HyperCard and Timothy Leary's Mind Mirror would be a match made in heaven!

Timothy Leary's Mind Mirror (1985) (usc.edu)

https://scalar.usc.edu/works/timothy-leary-software/index

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32578683

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oabRxvjf9k

I extracted all the text and data from the Apple ][ floppy disk:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37486524

https://donhopkins.com/home/mind-mirror.txt

https://github.com/SimHacker/lloooomm/tree/main/00-Character...

If you have ever had the experience you will want to share with the world and give everyone the opportunity to experience it.

There was a great documentary on Magic Leap! https://www.generalmagicthemovie.com

Hi there. I will correct the iPhone prototype reference. Thanks for the heads up. - Axle / www.patternproject.ca

Who are you sir? I am a big fan of the general magicians

As a similar "Boy Scout" of sorts, the fear is/was real. I didn’t experiment with so much as nicotine or alcohol until I’d tried “stuff” with the supervision of an experienced "sitter"; I ended up having some of the best times of my life in the safety and context of home and friendships. Combined with my own life experiences with drug abuse and addictions, I was able to build a healthy relationship with those substances that didn't result in dependency or abuse.

In the time since, my views have changed dramatically on these substances, and I'd like to try more of them. However, my personal moral compass prevents me from using substances outside of a legally permissible setting, at least at present - and that's something I'm fine with.

Ultimately, the taboo side of things is something the individual has to grapple with on their own. I can only commiserate with your frustrations, not help overcome them unfortunately. My only other advice would be to use any substance only to amplify good vibes, never to cope with bad ones.

If all you do is chase a lost feeling, you're missing out on what's in front of you now.

Is there that much of a social taboo? Maybe it's just the people I hang out with and work with, but most people are open to psychedelic use and a lot have at least tried some.

Having experience with a lot of psychedelics it's completely ridiculous to put the personal computer in that category.

Timothy Leary might've drawn a parallel on the psychological impact of computers (I have no idea on the exact quote or it's context), which is enormous, but computers are just not psychedelic.

> Ok, where is this psychedelic community found?

Bit like asking where all the beer drinkers are! People who are into psychedelics come from all walks of life and we're everywhere :) Start talking about fringe stuff with people and eventually you'll stumble upon others.

The article mentions Erowid

Burning man and other festivals are a good resource

There are some decent communities in Discord, for both research oriented but also hobby oriented communities of psychedelics.

Visit your local Hobby Lobby and ask around.

N,N-DMT is very intense and not to be taken lightly - but you could say the same with LSD, psilocybin, etc. Personally, I am much more wary of large doses of LSD/psilocybin than DMT, in part to the substantially longer duration of the former. Ego death and the complete dissolution of reality makes it harder to have a bad trip

Fwiw, "DMT" usually refers to nn-DMT, which is a lot different than 5-MeO-DMT (or bufo).

The state of Oregon is experimenting along these lines:

https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/preventionwellness/pages/psilo...

"A client may only access psilocybin at a licensed service center during an administration session in the presence of a trained, licensed facilitator."

"I think having a sort of "DMT Clinic" that you can go to would be the best middle ground "

Well, Ayahuasca (with DMT as the active ingredient) retreats seem more and more common and are for some reasons tolerated more and more in europe. Technically it is illegal, but I can still book them online.

But I won't, as I don't trust the competence of the average new age "shaman".

A wise legalization might help with access & harm-reduction... but legalizations are sometimes bungled.

In the SF bay area – & plenty of other regions around the world – the criminal enforcement against hallucinogens is, de facto, a very low priority as long as you're not flagrantly endangering or inconveniencing others.

Agree, but the proponents of "Big Reality" really really really fight against its disruption.

Last year I underwent treatments for my treatment-resistant major depression using Ketamine. It was a clinical setting, where you'd get wired up to blood pressure, pulse-ox, and other monitors while you were monitored by an RN via video camera. This was IV Ketamine, so not the inhalants that are available now. According to the clinic, the inhalants (which they also offered) are also generally less effective than IV, and the IV was safer in my case because I have other medical conditions where being able to "shut it off" was a good thing - you can turn an IV off, but once you inhale, you're on your own.

So... this clinic was not entirely unlike what you're proposing w/ DMT.

FWIW, the results were incredible. I was effectively "cured." But unfortunately my insurance changed, and it became no longer covered, and I couldn't afford the $2000 every six weeks for the treatment anymore. And it's not super convenient to take two hours off from work to go to the trip-sitter's to get the treatments.

I hope that they figure out what it is in psychadelics that make them effective at treating stuff like depression and PTSD and make it more accessible because it seems like there's so much potential there.

