Check out the Marsh Chapel Experiment,[1] "Varieties of Psychedelic Experience",[2] the "Psychedelics Encyclopedia",[3] and Erowid's trip reports[4] for examples of people who did have massively transformative experiences.

That said, from what I've read, it's relatively rare for LSD to radically transformative in the long run (for various, psychologically interesting reasons). However, short-term transformation is relatively common, given a high enough dose and the proper set and setting.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment

[2] - http://www.amazon.com/Varieties-Psychedelic-Experience-Class...

[3] - http://www.amazon.com/Psychedelics-Encyclopedia-Peter-Staffo...

[4] - https://www.erowid.org/

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the idea of a "sitter" is someone that is not under the influence, so this could negate such effects if one fully follows the advice of the parent post.

> Before taking LSD, ask yourself: Are you sure you want to be a different person afterwards? People everywhere talk about the transformative nature of LSD, so that's what you'll be doing: transforming into a different person. Exploring land is fun because you get to go places you've never seen before. Exploring how chemicals affect your brain is fun for some because they become different. So don't do it unless you're sure you dislike yourself.

You could make the same philosophical arguments against "downloading your mind into a computer" or "using a Star Trek transporter." How do you know that the consciousness on the other end is still "you?"

This is, in my opinion, a terrible reason to stay away from LSD. You're effectively saying avoid anything that may have bad results. Not liking yourself has never been a prerequisite for being curious. I've seen people have panic attacks on roller coaster rides that almost certainly altered their chemical balance for a significant period of time with permanent fear of heights tagging along, but once you start staying away from things that are on that scale of 'danger', at what point does it become relative to now say, "Stay away from playing sports, unless you don't like the way you function". I realize this is a slippery slope fallacy, so I'm not asking you to consider that exact scenario seriously, I'm just asking you to consider there could potentially be worse consequences to having that mindset than taking LSD.

I'm not advocating taking LSD, at all, mind you. I ignorantly (having never taken LSD) presume the social consequences of taking 'real drugs' outweigh the potential benefits.

The situation is that LSD usage has been suppressed and denigrated by authorities, and now we're seeing a backlash against draconian drug restrictions. But it's easy to swing the pendulum too far the other way and downplay the negatives.

Drug usage should be a personal choice, and the only way to make good choices is to be fully informed. So I was trying to make sure everyone is informed about the risks. Specifically, you'll see things which aren't actually there, and if you freak out, you may make some decisions which turn out to be embarrassing at the least. That's where your responsible sitter needs to do their job.

There's nothing wrong with doing LSD. It sucks that there's a social stigma and it's hard to find a responsible sitter. But why go through all the trouble when there are some seriously scary downsides? The goal was simply to remind that there are pitfalls to watch out for.

All of this is just what I wish someone would've told me when I was a teenager. They warn everyone about peer pressure, but you tend to ignore those warnings as a teen. Anything your parents or teachers warn you about is de facto cool. So if they warn against peer pressure, you naturally want to rebel. "And besides, it seems so fun and harmless."

But peer pressure is very powerful. For example, whenever LSD threads pop up on HN, everyone talks about the wonderful experiences they've had, along with some impressive people who did LSD, like Jobs. And people often want to emulate Jobs.

That's a powerful distraction. It makes you forget what should be obvious: this is a personal choice, so make sure you're making the choice for the right reasons. Ignore what other people are doing, ignore the list of people who have done LSD, and weigh the risks appropriately.

Yeah, which is going to keep me from using the Star Trek transporter until it's studied further.

It's not philosophical. It's physical.

When you get old, there's a good chance brain disease will slowly erase your personality until nothing is left.

As you wander around the world, your blood pumps and exchanges ions, changing the physical substrate of your brain at every instant. Your sense of self is an illusion.

I think trying to hang onto who you are is like trying to hang onto a dream you're waking up from, but with the advantage that you can try to guide your future self into being a better person than you were.

I can clearly state that me 2015 is a distinctly different person than me mid-2013, some ways better some ways worse. My physical substrate has certainly changed. The fact that change is usually gradual and smooth hides the truth within a story we tell ourselves, mostly because our memories provide a sense of continuity.

That said, it's up to each person to weigh the risks of using a psychedelic drug. Would it help guide you into who you want to be in the future?

