Did the use of psychedelics lead to a computer revolution?

[PNews]

Did the use of psychedelics lead to a computer revolution?

Steve Jobs and a host of computer pioneers believed LSD helped their creativity – but coincidence does not imply causality

You might be excused for thinking these are the words of a philosopher or a stoned Grateful Dead fan, but no. It's from an interview in 2000 with Mike Lynch, the CEO of Autonomy and Britain's first software billionaire, currently in the process of selling his company to Hewlett-Packard for $10bn (£6bn). Lynch, who was talking about the power of the pattern recognition that forms the basis of Autonomy's success, went on to talk about the fascination of dreams, near-death experiences and the accounts of those experimenting scientifically with LSD in the 1960s: all forms of altered perception.

Did psychedelic drugs play a substantive role in the development of personal computing? In 2009, Ryan Grim, as part of publicising his book This Is Your Country on Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America wrote a piece for the Huffington Post that made public a letter from LSD inventor Albert Hofmann to Apple CEO Steve Jobs in 2007 asking for funding for research into the use of psychedelics to help relieve the anxiety associated with life-threatening illness.

He picked Jobs because, as New York Times reporter John Markoff told the world in his 2005 book, What the Dormouse Said: How the 60s Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry, Jobs believed that taking LSD was one of the two or three most important things he'd done in his life. That 2001 conversation inspired Markoff to write the book: a history of computing with the drugs kept in.

From 1961 to 1965, the Bay Area-based International Foundation for Advanced Study led more than 350 people through acid trips for research purposes. Some of them were important pioneers in the development of computing, such as Doug Engelbart, the father of the computer mouse, then heading a project to use computers to augment the human mind at nearby SRI. Grim also names the inventors of virtual reality and early Cisco employee Kevin Herbert as examples of experimenters with acid, and calls Burning Man (whose frequent attendees include Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page) the modern equivalent for those seeking mind expansion.

There's a delicious irony in thinking that the same American companies who require their employees to pee in a cup rely on machines that were created by drugged-out hippies. But things aren't so simple. Markoff traces modern computing to two sources. First is the clean-cut, military-style, suit-wearing Big Iron approach of the east coast that, in its IBM incarnation, was so memorably smashed in the 1984 Super Bowl ad for the first Apple Mac.

Second is the eclectic and iconoclastic mix of hackers, hippies, and rebels of the west coast, from whose ranks so many of today's big Silicon Valley names emerged. Markoff, born and bred in the Bay Area and 18 in 1967, argues the idea of the personal computer as a device to empower individuals was a purely west coast idea; the east coast didn't "get" anything but corporate technology.

There's a basic principle to invoke here: coincidence does not imply causality. As early Sun employee John Gilmore, whom Grim calls a "well-known psychonaut", says in that article, it is very difficult to prove that drug use led directly to personal computers. The 1960s were a time of extreme upheaval: the Vietnam war and the draft, the advent of female-controlled contraception, and the campaign for civil rights all contributed to the counterculture. Was it the sex, the drugs or the rock'n'roll – or the science fiction?

In 1998 Vint Cerf, one of the fathers of the internet, said in a discussion of his enjoyment of science fiction: "I think it's also made it easier for me to think about things that weren't quite ready yet but I could imagine might just possibly be feasible."

Annie Gottlieb, in Do You Believe in Magic? Bringing the 60s Back Home, recounts the personal exploratory experiences of a variety of interviewees, and comes to this conclusion: "Any drug experience is determined far less by the drug than by what we bring to it." Many people tried acid. Only one became Steve Jobs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... lution-lsd

 

[Illegalsmile]

yea, and the guy who discoverd the dna double helix shape says he was on lsd when he first thought of it. psychoactives can have huge benefits when used right, i believe

 

[masternavigator11]

yes the use of psychedelics is a great thing but at the same time it gives humans to much rope. and we may have already hung ourselves with the mega wide spread use of technology we evolved machines instead of our humans good job you dumb ass social computer pioneers you killed us all.