(Also: fuck Elon Musk for making Ketamine a punchline)

"wired" -> weird

[dead]

I've done it a few times. Unlike DMT, you don't have to vaporize it.

It's active intranasally and well as buccally/sublingually.

Effects-wise, it feels roughly identical to DMT but with a longer duration.

There is not enough research because, at least in the US, there was a blanket ban on any research since 1970 when most psychedelics were placed on "Schedule I" - meaning they had "no accepted medical use" and "high potential for abuse."

"Big Reality" was either terrified of everyone becoming drooling monkeys, or people seeing behind the curtain of society, depending on who you ask.

there are plenty of psychedelics legal in Canada, I know of a few chemical suppliers that specialize in this. It's been at least a decade since I last ordered from them, but they are still in bussines.

However you said that your not knowledgeable and I guess that you doesn't have access to a milligrams scale, so your better to stay away and learn the theory first. A lot of psilocybin analog (alpha-MethylTryptamine was one of my favorite and it's still available) from Thikal are still legal in Canada so that book is a good place to start learning.

I disagree. Every time I've seen someone get a "bad trip", they're people who read a lot and worked themselves into a state of anxiety over the fact that something could go wrong. If they had just approached it like "ooh lets get high and have fun" rather than "I have to do X, Y, Z or else it's going to be horrible!", they would have probably been OK. Hallucinogens have way too much gatekeeping and mysticalization around them for what they are.

Understanding the risks of buying potentially adulterated or counterfeit products is another thing entirely, which would be helped greatly by increased commodification and legalization.

I suppose this is a dangerous counterargument to make, especially as I'm not a substance user at all myself, but... what's wrong with wanting to seek out novel experiences? I'd much rather folks who wish to do this be able to do so safely, with good sources of information about those risks and with a support network that is allowed to talk about it. I feel like the taboo nature of substances in general causes folks with this interest to hide it from their peers, exactly the people who would otherwise be first in line to spot problems and offer assistance. Shouldn't it be okay to talk about it?

That has been various governments approach to drugs for literally decades and it got us nowhere.

The problem isnt that this still is casually available. Drugs have been casually available since forever.

The problem is that pushing drug usage to the fringes makes it less safe for people who haven’t done their homework. Ironically the exact opposite of that you claimed.

The thing that bothers me the most are the companies out here trying to get psychedelics to a state where they own the tech and can try to make as much money as possible off of it. Not so much the part where it becomes more available with consistent quality for more users.

I was getting ads for MindMed's clinical trials of their LSD analogue a few months back and was considering signing up for it, as I'm totally down with more scientific research on these compounds. However, the idea that a corporation with a patent on an analogue that is lobbying to make it so their version is the one that is approved is kinda the worst. We already have LSD, it's cheap and it's amazing, yet here we are marching down the road of some patented version being the one that's approved for use. I get that these companies want to fund research, but this isn't the way.

> do their homework to understand the substance

Is that actually the common thing to do amongst recreational psychadelics users (i.e. is there research backing this up)?

And how do these folks "understand the substance(s)"? We (humanity) know very little about how the brain works comparatively as far as I'm aware, and psychadelics research is further relatively lacking due to regulatory and funding constraints. Most resources I hear of just seem to be compilations of anecdata, frequently muddled with subjective remarks.

It also makes doing your homework a lot harder. If I want to buy alcohol, I can go to a shop and can get something that’s correctly labeled with an alcohol percentage and is highly unlikely to contain methanol.

If I go buy some psychedelic, chances are it is diluted or laced, so I would have to know how to test that what they sell me is what I asked for.

Incidental gatekeeping by leaving it on the black market isn't the way to keep it safe, quite the opposite - that poses a lot of dangerous risks.

Bringing it into the light under thoughtful consideration and openly discussing and encouraging harm prevention is the only way to make this safe. Everyone should have the right to to exploring this if they want to, and there should be plenty of open discussion, research, and education. I really appreciate the open-source approach here, the spirit of this movement feels like the right thing for humanity.

I'm of very two minds on this topic. On one hand, it's widely accepted that most (not to say all) drugs leave a permanent mark on brains that are not yet fully developed, so teenagers who are often most curious about these things. Gated access is highly desirable in this context, especially as you can't take self regulation for granted. On the other hand, many of these substances show great promise in many clinical trials for a wide variety of issues, and decades of hostile legislation has kept all of that on the back foot. Openly sharing information about these topics can help people make more informed choices whereas those who came before them often had to go it blind.

