There is another question.

I can’t believe this world is anyhow real as soon as I look at the science.

It’s not that it’s imperfect. It’s not that it needs more time. Not at all. It is wrong beyond absurdity. It must be that wrong on purpose.

If I look at the science, I don’t think people are stupid. I can’t believe people exist. It is impossible that there are eight billion people on the planet, or any number above one or two hundred, and no one notices it and starts screaming.

Just for starters:

I.
The special relativity theory’s kinetic energy cannot be applied to light because it makes the energy of light either zero or incalculable. So, we have a theory built on a hypothesis about the light, and it cannot be applied to light. Then, what can it be applied to?

How is it possible that I, who was kicked out of the high school, look at its equation for the first time in my life, and after one minute, I want to scream, but people, who were supposed to work with it through their lives, can’t see it?

II.
The Big Bang theory is the worst joke I’ve ever heard.

I already described some of the issues here, why it is so. I got no response. I can’t believe that no one is interested in the theory about the Cosmos.

III.
The spontaneous creation of life on Earth is against the fundamentals of chemistry. It’s not about chances and probability. It’s against it in 180 degrees. Putting the problem to another planet solves nothing.

No, I can’t believe it anymore that there are scientists.

This reality is a joke.

The question is, whose joke it is.

If it’s my joke, I have to improve every aspect of my personality, because, I should not do this to myself ever again.

If it’s someone else’s joke, I’m trying to figure out how I finish the exam and pass the test.

IIRC the term was first coined by C. G. Jung and was also used by S. Grof. I really recommend to study the work of both.

When it starts to happen in your life, it seems very strange, but after some time passes, it becomes normal and you could be surprised why you was not able to see it before.

As I see it, it is not worth to put too much effort in understanding why and how it happens. You always end with some paradox. The important point is not to understand it intellectually, but to understand the meaning of the event.

But if you want my personal explanation, I think that this world is a simulation or playground for young spirits to educate and evolve. Teaching souls from outside of this world are sometimes giving us a signs, some events are maybe prepared in advance.

I will give you one advice to the idea 1 from your list:

Yes, you can have these powers. But be very carefull with using it. It is a trap.

I also think that idea 3, which is basically solipsism, is totally unproductive, it leads nowhere.

Many years ago, I started writing a book. I stopped it when it was in a state of a scratch. The story and the structure are more or less finished.

I learned only later about Jung’s theory about the anima and animus, only to realize that my book was about the same phenomenon. I’m sure I didn’t hear about it before, especially since I arrived at it from another angle. The starting points were the myth of the succubi, certain Hindu gods, the “vampire queen”, the “femme fatale”. They exhibit the same strength.

Lilith is the most powerful anima ever realized in human culture. Her story, Adam’s and God’s reactions, describes men’s attitude towards strong, smart, and powerful women.

While men like seeing such women in vampire and superhero movies, as soon as they meet a woman who is anyhow powerful or smart, 95+% of them will run away, try to prove they are better or smarter, or, least likely, they initiate a fight.

The spaceship in my book is called LIL-8. She has another Universe inside her mind.

The protagonist is chasing a nonhuman woman through space who is haunting and teasing him in his dreams.

I learned it only later that Jung considered the anima a bad thing that prevents men from working and having a happy life.

What was men’s reaction to a strong and powerful woman? “Oh, God, please, I beg you, put her into hell, and give me a slave instead of her!”



(Ferdinand Hodler - Die Wahrheit)



If I ever was a child, I noticed it then already. It was ever-present. Its intensity reached a new level soon after DMT and mushrooms knocked on the door.

That’s also why I avoid negative words, for example, the names of sicknesses.



How do you know I shouldn’t end up with a paradox? What if finding the paradox is a significant element of the puzzle? What if it’s telling me something I wouldn’t believe otherwise?

Do you know the Russian tale of the two frogs?

Two frogs fell into the cream. They realized they couldn’t jump out. Neither could they float in it without effort.

There was no escape, no hope.

One of the frogs accepted their fate and stopped trying to stay on the surface. The frog sank in the cream and suffocated.

The other frog thought, “What else could I do?”, and kept pedaling the cream to stay on the surface.

What happened? After a while, the cream turned into butter. The frog jumped out.

If you stop trying, what are your chances?

Yes, it takes a lot of effort. Let’s put it on the scale. What can I earn? What can I lose?

If I were wrong, and the truth would be close to what most people believe, what would I lose by being wrong? What would I lose by trying?

I would make my life more complicated and exhausting than it could be. So what? How much would the difference be? How long would it last?

How much am I interested in the offerings of that life in which most people believe? How much is it above zero (for me)?

And what if somehow I’m right at least about a few details? What would I lose if I ignore it?

I could lose everything I consider to make sense. I could lose everything that could be a reason for me to exist.

