|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
krypto2000
Unknown


Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
AuroraBorealis88 said:
Quote:
krypto2000 said: If the person doesn't notice then where would the difference occur? I don't understand. Are you saying it makes qualitative differences that others observe in that person? If so how did you conclude that? I'm trying to understand your logic or reasoning for believing this, that these different chemicals deliver a different experience.
I never said anything about concluding anything I simply stated that people can experience many effects that they aren't even aware of because they suck either at analyzing or they have forgotten what being sober is like so they have nothing to compare it to. I've seen this happen so many times with mushrooms too. More than with other psychedelics and no I am not talking about qualitative differences that others observe.
This seems like a very odd view and is not too relevant to the main topic, but it's still not making much sense to me. If someone experiences an effect that they're not aware of couldn't it be argued that they didn't experience it at all? If I'm for instance experiencing synesthesia in the form of hearing sounds but am not aware of it then who or what would be hearing sounds? If I'm not hearing them and nothing else is hearing them then nothing is being heard, thus no synesthesia occurred.
Quote:
Quote:
That seems like a classic example of circular logic to me. Look at the definition from wikipedia:
"Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade."
You are saying, "They make a difference because they [the differences] exist." Or maybe it's "They make a difference because they [the chemicals] exist." I'm not sure, it's worded ambiguously, but both would qualify as circular logic.
Are you high or something? When I said "because they exist" I wasn't talking about the effects
I was talking about the alkaloids.
That's still circular reasoning, that was my 2nd of two interpretations.
Quote:
Quote:
"How are the molecules different? What? I never said they're different.."
What do you mean? You didn't say it directly, but if the molecules were not different we wouldn't be having this discussion. Your position is that the 4 compounds in question feel different, mine is they do not. If there was only one compound in question we would both agree it feels the same as itself.
No...once again you make no sense. If the molecules were not different we'd still be having this discussion because my argument still holds true. My argument is that even if you had pure psilocybin it's not going to feel exactly the same as mushrooms which contain more than just psilocybin.
What? If the molecules were the same you wouldn't have an argument and neither would I. The mushrooms would only contain one active alkaloid and thus it would feel the same as that alkaloid in isolation. This post wouldn't even exist because 4-aco wouldn't exist either.
Quote:
Quote:
I have debated before that besides THC and CBD I do not believe there is enough evidence to believe the other cannabinoids contribute anything appreciable to the high. No need to get into that though. The cannabinoids have been widely researched in comparison to mushrooms, just because the chemicals are different doesn't mean they have much difference in effects.
You are wrong, sorry to say. If you don't want to admit it that's fine but you are wrong.
What makes me wrong, just because you say so? No need to provide any evidence, no need to even provide a reason, I'm just wrong at your word and that's the end of the discussion? Well if that's all it takes then you're wrong. 
Quote:
Quote:
Besides the delayed onset do you think psilocybin is any different than psilocin since they would even be psilocin once in the brain?
What? Come on dude what are you even saying....you're saying that psilocybin is going to give a different effect than psilocin? That makes no sense but then again that's seems to be the overall theme of your replies.
Wait, what? I'm saying I don't think psilocin is distinguishable from psilocybin and they are probably indistinguishable from 4-AcO and beocystin even. Are you saying you think psilocin is the same as psilocybin as far as effects go but the rest of the alkaloids present in only trace amounts do make the trip different?
|
larry.fisherman
shoulda died already


Registered: 11/03/12
Posts: 36,294
|
Re: 4-ace-o-dmt vs Shrooms [Re: krypto2000]
#23944098 - 12/20/16 05:28 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
They are distinguishable. You are wrong. It doesn't really need an explanation.
|
krypto2000
Unknown


Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
|
Why can no one provide a shred of evidence to support that if it's so obviously true?
|
Eclipse3130
Servant of the Fungi



Registered: 10/06/13
Posts: 6,221
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 44 minutes, 15 seconds
|
Re: 4-ace-o-dmt vs Shrooms [Re: krypto2000]
#23944148 - 12/20/16 05:46 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
And this is not true either, it's an assumption. The only thing you can use to conclude that ALD-52 is different than LSD in effects is anecdotal reports, many reports likewise exist to say they are indistinguishable. Don't present an opinion as fact, talking about confusing people.
It's not an assumption, ALD-52 was studied back along side LSD, they even did tests on it, concluding 1/5th the toxicity, 1/8th the pyretogenic effect and double the antiserotonin effect comparatively to LSD. The drug actually has an entirely different pharmacology.
Quote:
I don't think it's that simple, I especially would not trust my own subjective experience as the only deciding factor either. At best you would need a controlled analysis of people taking these various chemicals blind and reporting the effects.
Agreed, but it does help.
-------------------- "In The Material World One seeks retirement and grows Old In The Magical World One seeks Enlightenment and grows Wiser In The Miraculous World One seeks nothing and grows Lighter As we all tread the Homeward Path we will explore many Realms And one day... we will all Realize that all experiences are Simply Different ways in which The All-That Is Perceives Itself"
|
FishyAl
neighborhood stoner man!