> Keeping them somewhat less accessible tends to filter out people who don't do their homework

I strongly disagree. Your circles might be different, but in my experience, wanting to do your homework makes it less accessible, because it tends to put you at odds with the people who are otherwise eager to grant you access. They want people with a certain mindset and an up-front faith in the process. They want people who aren't careful about ingesting psychoactive substances, are eager to put their mental health in the hands of some guy they barely know, and are going to blame their own baggage or spiritual shortcomings if it doesn't go well.

These drugs, and many others, are already pretty accessible if you are willing to take that heedless approach.

In contrast, the approach described in the article is expressly tailored for people who want to be careful and do their homework. It's for people who have access to the drug and implicitly already have access to cruder ways of using it, but who want to put in extra effort for a more controlled experience.

> Keeping them somewhat less accessible

I agree this is important, which is why psychedelics should be legalized so there is at least some sort of control instead of the current approach where 14 year olds can easier get their hands on it.

Basically this. Many times I've gotten too casual with them and then been reminded that they are not a party drug. Persistent HPPD(ok, redundant) and long lasting anxiety and/or motor issues(tics).. inability to focus. It's great that there are people who can gobble psychs like candy and not have issues(that they're aware of anyway) but they need to chill on trying to get everyone to trip out. I get it. I felt that "everyone should try this" vibe. But seriously, no. Don't take people's psychology lightly.

I’m fine with ‘less accessible’ - I am not fine with ‘criminal.’

The high horse of HN generally suggests that every person on the planet does empirical research on every step of their journey through life. I've personally seen several, otherwise normal people, one-shot their brain into purgatory with hallucinogens.

I feel similar about this productisation but for slightly different reasons. Psychedelics can provide a sacred experience, at least they have for me, and I treat each psychedelic experience I have as a sacred ritual. It’s a sacrament. So forcing them into the materialist, capitalist system we currently have just feels so wrong. It’d be like a company coming out with pre-blessed Eucharist cookies. But worse because what you are shown so often reveals how insidious capitalism is, and how there is so much more than the material realm. I know this is just my personal view and experience. Anyway, I don’t feel so bad about LightWand as the whole point was the open source, sharing nature.

Psychedelics are not some harmless cure-all. They can provide remarkable experiences, life affirming experiences and being quite effective against depression. They can also cause some pretty scary and bad times. So they need to be treated with respect. But I think they're well worth exploring.

Thousands of years of Buddhist practice says it isn't

This is off-topic, we are discussing drugs here.

Note that 'DMT' isn't a shortened name for '5-MeO-DMT'. While related, 'DMT' and '5-MeO-DMT' are different compounds, with different effects:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-MeO-DMT#Effects

https://qualiacomputing.com/2020/07/01/5-meo-dmt-vs-nn-dmt-t...

I don't partake anymore, only drink nowadays and even that try to only do a day a week since it costs money but also I don't actually enjoy the taste of alcohol. I use it for the social aspect but then I do too much of it and do dumb things like climb buildings or try to fight people, go to strip clubs drop money I don't have. (I spent $1.2K one time it's bad since I go out to try and meet women)

My other drug of choice is adrenaline from driving fast my car currently tops out just under 160mph and I'd go even faster if I could but maybe thankfully I can't. Fear is funny too, I don't fear this but I fear talking to people ha.

I'm trying to stop this because the tickets part, I only screw around on highways when I'm alone and day time, I don't do swimming/cutting people off but yeah.

The speed thing is easy get an old ZR1 it can go 200 but going in a straight line can be boring. It's the acceleration. Recently been watching this guy drive an Elise down roads in Switzerland that's pretty fun and not that fast. I know you can track too but idk.

In an ideal world maybe, but in the real world, most doctors are conditioned by US propaganda and the War on Drugs. Their views are compromised.

Furthermore, I've had mixed experiences with health professionals. It took me 10 years across multiple clinics and states to get diagnosed with gout that I've had since at least my late teens. Laughed out of multiple doctor's offices because I'm a "healthy young male" even though each day and night was filled with excruciating pain and drastically reduced mobility. "Full test panels" that specifically did not test my uric acid, because no healthy young male has gout.

No mention of gout ever to me, of course. I had to self diagnose as the disease progressed due to lack of treatment. Got my diagnosis confirmed by a physician's assistant, because both doctors at that clinic were on vacation at the same time for like the third time that quarter. He ordered a uric acid test, and was surprised that I'd never been offered one.

Both doctors had literally laughed me out of the office over the previous months. But I was persistent and it turns out the physician's assistant there was both more thorough and more knowledgeable than either doctor, helping me finally begin a path to treatment. I was damn near about to kill myself from a decade of extraordinary pain. From my discussions with older, typical gout sufferers, my case is extraordinarily bad and most of them only experience mild pain.

