The modern skeptic needs to be well armed to deal with the array of woo being spewed these days.  Biblical criticism is pretty much a solved game but the new-agers can toss out faux-facts faster than you can say, “Bullshit!”

One flavour making the rounds here recently has been the junk science of Terrence McKenna.  An incredibly articulate ethnobotanist of the late 20th century, he was able to public several books that garnered the attention of aging hippies and which seem to have renewed their popularity with contemporary new agers.  As a self-described psychonaut, his writing mostly revolved around his ever more desperate attempts to instill perceived empirical value to the observations he made of his own consciousness while higher than a kite.

His timewave zero and novelty theories tied into eschatological prognostications for 2012 – a prophecy failure that his devotees overlook as quickly as the adherents of Benny Hinn overlook his.  Perhaps the most entertaining of his drug-addled ramblings was his ‘Stoned Ape’ conjecture.

In his Stoned Ape conjecture, McKenna tried to convince himself that use of magic mushrooms was the catalyst that sprung homo-sapiens into existence from homo-erectus.  He starts by assuming that the magnificent shrooms appeared on the African savanna 100,000 years ago and made their way into the homo-erectus diet – both assumptions being supported by zero evidence.  He then misrepresents a scientific study about visual perception to suggest that use of these mushrooms increased visual acuity in our early ancestors – thereby making them better hunters.

Based on his first two unfounded assumptions and an outright fabrication he then jumps to the conclusion that the results performed a miraculous one-time instance of Lamarckian inheritance, altering the offspring of psilocybin-gobbling hominids enough to speciate them from surrounding populations of homo-erectus.  It just goes on and on, and he actually managed get published for it in 1992 - Food of the Gods.

I feel this load of malarkey is worth our attention, as skeptics, so we can be better prepared to counter the ridiculous claims of McKennites that we may encounter.  I know there is one with us lately and felt he might like to put his thoughts on display here for all of us to observe the workings of such a mind.

Views: 12292

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks Heather.

Thanks for summarizing instead of just linking. (Damn you must be a fast reader.)

It's gratifying when literate people reach scientific conclusions which I've only reached (guessed) purely by personal observation. ("psilocybin "interfere(s) with counter-adaptation to optical distortion ...".")

"based on so many unquestioning comments about it I see, far and wide. As if it’s just understood as 'scientific fact' or 'proven' true"

Yike. That's the kind of stuff I equate to a fish in the ear - fun, but who would take it as science?

The citation uphelds what I've been saying all along, and you obviously have misinterpreted this citation, as it's referring to visual acuity at different dose ranges. McKenna emphasized that when Roland Fischer gave his volunteers extremely low doses, doses so low that one could subtly notice any effect, then did the visual acuity occur. Of course, when you raise the dose, you begin to have greater and greater distortion. 

I mean, simply by experiencing this for yourself you can prove that this is so. Take about less than half a gram, and then wait about an hour. I mean, that would end this argument right there and then. Reading citations is definitely not YOUR strong point, perhaps you read through it to fast without paying much attention to detail. 

You quoted someone's response, you see, where they put "it was central to his 'Stoned Ape hypothesis.'" Untrue. That was not the central point, it was perhaps the most trivial of the dose ranges, as to have this occur you'd have to eat literally less than half a gram! If McKenna's hypothesis holds any weight at all, then do you think one of our hungry ancestral apes would have stopped at half a gram? I don't think so.

The central point to his conjecture occurs when you have the "full spectrum" dose which he spent a lifetime trying to articulate and advocate. 

Fischer didn't note any change in visual acuity.  You are a theist who worships Mckenna, c'est tout.

The citation is there, but even if you want to dismiss it, Heather, like I pointed out, this is just one causal effect in a series of factors that work into McKenna's hypothesis, and as I mentioned, the "visual acuity" portion isn't central to his hypothesis.

Even if you were to disregard "visual acuity," you'd still have a slew of other factors involved, most important of these is the "full-spectrum dose" which McKenna felt was the catalyst that prompted us into human consciousness, the so-called "mystical experience," the boundary-dissolving "ego death" experience. I'm not sure what you're attempting to do here, because the hypothesis isn't as simple as, "Oh, early apes ate low doses of mushrooms, acquired visual acuity, and so therefore this allowed them to flourish and have better adaptive/survival chances, etc. etc., which eventually led somehow to evolve to human consciousness, etc." It's not that simple, but you don't seem to grasp that.

I quoted your citation - it proves you wrong but apparently you are too high to see it.

No, you quoted a post on the forum, not the actual citation. -_-

There's no law saying scientific studies have to be done in the United States under illegal circumstances. Science is done all over the world.


Hi Jimmy

I really havent read much about Terence McKenna but I definantly will be now. 

On the full understand that very few people here are at all interested in personal experience with psychoactive substances, I will, nevertheless, poke in as I've done a LOT of them.

1. I agree with those who shout "bullshit". These drug are recreational and as such a worthwhile experience. As far as I'm concerned, they trigger a chemical "Oh-Wow-Man" response. It definitely seems/feels like you're having revelations. That, again, is a worthwhile experience - as long as you don't believe it is something more than recreational.

2. I agree with those who claim that it is more than something recreational. BECAUSE of the way it short-circuits, it can reveal to users perhaps what Strega called "External existentialism" although I don't get the word "external" because the whole point is that the external/internal division is removed.

This is an important revelation but not one that Requires chemicals.

Terence McKenna isn't talking about "recreational use." He feels that recreational use only trivializes what psychedelics are fully capable of. And I assure you, the experience of "Oh-Wow-Man" is only said because this experience is so profound that it's often described as "ineffable," so instead of attempting to articulate, which I feel Terence McKenna was at great pains to express, the only thing people can come back with is "Oh-Wow-Man," and of course, this is no help to the person who wants a description to this experience. "Oh-Wow-Man" doesn't cut the mustard. That's why I posted those Terence McKenna talk, because at least he tries to be a little more articulate than simply saying "far out, man."

@Unseen As I mentioned before, the only people who are drawn to psychedelics are those who wish to explore the very depths of consciousness. Of course, if you're not interested in that, then psychedelics are irrelevant to you, and most people would rather not travel the dark sea of mind.

I wish I had a memory/ I'm quite sure I've seen studies on the chemical phenomenon. They didn't refer to it as the "Oh-Wow-Man" effect - those are my words. But I believe that such a reaction to certain chemicals is scientifically provable. 

If it's so profound as to be ineffable, what's the point? That's not a rhetorical question. Discussion and inquiry require effibility (probably not a word, but I'm sure you get the idea).

"[Oh-Wow-Man is] no help to the person who wants a description to this experience"

Neither is it of any help to those wishing to gain objective knowledge about the subject.

@Unseen As I mentioned before, the only people who are drawn to psychedelics are those who wish to explore the very depths of consciousness. Of course, if you're not interested in that, then psychedelics are irrelevant to you, and most people would rather not travel the dark sea of mind.

So, you don't want to discuss it, I guess.

And perhaps if you stopped using flowery poetic language to discuss the drug experience you might be able to look at it more objectively. I mean, "the very depths of consciousness," "the dark sea of mind." Give me a break.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service