-
We welcome content that is not political, divisive, or offensive. If we feel your content leans this way or has the potential to, it may be removed at any time. A hot pepper forum is not the place for such content. Thank you for respecting the community!
Magic Mushrooms Can Create New Brain Cells
- Thread starter Weed
- Start date
mx5inpa said:
mkay, so Drugs in general, don't act as neurotransmitters themselves. they by and large tend to interfere or alter their absorption, or production in some manner.
so what you are claiming is because they effect the production./absorbtion/ release of A, therefore they must be similar to A itself? i think you can figure this one out.
True, they need to fit into the receptor in some way to get an effect, but this is means nothing. oversimplified metaphore time...
are all things that unlock or partially unlock or block a key hole in a lock similar? hell you can unlock a door with a damn hair clip.
They'd need a similar enough molecular structure to compete for and bind to the activation site I'd say..mx5inpa said:
mx5inpa said:
the chemicals conformation is far more important than what you loosely understand as chemical similarity.
chemistry 101, do you know what levo rotary methamphetamine is?
Oh my its chemically similar.... therefor it must be the same as dextro rotary methamphetamine right?
obstinence, you do it well.
forgive my grievous over site, clearly them being chemically identical verses similar throws out the point i made.
Tell me. they are identical, yet one is insanely less able to bind to the same receptor.
what say you regarding your original assertion?
what say you regarding your previous assertion that the aforementioned phenethyamines are "neurotransmitters". clearly you misunderstood this, its only fair i point this out now.
given the manner in which you so childishly tromp about looking after my semantic mistakes, perhaps you should look to my spelling and grammar as well.
as far as this being a non sqeuiter, no. sorry, its wholly applicable to your misunderstandings
Tell me. they are identical, yet one is insanely less able to bind to the same receptor.
what say you regarding your original assertion?
what say you regarding your previous assertion that the aforementioned phenethyamines are "neurotransmitters". clearly you misunderstood this, its only fair i point this out now.
given the manner in which you so childishly tromp about looking after my semantic mistakes, perhaps you should look to my spelling and grammar as well.
as far as this being a non sqeuiter, no. sorry, its wholly applicable to your misunderstandings
Yes, it does throw out the supposed point you think you are trying to make.
Should I just start reporting you?
Luckily your atrocious spelling is similar enough to the real spelling that I can still read you, but barely. <-----get it?
You seem angry that you lost your job as a chemical engineer at one of the many plants/refineries in/around Houston or something.
Should I just start reporting you?
Luckily your atrocious spelling is similar enough to the real spelling that I can still read you, but barely. <-----get it?
You seem angry that you lost your job as a chemical engineer at one of the many plants/refineries in/around Houston or something.
mx5inpa said:
and im angry? lol
im flattered that you think im smart enough to be a chemical engineer however. regardless, chem e's dont know shit about chemistry, sorry but its true.
chem e basically = mechanical engineering + chemical thermodynamics+ softmore chemistry.
all this aside, what say you? how does that analogy throw out my point exactly?
are they not chemically similar? or is your definition so flexible as to encompass and gloss over this quandary as well.
queequeg152 said:
I go to a very good engineering school and know quite a few that do far more than basic chemistry.. But ok.
Based on everything I've learned in school and in my own studies with topics ranging from chemistry to cell biology to A & P, I think he is for the most part correct. Many of them do have a similar molecular structure to neurotransmitters like acetylcholine or serotonin and thus they are capable of competing for and binding to those activation sites. There may be more than just that to the mechanism by which they cause us to hallucinate, but that is certainly part of it.
Perhaps they don't all behave that way? But I'd say most do. That is the only oversimplification I can see (maybe).
What point are you even arguing exactly?
queequeg152 said:
That is absurd. The key hole metaphor is meant be simple in order to demonstrate the idea that the molecule has to be similar enough in shape to properly bind. Being able to unlock a door with a hair clip is what means absolutely nothing here.
what do you consider basic chemistry?Pepperjack91 said:
i consider basic chemistry softmore and down, i consider higher chemistry junior and up. IDK maby you do not?
chem e at UH here in houston, does not even require P chem from what i understand. just ochem 1-2, gchem 1-2 this is basic chemistry imo.
drugs are chemically similar to neuro transmitters... for the most part? probably not
many do yes, but not all hallucinogens, not even by a long shot. did you look at the structure of 2cb-fly?
what do you consider chemically similar btw? chemical similarity IMO is defined by similar molecular structures weights properties and reactivities etc.
simply LOOKING the same means exactly nothing, when amines are replaced with methoxies...
methane and ethane are chemically similar, differing only by a paltry saturated carbon-carbon. they are similar bp,fp. vapor pressures, weights, etc etc.
now, ethanol- c2h6O, and methyl ether. are exactly the same molecular weights. they are structural isomers of each other in fact.
but they are most certainly not chemically similar. ethanol has strong hydrogen bonding sites that allow it to boil much much much higher than ethers, alcohols can be deprotonated with acids, ethers cannot etc etc.
my point: is the following: saying their mechanism of action is related to the fact that they are intrinsically similar to neuro transmitters is a gross oversimplification, provided your definition of chemical similarity is not absurd.
the keyhole methaphore. HENCE THE CAVEAT you left out of the quote, is meant to be a simple demonstration of how a keyhole can be filled by things other than keys. IE chemicals and molecules other than exact duplicates. is this so hard to get?
i don't understand how this can be deemed to be mean nothing as you state.
my hair clip remark.... again see above. a hairclip is not a key yet it opens a lock. its not hard relly.