It's equally as silly to place 100% trust in doctors as it is to place 0% trust in them.

With things the way they are, it's not hard to be more knowledgeable about a condition than your doctor. Doctors have to know about all the possible conditions people can have, I only have to know about the one I have, so I've spent more time researching it than the doctor.

If you don't know what's wrong with you, then a doctor is absolutely the way to go. But if you already have a diagnosis, you can go spend time researching it, the doctor isn't going to do that.

I'd say it's irrelevant. Doctors typically have no exposure, interest nor knowledge about these things. So they are not the ones to have an opinion about it.

After seeing someone I love tortured for weeks at a hospital primarily because every one of the doctors was convinced they knew better than her -- I'm very much on the 'we can do just fine on our own' train. Do some research, use good sources, let docs stop you from bleeding out if it comes to that.

> thinking that our own judgement is better than a doctor judgement, supported by a vast community and shared knowledge, is epistemically interesting.

The medical community is concerned with physical health, mental health, ect.

The Psychedelic community is more like a religion; it is "vast" and there is a lot of "shared knowledge" if you go looking. The thing is, western medicine's purpose really isn't to do the kind of thing that psychedelics are for.

It's probably better not to conflate the two communities, because they use drugs for very different purposes.

A different way to say it: Don't confuse the pharmacy and the liquor store.

I agree with you for the most part. But the same medical establishment that pumped opioids everywhere, demonized fat instead of sugar, claimed tobacco was fine, overprescribed mental health drugs, etc is perhaps not a slam-dunk example of why we should trust the "expert consensus" on emerging treatments and techniques.

Compounding the issue is the eye-rolling hypocrisy that in the so-called "Land of the Free", a healthcare system controlled by the gatekeepers of big pharma and for-profit companies gets a blind pass... but putting certain plants (that you can grow yourself) into your own body is considered a serious felony...?

There's at least a sliver of daylight here that mean YMMV (which I'm sure you and I would agree on) - but if you lack the freedom to choose anyways, then it doesn't matter. And the people who decide for you are clearly part of a system that is compromised by regulatory capture, political polarization, and the insatiable greed of American healthcare.

Given that the current regime is bringing back measles, appeals to authority are becoming fraught.

Your concern is warranted, but a tad hyperbolic. Getting into a[n even minor] car crash, and thereafter recovery, can have equally devastating effects, as can being attacked by a dog.

I used to be very active in the hippy music scene. Permanent effects are exceedingly rare. I know people who trip fairly frequently and beyond some dreadlocks or tie dyed shirts off the clock, they are perfectly normal well adjusted people. You are being extremely hyperbolic.

I mean, so can alcohol.

[flagged]

[dead]

Drug culture had a big influence on the creation of modern desktop computing. https://www.amazon.com/What-Dormouse-Said-Counterculture-Per... is the best-researched book I've seen on this, but after living in the bay area for 35 years and talking to lots of people, there is a lot more drug use that impacts technology than most people would expect.

More people like Bill Atkinson? That sounds good to me.

these are the 'good' type of drugs though

More people like Bill Atkinson and Steve Jobs sounds great to me!

How can you look at this and think "druggies"?

Steve Jobs tried to treat his cancer by eating apples and ignoring the diagnosis until it was too late… not sure if that’s really connected to psychedelics

I assume this comment is trolling. But to be clear to readers, the link states psilocybin 50% increase in lifespan of human skin etc. not human lifespan.

It’s a lot easier to study if it’s legal. It’s also pretty hard to come up with a convincing placebo. The experience is also highly colored by “set and setting”, and the clinical environment or office space is probably not ideal for this knowledge expansion..

An article just came out showing that psilocybin extends life in aged mice, so that’s why you’re seeing it a lot. Yet we have no idea what causes this lifespan increase. Is it a result of “hallucination” experience itself , a purely chemical effect, or something in between? (aka will a ‘bad trip’ give the same effect on lifespan?)

> Most people will NOT benefit from taking the drug (as with any drug)

Now you’re just making things up.

> So it hurts my soul when I see words like "legalize" being thrown in this context. We know very very little about effect of such drugs.

That seems like exactly when we should legalize it. The default is legal, and without definite knowledge of serious harm, that should be the status.

The burden of proof should be on the people who want it to be legal, and by your comment, their case seems pretty weak.

That's something I'm really worried about, especially when SV is pushing it. And it is difficult to prove that research is unbiased.

One of the commenters of your post says "If we legalize it we can better research it". Allow me to be rude -- this is BS. If we follow this logic we should legalize pretty much everything!

I think it is polite to be rude to such dangerous thoughts. Downvote me as you see fit.