 

[ararat]

^it is always very easy to blame others for ones own lack of awareness. as if the internet isn't empowering to you as an individual.




I didn't read the article right now, but there's an amazing documentary about the involvement of the hippies with the development of the internet etc. I forgot the name, but I'll look it up once I'm home again.

 

[masternavigator11]

^it is always very easy to blame others for ones own lack of awareness. as if the internet isn't empowering to you as an individual.




I didn't read the article right now, but there's an amazing documentary about the involvement of the hippies with the development of the internet etc. I forgot the name, but I'll look it up once I'm home again.

how is that lack of awareness do you have any idea what all this technology is doing to our neurology and how much it has hindered our mental evolution are you aware of that. the internet and computers are great and empowering but what if we were going to evolve a mental internet so you could just think of something and the information would come to you telepathically and other mental ability. but because some guys that should of never been allowed near L.S.D wanted to make a few bucks now we have all this commercialization thanks to the social computer. so all this technology hurts us on a mental level that i doubt your aware and it could be good but it could also be the death of us all. so therefor i think my understanding of that possibility makes me a little or a lot more aware then you.

 

[ararat]

what if we were going to evolve a mental internet so you could just think of something and the information would come to you telepathically and other mental ability. but because some guys that should of never been allowed near L.S.D wanted to make a few bucks now we have all this commercialization thanks to the social computer. so all this technology hurts us on a mental level that i doubt your aware and it could be good but it could also be the death of us all. so therefor i think my understanding of that possibility makes me a little or a lot more aware then you.

actually, your idea of the mental internet might have been the starting point for the development of the internet that we are quarreling in right now. you see, I can think of something and type it into google and the information comes to me. it is a democratization of information on a much higher scale than we ever had before, such as libraries, elders or shamans or whatever.

I see that technology hurts us on lots of levels, I'm not defending it, but I'm glad I have it in one way or many. on what it does to our brain in terms of information handling and intake is a huge question, you could write books about it. maybe there is some kind of "purpose", or more neutrally, an upside to this scattered, almost unlinear information intake.

 

[masternavigator11]

what if we were going to evolve a mental internet so you could just think of something and the information would come to you telepathically and other mental ability. but because some guys that should of never been allowed near L.S.D wanted to make a few bucks now we have all this commercialization thanks to the social computer. so all this technology hurts us on a mental level that i doubt your aware and it could be good but it could also be the death of us all. so therefor i think my understanding of that possibility makes me a little or a lot more aware then you.

actually, your idea of the mental internet might have been the starting point for the development of the internet that we are quarreling in right now. you see, I can think of something and type it into google and the information comes to me. it is a democratization of information on a much higher scale than we ever had before, such as libraries, elders or shamans or whatever.

I see that technology hurts us on lots of levels, I'm not defending it, but I'm glad I have it in one way or many. on what it does to our brain in terms of information handling and intake is a huge question, you could write books about it. maybe there is some kind of "purpose", or more neutrally, an upside to this scattered, almost unlinear information intake.

the idea of a mantel internet did lead to the internet and the information is a unlinear scattered pattern you should look up fractal logic. i dont want argue im just saying we evolved technology instead of our own neurology but it sounds like we kind of agree on this subject im just saying what if we jumped without looking and as advanced as we think we are were still just inventing more wheels and creating new types of fire and mostly only using them for selfish wants and not global needs.

 

[mosaicmouse]

I think we DID evolve our psyche with this technology.

What else of a change would it be? Intrinsic brain functions can take millions of years to change trough classic evolution. Our (cultural) evolution as mankind is one outside and around our bodies, and is much faster and dynamic. Even the use of chemicals to change brain function is influenced and facilitated by culture.