the keyhole thing granted is a bad metaphor. a better one perhaps is a glove? the right hand glove only takes the right hand, or things shaped like the right hand.
the left hand is exactly the same as the right hand, only a mirror image, (its an enatiomer metaphor), yet if it does bind at all, it binds insanely less aggressively. by all accounts, enatiomers are wholly chemically identical why then do they not bind the same?
with all this said, the whole concept and study of drug interactions... pharmacology and pharmacokinetics etc is so insanely complex, that it just cannot be boiled down to some terse smug over simplification( my crude analogies included) , it just is not that easy to explain. this whole area is for a very good reason leaf to graduate students and research institutes, that was my whole point originally. my mention of 2cb fly was to demonstrate how its infact NOT similar to seritonin or dopamine or what ever else, at all.
what school do you go to btw?
incorrect.mx5inpa said:
and yea this is the lounge is it not? its funny that you would post a mushroom related story in a pepper forum for that matter.
Phenylethylamine (2cb fly) functions as a neuromodulator or neurotransmitter in the mammalian central nervous system
queequeg152 said:
Ya well then you might find it funny that there are tomato threads and other vegetables sections here too.
queequeg152 said:
Oh so when something is incorrect you say so, but when its still right you say gross oversimplification.
So yes, its still correct.
HOLY SHIT THEY LOOK NOTHING ALIKE! /sarcasm
Now kindly do as Gordon Ramsey would tell you.
OMFG IS THE KEY PART THAT FITS THE LOCK EXACTLY THE SAME???
what does Gordon Ramsey do besides yell? if he is known for a particular catch phrase i do not know it.mx5inpa said:
what point are you making here tho? i honestly cant tell.
i think i made it clear why i think your assertion is a gross oversimplification. i think if you had an ounce of objectivity you would see this.
instead of addressing my comments and or claims, you instead regurgitate the same things i responded to already?
ill summarize what i think your point is for you, since your incoherent musings do not merit a reply directly.
your claim : Since phenethylamines act on receptors, they are therefor chemically similar.
my point all along has been the following:
"All hallucinogens " are in fact not "chemically very similar" to seritonin etc, by any objective informed definition.
while some indeed are structurally similar, see psychedelic tryptamines, many are not. Hence the statement "all hallucinogens" is incorrect, and an oversimplification.
I do understand, that you would like to move, on so to speak, with this thread, as it seems you have nothing of substance to say.
fair enough, but id like the chance to respond to what ever arguments are directed towards myself, as is the case with my post replying to pepperjack.
and btw:
you are exploding my thread notification box with constant editing and reediting... there were like 8 for that last post alone. yea i edit alot too... but 8 times? perhaps you should proof these in ms word or something.
edit:
"Didnt wikipedia say it acts like a neurotransmitter? Didnt I quote that already?"
i didnt see this question previously, here is what i said.
"mkay, so Drugs in general, don't act as neurotransmitters themselves. they by and large tend to interfere or alter their absorption, or production in some manner."
and fair enough, another semantic mistake on my part. I should have said they do not act as endogenous neurotransmitters.
in the context of my post when i say, They, i m referring to drugs themsemves, when i said,their absorbtion, i was reffering to natural or endogenous neurotransmitters...the neurotransmitters made inside the cells.
see how easy it is to admit ones mistake?
what i was trying to say was:
they do not take their place,they tend to alter their production absorbtion etc. this alteration is by and large responsible for the effects.
with that said, again i must point out that the subject matter is entirely complicated and intricate.
really, anything that can bind to a receptor can be considered a neurotransmitter(in my understanding).
It is quite weird how you take one thing I said and change it to something else in your posts.
Like how you made similar into "the same"... more than once.
And now youve taken my original statement "similar to neurotransmitters" or whatever it was and changed it to seratonin.
Meanwhile the whole time youve baked off every point youve tried to make and still keep typing books.
At the time of your statement about editing 8 times I had nly edited it once.
Perhaps you spend too much time trolling and not enough learning how this forum works?
You see I havent edited this post at all.
Yet....
it's magic
like some mushrooms
woot
maybe if youre going to complain about all the notifications you should unsub and quit trolling
especially when youre so wrong
Like how you made similar into "the same"... more than once.
And now youve taken my original statement "similar to neurotransmitters" or whatever it was and changed it to seratonin.
Meanwhile the whole time youve baked off every point youve tried to make and still keep typing books.
At the time of your statement about editing 8 times I had nly edited it once.
Perhaps you spend too much time trolling and not enough learning how this forum works?
You see I havent edited this post at all.
Yet....
it's magic
like some mushrooms
woot
maybe if youre going to complain about all the notifications you should unsub and quit trolling
especially when youre so wrong
Sometimes I think google has ruined us. Just about any person at all can sound like an authority on the internet. If you two are finished arguing it'd be nice to continue the cool discussion that was precipitating prior to the carnage. And I'm not trying to flame either of you! Just chill out will ya? Information and discussion and difference of opinion doesn't have to include scorn and contempt - rather it can be rewarding and challenging. IF you don't take things personally.
You cannot control what others may do, but you CAN control your reaction to it.
You cannot control what others may do, but you CAN control your reaction to it.
SmokenFire said:Sometimes I think google has ruined us. Just about any person at all can sound like an authority on the internet. If you two are finished arguing it'd be nice to continue the cool discussion that was precipitating prior to the carnage. And I'm not trying to flame either of you! Just chill out will ya? Information and discussion and difference of opinion doesn't have to include scorn and contempt - rather it can be rewarding and challenging. IF you don't take things personally.
You cannot control what others may do, but you CAN control your reaction to it.
By all means, continue.