to become self-aware? I think self-awareness rises out of complex systems and their interactions. The relationships between neurons - the way they become associated, learn and adapt - brings self-awareness. I don't know when a baby becomes self-aware, but I think this is a decent starting point. I think you need to have a suitably complex machine (a human baby's brain), and that machine needs to do a bit of learning that differentiates the environment from the self. I think self-awareness is a learned behaviour, and potentially, it is something that can exist outside the human mind, like in animals and potentially machines. I think this theory is generally called functionalism in Philosophy of mind. I think that you could develop a drug that produces the neurological state of conscious experience... that's not to say the drug itself is conscious experience (I don't think). Edited July 17, 2011 by Undergrounder Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gunter Posted July 17, 2011 The long term effects from Meth include reductions in dopamine receptors, cardio-vascular/immuno/general aging effectgs are mediated by hyper metabolism, sympathetic outflow and dopamine excess. These problems are the result of chronic stimulant/dopamine-based effects rather than serotonic excess. I am not sure that MDMA can't do that in long term when taken frequently. There is a clear negative effect in people who overdo it. Also in my experience MDMA and Meth are similar in effect, but i have never taken a pill, only pure MDMA And yes I'm saying that the human mind is neurological phenomena. I don't hold that opinion. For all I know neurological phenomena is a correlate of the human mind. I wonder what is special about the objective truth? Consequences involving perception verses exogenous objective reality are totally different. This is why we lock insane people up when they are a danger to self and others. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted July 17, 2011 It may also be worth mentioning (if no one's mentioned it already) that widespread use of MDMA is only about 3 decades old, so if long term use - or even short term abuse - has an effect on health later in life, it may only be in the next couple of decades that we start finding out about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teljkon Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) sdfsdf Edited December 19, 2021 by Teljkon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C_T Posted July 17, 2011 The most important thing i see that destroys people taking Meth is its extremely long 1/2 life. This isn't the case with MDMA. How many people say up for a week on mdma? seriously... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gunter Posted July 17, 2011 The most important thing i see that destroys people taking Meth is its extremely long 1/2 life. This isn't the case with MDMA. How many people say up for a week on mdma? seriously... that is a really good point Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rahli Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) The most important thing i see that destroys people taking Meth is its extremely long 1/2 life. Ammonium chloride making up 8percent of Dutch salted liquorice is supposed to speed up the break down and removal of amphetamines from the body. Edited July 17, 2011 by rahli 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhoenixSon Posted July 18, 2011 Ammonium chloride making up 8percent of Dutch salted liquorice is supposed to speed up the break down and removal of amphetamines from the body. Never liked that stuff, must of been for a good reason Very interesting indeed, its amazing how some/most food effect a range of body functions. And shouldnt the point that you need to take the measured dose whatever that may be on the persons weight yada yada, leaving that to a specialised person that can dose, and then bring up all the nasties that most people are trying to run away from on the weekends, when your talking off someones ears and giving them back rubs, oh so sweet backrubs same with all the medicines around... would minimize a lot of misplaced individuals that SOME tend to be more disjointed than before.. right setting means a lot to different people.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhoenixSon Posted July 18, 2011 The most important thing i see that destroys people taking Meth is its extremely long 1/2 life. This isn't the case with MDMA. How many people say up for a week on mdma? seriously... Seriously how many people are taking actual MDMA, A friend has been bent for easily over 24 hours, on exctasy.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slybacon Posted July 18, 2011 In some respects the Research Chemical scene has an advantage over the more traditional chems. Most of the punters interested in Research Chems are more likely to use high quality scales and start with a small known dose. Ussually testing for allegies with a small sample first. How many people can say they have done this with MDMA? If this level of precaution was taken with all drugs it would be great harm reduction. So even though pills MDMA has ben around for 30+ years, no one in the recreational scene can know for sure they got good pure MDMA so all the testing by qualified research companies is useless unless the end users are using the same quality material. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zen Peddler Posted July 18, 2011 (edited) I got drunk and O'd on one of those so there are occasional idiots... I dont think MDMA would have the same effects long term. There isnt any evidence yet to suggest that. What it does to the serotonic system long term is yet to be clear, but as Torsten stated the evidence of neurotoxicity is poor. And the majority of people live in an experience that is one thing for them, but something else for the observer... Edited July 18, 2011 by Zen Peddler BlueGreenie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Evil Genius Posted July 18, 2011 (edited) Hi Guys, i already posted this in another thread today...i appreciate your competent input but you guys need to stop self incriminating yourselves! Please edit accordingly and make sure to keep everything as theoretical as possible when talking about the ingestion of prohibited chemicals! If the recent trend to self incriminate continues, i will probably edit the posts myself without warning! Thanks. bye Eg Edited July 18, 2011 by Evil Genius 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