With LSD it's really demonstrated to you that the "you" part is in some ways separate from some of the other parts but in other ways not separate. It's a feeling and an experience that is very hard to describe to someone who hasn't also experienced it, although I have heard some people have a similar effect with really deep meditative states.

Either way, you're not likely to change into a completely different person after an acid trip. You just think about things a little differently is all, and even that wears off after a while.

I suspect that your brain is who you think you are because you've learned to associate the concept of self with your thought processes, but I ask you if you are indeed your thinking then how is it that you're able to observe your own thought ?

If you'll bear with me for a moment, doesn't it also make sense to think that you may be whatever is observing both thought and sensory phenomena ?

To run with that assumption for a moment.. if you are the observer rather than the thought, or body sensations under observation, then why assume that you're located in your brain ? After all aren't you equally observing the sensation of your little toe as you wiggle it ?

I suspect that man is so continually engaged with the process of thought-observation as his primary focus that he has developed a bais towards self-identification with that one area of the body in particular (the head) when logically speaking he has no reason to assume he's not equally located in his little toe.

Lets take this thought experiment one step further. If you can observe the body, as in the naturally arising sensory observation of bodily fabrications, and you can also observe thinking, then is it safe to assume that the observer is the same as that which is under observation ?

Or perhaps the observer is the process of observation itself rather than the observer or the observed (do you feel more like a verb or a noun lately) ?

or maybe it's both, or neither. Or could it be that it's neither nor one, nor the other, nor both, nor neither, as some buddhists have suggested ?

> It's not philosophical. It's physical.

If you come to suspect that you are either the observer, or the process of observing then how do you know for sure whether or not you are philosophical or physical in nature ? Or suppose you are both philosophical and physical in nature such as was reported to be the case with the fabled philosophers mercury of the hermetic alchemists ?

These are the kinds of questions that the process of self-reflection may stir up within the individual and for some people LSD can serve as a catalyst that prompts them to pause and reflect. I personally suggest that you can achieve the same thing with less risk to your person simply by pausing (becoming very still), and reflecting inwardly, but this doesn't come naturally, so it takes practice. I know from personal experience that the early teachings of the Buddha as preserved by the Theravada linage are almost entirely devoted to practical instruction on how to accomplish this very feat.

In closing I suppose if the article linked above is true, and ergot was a major component of the Western (greek) Mysteries then it occurs to me that perhaps it's this process of inward reflection, and it's fruits, which unite the ancient western with the ancient eastern mystical traditions.

Indeed. It's crucial advice. Doing LSD without a responsible sitter would be like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. It's very sad that LSD is both illegal and has a social stigma, because it's less likely that people will find LSD along with a responsible sitter. I'm a datapoint of one, but my experience was that people involved with getting LSD also tend to want to do it as a group. They're not very responsible. It's easy to imagine a friend trying to persuade you to do it with them, which is the situation I found myself in. But again, a datapoint of one isn't very useful.

>making a huge impact on the world by consuming LSD. It'll certainly have a huge impact on your personal life, though, for better or worse.

You probably won't believe me, but I went from being a directionless loser to going to med school and becoming a successful doctor after an epiphany during an LSD trip. I also invested a 5 figure sum into bitcoin when it was $3 a coin and am now a multimillionaire.

I'm not even going to justify any of the other silly stuff you said with a response.

My comment said "Don't do it unless you're sure you dislike yourself." Before I say this, I want to clarify that this isn't an insult: you called yourself a directionless loser, so your reply doesn't disagree with me.

Couldn't you say that about any life experience?

Turner and this woman's case are covered in _Ketamine: Dreams and Realities_ http://www.maps.org/books/K-DreamsKJansenMAPS.pdf , by Jansen; he argues that there are extenuating circumstances in those cases and it's not as simple as 'ketamine killed them'.

Here's a working link: http://www.pdfarchive.info/pdf/J/Ja/Jansen_Karl_-_Ketamine.p...

This sentence isn't really logically sound. There are lots of reasons to make a transition from a place of satisfaction to a place of uncertain satisfaction. Happy people often explore!

Aside, 'Becoming a different person' implies a large amount of permanence. I'd really enjoy seeing this assertion sourced. Especially with regards to one-time or infrequent use of psychedelics. Could you point me to anything you've found particularly convincing?