 

[ophiuchus]

here's my take on it:

in finding the right path, one must make mistakes. it's part of the game... do any of us make the right decision all of the time? that's what it boils down to. moving from unconscious to conscious.

only from failure do the greatest improvements come.

technology is as much nature as we are, as a tree is. just because a human made it and we consider it artificial, does not mean that it isn't nature. everything is nature. this is the way of the universe, and this is human existence. birds make nests, people make houses. technology is evolving along with us. nothing is stagnant in time. the only constant, is change.

we as humans evolved ("naturally") to the point where we thought it'd be good to make and distribute tools (in further complexity, a computer or technology), right? so what is happening beyond this point is still an integral part to everything leading up to the creation of technology. there was the wheel, then the pulley, the gear, the engine. humans have always shared information with each other as a means to improve it. it's through this very natural dynamic that information is becoming more accessible. we can learn from each others mistakes and advice instead of having to discover it ourselves, saving us a lot of time, as well as effort, which, in turn can therefore create more time for us to do what we (all humans) want to do. which if you ask me, allows more room for us to choose what it is that we wish to evolve into. which i believe (based off of observation) is is the same, with or without technology. we want to have as fast of access as possible to the widest field of information as possible that can therefore meet our all of our needs. period. i dont think it changes with or without technology, because the communication dynamic is even imbedded in our physical structure (vocal cords).

so now it comes full circle. in more ancient times (as well as now) only shamans and people similar had access to knowledge of this field of information around us. "aether" "akashic field" whatever you want to call it, it's all the same thing. it's information; a specific kind. one that allows the successful path of least resistance to unfold. in this sense, the information can also be realized as being energy. the information channels energy, is a vector for energy, which is itself a vector. anyways, this is somewhat beside the real point, which is this. through this vector of the internet, people who have a "natural" (not requiring technology) intuitive access to this field of information may share their experience of what it is like, as well as how they access it, to people who do not "naturally" have access to it. and so this can begin the trial and error phase, in which everybody connected to the internet may participate, whereas before, it was very limited.

i believe that with this dynamic of information, (that good (useful) information is kept and spread, and that bad (not useful) information dies with time) technology or not, we will make this next big leap in human evolution. it may take a little while for people to figure out that they can be better off on their own (without certain aspects of technology) but due to the nature of the way good and bad information is spread, as explained above, i believe that the internet may even prove itself as an aid in this, in my opinion, inevitable next step.

 

[masternavigator11]

I think we DID evolve our psyche with this technology.

What else of a change would it be? Intrinsic brain functions can take millions of years to change trough classic evolution. Our (cultural) evolution as mankind is one outside and around our bodies, and is much faster and dynamic. Even the use of chemicals to change brain function is influenced and facilitated by culture.

yes we have but have we evolved to destroy are selves. we have evolved machines to a point were they could make a center server that becomes self aware and destroys us. but that's been done in movies for years, but another possibility is that it is changing our brain wiring so we have to rely on a outside source for learned information. which could possibly make us evolve smaller hippo campuses and that would set us back in evolution. also all this technology that we use for technology could be hurting the frequencies that the synapse may use for communication and collaboration of different brain areas.


there's no knowledge of synapse using frequencies that link up different parts of the brain but I'm looking in to it, i had a thought for some further research. but if they do use frequencies then all the EMF could be interfering with our emf. and that would damage our growth mentally.

but you are right their is mental evolution that has been caused by this evolution of technology but all im saying is we should figure out what and how we as individuals can evolve our mental ability's to communicate mentally among other things. because i don't know about you or anyone else but i can sense some things in the sense of intuition.