Registered: 09/13/16
Posts: 59
Loc: VA
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
|
|
Both are awesome! I have been under most distress on 4 aco DMT, and have taken mushrooms many more times than the research chem. I prefer mushies, but they are just more available to me. Don't get me wrong, I like both substances and they are similar in effect, but mushies rule supreme to me out of all psych. substances.
-------------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Reality is the cruelest dream. I am probably not a cop.....

|
krypto2000
Unknown


Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
Eclipse3130 said:
Quote:
And this is not true either, it's an assumption. The only thing you can use to conclude that ALD-52 is different than LSD in effects is anecdotal reports, many reports likewise exist to say they are indistinguishable. Don't present an opinion as fact, talking about confusing people.
It's not an assumption, ALD-52 was studied back along side LSD, they even did tests on it, concluding 1/5th the toxicity, 1/8th the pyretogenic effect and double the antiserotonin effect comparatively to LSD. The drug actually has an entirely different pharmacology.
Fair enough, I'll concede that ALD is different then. I don't see why you'd make it up so I'll take your word for it.
As far as the psilocin, psilocybin, 4-AcO, beocystin debate I was curious if Shulgin had tested them, and besides beocystin he had. On the extensive commentary this is his opening paragraph:
Quote:
There are two generalizations implicit here, one of which I am quite at peace with, but the other is both complex and disturbing. The OK item is the casual equation between the hydroxy compound psilocin, the acetate ester, and the phosphate ester, psilocybin. As I had discussed in the CZ-74 to CEY-19 entries in 4-HO-DET, there is no proof that the ester goes to the indolol metabolically, but it is a good guess, and there have been no demonstrated differences in their pharmacology. Ditto here, with psilocin and psilocybin. I have explored both of them as pure chemicals, and I find them completely interchangeable as to their pharmacological properties.
Here is a link to the entry if you would like to read it, I'm referring to the extensive commentary section at the bottom. He then goes on to discuss whether these 2 chemicals can represent magic mushrooms as a whole and concludes that we cannot say one way or the other because they have not been tested and there are so many different species out there which could have varying alkaloid profiles. The only other chemical he mentions by name, that may specifically influence the effects of mushrooms to be known is beocystin which he cites is, "quite unexplored pharmacologically" and thus we can't really guess about that either. As I said I'm basing my idea that beocystin might be the same on as little as a single report and for that reason I'm not very fixed to that idea either.
There have been analysis on cubensis however and they are effectively just psilocybin and psilocin. Even where beocystin is detected it is in trace amounts and cited as weaker than either of the major alkaloids so it cannot contribute to a trip. Unless you believe there is some highly potent alkaloid within cubensis yet to be found it's probably safe to conclude psilocin and psilocybin are the only two chemicals that matter.
If you guys want to keep arguing this and insisting I'm wrong you're really going to need to bring something to the table other than "just cause, you're wrong krypto, it's a fact cause I said so." I have explained my reasoning from the beginning as well as what evidence I had, now even Shulgin seems to agree, yet Eclipse is the only one to even give a reason why he believes otherwise. He also provided a source for his ALD belief and that was settled as quick as it was brought up, I was wrong on that assumption, studies had been done proving otherwise. He also seems to be the only one to agree that both of our positions are speculation based on limited data where as you guys arrogantly act as if it's an established fact. I think it's a wide held assumption that's been mistaken for truth.
|
AuroraBorealis88
Stranger


Registered: 05/06/16
Posts: 5,871
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
|
Re: 4-ace-o-dmt vs Shrooms [Re: krypto2000] 1
#23956184 - 12/25/16 10:58 AM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
People experience subjective effects all the time that they're not consciously aware of. Do you not know how drugs work?
Also WHAT THE FUCK you're actually saying you don't believe in the entourage effect when it comes to substances like mushrooms, iboga, cannabis, salvia and mescaline containing cacti? Ha well if that's true then I think this discussion is over. Why would I waste my time talking to someone who doesn't even believe in the entourage effect? I find it quite amusing that you ask for evidence on something that is common knowledge.
P.S. If you think stating that a psychoactive drug having a psychoactive effect is "circular reasoning" you should probably go see a doctor.
|
nooneman


Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 14,565
Loc: Utah
|
|
krypto is right. The reliable scientific sources have them as interchangable, but this comes into conflict with the subjective experiences of some of the people who have tried the drugs. This conflict between the scientific sources and some of the personal subjective sources is impossible to solve given that it's currently woefully impossible to study these drugs and their effects in detail.
In the absence of evidence, it is reasonable to take either position. Just because krypto's position disagrees with your own does not mean that you need to attack him personally especially considering that in the absence of evidence he has an equal chance of being right as you do. His position is not unreasonable, and in fact many other members on here and elsewhere agree with his position.
|
AuroraBorealis88
Stranger


Registered: 05/06/16
Posts: 5,871
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
|
Re: 4-ace-o-dmt vs Shrooms [Re: nooneman]
#23956224 - 12/25/16 11:10 AM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
People who don't think the entourage effect is real aren't worth my time. I didn't even know denying the entourage effect was a real thing
|
Sabnock
Be Your Own Shaman


Registered: 01/02/14
Posts: 3,249
Last seen: 5 hours, 21 minutes
|
|
Quote:
AuroraBorealis88 said: People who don't think the entourage effect is real aren't worth my time. I didn't even know denying the entourage effect was a real thing 
I agree, though i call it synergy rather than the entourage effect. It should be well known by now that while a compound in itself may be active, other compounds can synergize with it which creates a unique effect, like Rue seed compared to Caapi vine, or Mimosa compared to Acacia. Cannabis with it's different strains and different ratios of terpenes and Cannabinoids. I've noticed many things can interact with each other and produce distinct effects that isolated actives themselves can't replicate.
As for the topic on hand, i've tried 4-ACO a few times, Shrooms a few times, but the times i've tried 4-ACO, it did feel a bit different compared to the Shrooms and i think i'd much prefer the Shrooms, but 4-ACO can also be good. Kinda like pure DMT compared to Mimosa or Acacia, things are just a bit different due to other compounds in the mixture which synergize with the active compounds to give it a certain character or effects.
|
krypto2000
Unknown


Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
Re: 4-ace-o-dmt vs Shrooms [Re: Sabnock]
#23956613 - 12/25/16 02:57 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'll reply later and address your last reply aurora, it's christmas and I'm busy, but I never said I don't believe in the entourage effect, I never said anything about salvia, mescaline, etc. It seems to me that instead of addressing the topic at hand and valid points that I've brought up you're trying to create a strawman argument now.
|
AuroraBorealis88
Stranger


Registered: 05/06/16
Posts: 5,871
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
|
Re: 4-ace-o-dmt vs Shrooms [Re: Sabnock]
#23956740 - 12/25/16 04:09 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sabnock said: I agree, though i call it synergy rather than the entourage effect. It should be well known by now that while a compound in itself may be active, other compounds can synergize with it which creates a unique effect, like Rue seed compared to Caapi vine, or Mimosa compared to Acacia. Cannabis with it's different strains and different ratios of terpenes and Cannabinoids. I've noticed many things can interact with each other and produce distinct effects that isolated actives themselves can't replicate.
As for the topic on hand, i've tried 4-ACO a few times, Shrooms a few times, but the times i've tried 4-ACO, it did feel a bit different compared to the Shrooms and i think i'd much prefer the Shrooms, but 4-ACO can also be good. Kinda like pure DMT compared to Mimosa or Acacia, things are just a bit different due to other compounds in the mixture which synergize with the active compounds to give it a certain character or effects.
Yea well it is technically a synergy but the word synergy can mean a lot of different things when it comes to drugs like LSD + MDMA or Weed + Shrooms. But ya it's a special kind of synergy, one that nature intended on. I think claiming that a pill containing psilocybin will give the exact same effects as a mushroom which contains Psilocybin, Baeocystin and Norbaeocystin to be a bit ridiculous. They obviously all synergize with the active ingredient psilocybin and the same goes for mescaline's alkaloids and all the cannabinoids found in cannabis. For cannabis some people just think it's all THC and CBD but there's also things like CBN (makes you tired) and THCV which causes shorter lasting more "psychedelic" effects than THC and it also causes appetite suppression.
Quote:
krypto2000 said:I'll reply later and address your last reply aurora, it's christmas and I'm busy, but I never said I don't believe in the entourage effect, I never said anything about salvia, mescaline, etc. It seems to me that instead of addressing the topic at hand and valid points that I've brought up you're trying to create a strawman argument now.
The only strawman argument I see is you ironically accusing me of using a strawman argument. That in itself is a strawman argument because I never avoided any of your points in fact I just gave more examples.
Why did I bring up mescaline containing cacti? We talked about mushrooms which is also a naturally occurring psychedelic that also has multiple alkaloids along side its main active compound. Why did I bring up Salvia? Well we were talking about cannabis weren't we? They're both naturally occurring atypical hallucinogens that have multiple terpenes along side their main active compound.
|
krypto2000
Unknown


Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
|
Okay, fair enough, it seems like a straw man to me but I see where you were coming from. I don't think that though, I'm only talking about psilocin, psilocybin, baeocystin, and 4aco, plus I guess w/e other alkaloids are present in lesser amounts in cubes. I would be shocked if besides a delayed come up and longer, slightly milder, trip that there is any difference in effects from psilocin to psilocybin. I woupd likewise be surprised if someone could tell the difference in a blind test between psilocin and 4aco. I wouldn't be shocked, but surprised. I suspect baeocystin likely feels the same too, albeit the onset and potency might differ, but due to the lack of any real info I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were different, there's not much info on it to go by. I've already explained my reason for this so I won't repeat it, if you have a specific question though I would be happy to answer it. Oh and it's not that I think any other alkaloids present do not have different effects, I have no real opinion on that as they're less studied than baeocystin and I can't begin to guess, but due to how small the amounts are that would be present I don't think they contribute to the experience at all, entourage effect or not. I fully believe cbd feels different from thc for instance but if you have 20%thc and 0.05% cbd I don't think that cdb is going to effect the high.
|
NotBrandon

Registered: 10/26/16
Posts: 39
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
|
Re: 4-ace-o-dmt vs Shrooms [Re: krypto2000]
#23958950 - 12/26/16 06:19 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I didnt make this thread for people to argue.
|
AuroraBorealis88
Stranger


Registered: 05/06/16
Posts: 5,871
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
|
Re: 4-ace-o-dmt vs Shrooms [Re: krypto2000]
#23960467 - 12/27/16 12:43 PM (7 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
krypto2000 said: Okay, fair enough, it seems like a straw man to me but I see where you were coming from. I don't think that though, I'm only talking about psilocin, psilocybin, baeocystin, and 4aco, plus I guess w/e other alkaloids are present in lesser amounts in cubes. I would be shocked if besides a delayed come up and longer, slightly milder, trip that there is any difference in effects from psilocin to psilocybin. I woupd likewise be surprised if someone could tell the difference in a blind test between psilocin and 4aco. I wouldn't be shocked, but surprised. I suspect baeocystin likely feels the same too, albeit the onset and potency might differ, but due to the lack of any real info I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were different, there's not much info on it to go by. I've already explained my reason for this so I won't repeat it, if you have a specific question though I would be happy to answer it. Oh and it's not that I think any other alkaloids present do not have different effects, I have no real opinion on that as they're less studied than baeocystin and I can't begin to guess, but due to how small the amounts are that would be present I don't think they contribute to the experience at all, entourage effect or not. I fully believe cbd feels different from thc for instance but if you have 20%thc and 0.05% cbd I don't think that cdb is going to effect the high.
Well of course CBD does feel different and it's already proven to have a psychoactive effect as a well as a synergistic effect with THC, but like I said before there's also things like CBN and THCV ect. Most of the cannabinoids in cannabis aren't psychoactive unless THC is involved, it's not necessarily that they're getting your higher it's just that being high on THC makes you aware of them. Without THC they're useless and same goes for psilocybin and its alkaloids. I know one of them is I think psychoactive on its own though.
Also I'm not saying psilocybin and psilocin gives different effects because that wouldn't really make sense, they are both going to give the same effects it's just my argument is that taking pure psilocin or pure psilocybin without the other alkaloids is going to feel different from mushrooms (whether the user is consciously aware of it or not).
I'm not saying someone can tell in a blind test between psilocin and 4-AcO-DMT because I assume they wouldn't and have said before not everyone is very analytical of these experiences and plus the differences are probably so small. However people still do notice differences it's just about whether or not that would appear in a blind test as well.
Personally I don't even think I could tell the difference between LSD and mushrooms in a blind test at first, I may be able to figure it out eventually but it probably wouldn't be right away unless something happened.
|
krypto2000
Unknown


Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 11,579
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
|
That's an entirely valid view point. I am definitely open to that being possible, I just took issue with you saying or implying it is a fact vs speculation, however likely that speculation may be. I think we can agree on our differences, we seem to recognize that neither of ours is proven and both are possible truths, we just believe in opposing outcomes, and both sides have supporting evidence.
It could all be down to philosphy too, where do you draw the line and lable something as significantly different? I do believe any change, even changing the salt of a molecule, will have some minor differences, but I'm sure we both draw the line beyond that. To me if someone doesn't notice the differences bc they are so subtle then I draw the line after that, but you are counting smaller differences as significant than I am it seems so that is at least one source for contention.
|
|