 

[masternavigator11]

here's my take on it:

in finding the right path, one must make mistakes. it's part of the game... do any of us make the right decision all of the time? that's what it boils down to. moving from unconscious to conscious.

only from failure do the greatest improvements come.

technology is as much nature as we are, as a tree is. just because a human made it and we consider it artificial, does not mean that it isn't nature. everything is nature. this is the way of the universe, and this is human existence. birds make nests, people make houses. technology is evolving along with us. nothing is stagnant in time. the only constant, is change.

we as humans evolved ("naturally") to the point where we thought it'd be good to make and distribute tools (in further complexity, a computer or technology), right? so what is happening beyond this point is still an integral part to everything leading up to the creation of technology. there was the wheel, then the pulley, the gear, the engine. humans have always shared information with each other as a means to improve it. it's through this very natural dynamic that information is becoming more accessible. we can learn from each others mistakes and advice instead of having to discover it ourselves, saving us a lot of time, as well as effort, which, in turn can therefore create more time for us to do what we (all humans) want to do. which if you ask me, allows more room for us to choose what it is that we wish to evolve into. which i believe (based off of observation) is is the same, with or without technology. we want to have as fast of access as possible to the widest field of information as possible that can therefore meet our all of our needs. period. i dont think it changes with or without technology, because the communication dynamic is even imbedded in our physical structure (vocal cords).

so now it comes full circle. in more ancient times (as well as now) only shamans and people similar had access to knowledge of this field of information around us. "aether" "akashic field" whatever you want to call it, it's all the same thing. it's information; a specific kind. one that allows the successful path of least resistance to unfold. in this sense, the information can also be realized as being energy. the information channels energy, is a vector for energy, which is itself a vector. anyways, this is somewhat beside the real point, which is this. through this vector of the internet, people who have a "natural" (not requiring technology) intuitive access to this field of information may share their experience of what it is like, as well as how they access it, to people who do not "naturally" have access to it. and so this can begin the trial and error phase, in which everybody connected to the internet may participate, whereas before, it was very limited.

i believe that with this dynamic of information, (that good (useful) information is kept and spread, and that bad (not useful) information dies with time) technology or not, we will make this next big leap in human evolution. it may take a little while for people to figure out that they can be better off on their own (without certain aspects of technology) but due to the nature of the way good and bad information is spread, as explained above, i believe that the internet may even prove itself as an aid in this, in my opinion, inevitable next step.

YES BUT WAS IT THE CORRECT NEXT STEP. ARE WE GOING UP THE RIGHT STAIRCASE I'M JUST SAYING LOOK AT RELIGION THAT START AS A WAY OF INFORMATION, TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, AND A WAY TO WATCH OVER EVERYONE. NOW THAT THAT'S ON ITS WAY OUT. WE HAVE THIS TECHNOLOGY WHICH IS THE SAME THING AND ITS SLOWLY TAKING OVER. BUT IT IS GOOD IN A SENSE I MEAN I'M USING IT RIGHT KNOW.

 

[ophiuchus]

YES BUT WAS IT THE CORRECT NEXT STEP. ARE WE GOING UP THE RIGHT STAIRCASE I'M JUST SAYING LOOK AT RELIGION THAT START AS A WAY OF INFORMATION, TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, AND A WAY TO WATCH OVER EVERYONE. NOW THAT THAT'S ON ITS WAY OUT. WE HAVE THIS TECHNOLOGY WHICH IS THE SAME THING AND ITS SLOWLY TAKING OVER. BUT IT IS GOOD IN A SENSE I MEAN I'M USING IT RIGHT KNOW.

well for starts, i'd like to make clear that this: "that would set us back in evolution" is impossible. evolution flows with time, whatever evolves out of time is all that could and is supposed to.

as far as "correct" goes, i cannot speculate. nobody can, because things are never so cut and dry. that answer i'm sure falls somewhere in the middle, and truth is, debating it wont make it's real position any closer to being wrong or right... though through debate we may gain a better understanding of how it is.

to use the religion example. religion was created and spread very efficiently as a means to an end. yes it was exploited, and now that it is on it's way out, an ENORMOUS amount (majority) of people have been presented with the stimulation to think about theur mortality, their spirituality. although it was used for propaganda, we now all have a greater sense of awareness that we can attribute to it.

many many things all follow this similar path