Although it’s not sure that I would lose it.

Maybe one day everyone gets an email from God or the builders of the simulator that says, “Hey, I know you were freaking ignorant through all your life, you didn’t care, you didn’t try, you didn’t think, but still, my gift for you is disclosing your life was a joke, and you will be elevated to the next level of the reality regardless of whether you put any effort in it or not. Enjoy!”

If I were God or the alien who built the simulator, would I send out such a newsletter?

No, I wouldn’t.

I would cherry-pick those few who tried maybe because I wanted to create a new type of soldier for an interdimensional war. Maybe I were the God of the intellect, and my best friend was Mr. Spock.

I would rather meet such a god or alien than one who says, “Yeah, it was pointless. You were never supposed to try anything at all. What did you expect?”

One of the few fundamental philosophic ideas I didn’t figure out myself before I heard about it, and which never made sense until the last few days was the “cogito ergo sum”.

I like thinking. That alone doesn’t give “cogito ergo sum” a meaning. Does my work desk think? Maybe, but probably not. Does it exist? I don’t know, but my keyboard seems to be on it. If it exists, why would I need to think to exist?

On the other hand, I always found it strange that most people, religions, and spiritual teachings consider thinking bad.

Even the theory that seemed to describe the world most reasonably (before I took psychedelics), the theory I never liked, and never wanted to be true, memetics considers thoughts as parasites. It says humans are victims of their thoughts. It says humans are nothing but soil for the memes, one of the two replicators we know. (The other one is the genes.)

My opinion was that the only detail wrong about thinking is in the wrong thinking. That’s what I see almost everywhere. No surprise, they find it wrong since wrong thinking is wrong. Remove wrong, and see how it is.

To many, I would say, before you judge thinking and deductive logic, you might want to try them.

(I wouldn’t say this to people to whom I talk. Not because I’m polite but because it would be pure self-criticism. I talk to those who seem to think even if they believe it on a level that it could be wrong. I, too, believed a lot of things I should have never believed.)

Last week, however, I noticed the perfect symbiosis between solipsism and “cogito ergo sum”.

Almost everyone tells me not to think. (“Don’t think too much”, “Don’t overthink” are the same).

I think from the moment I open my eyes until I go to sleep. Most likely, I keep doing it after I fall asleep.

From this point of view, “cogito ergo sum” and solipsism go hand in hand.

Writing this post (or any post) is a sign of doubt, of course.



Now we agree again.



One of the things I saw on a few trips (and about which I should not write in public) was that I used to live in worlds where Instant Creation was in effect.

I turned a few places into hell dimensions where dark purple metallic spirals constitute passages in the underground from where unspeakable abominations crawl to the surface to harvest, infect, and destroy everything alive.

In other realities, I was questioned for what I did.

I saw places where they teach youngsters to control their minds before entering realities with Instant Creation.

There was a mentor in such a school. He was to destroy the monsters that pop into existence from the student’s mind.

A girl, in shock, was looking at the mentor who turned a firefly-vampire bat-electric demon, that came from the mind of the girl, with a spark into dust.

“What was that?”, she asked.
“I’ve seen much worse. To answer your question, that was the thing you shouldn’t create.”

Creating monsters isn’t the worst. Turning into one is a bigger issue, especially into one who doesn’t want to change.

Here we are at the difference between (my insights of) Brahman and Atman. Brahman is all the possibilities. Atman could have it all but is a selection of the possibilities. Atman is who would like to skip manifesting particular options.

It’s so funny that although they aren’t English words, Brahman and Atman sound masculine. When I found them, I was wondering why Batman and Scatman were missing.

The truth, reality, the source has masculine names. And who is the woman? The trick, the lie, the illusion, the magic, the ever-changing. The unreliable. She is Maya.



Or maybe it does.

It’s only a frame.

For example, I can’t recall many ideas of philosophy I consider significant, which I didn’t figure out before I found them.

I was about 8-10 years old when I tried to explain it to adults; it was impossible to touch my finger with another. There is a point when the distance between my fingers is the size of one atom. Then it gets the size of 1/2 atom, 1/4 atom, 1/8 atom, and so on. They would never touch each other.

They told me, “Okay, now go somewhere else.”

The idea above, as I learned later, was the Achilles and the tortoise in disguise. It came with bonuses such as the problem of infinity in mathematics. Also, why did I divide it by two? It’s not that I didn’t have a computer. We didn’t have a TV at that time.

I tried to explain it to my classmates if they lived inside a green glass (for example, a beer bottle), they wouldn’t know red, yellow, blue. They wouldn’t even know green because if there were only one color, they wouldn’t give it a name. However, it wouldn’t mean colors didn’t exist.

Only twenty years later, I found Platon’s allegory of the cave.

I also told them if they were created two minutes ago, and their memories were part of the creation, they would never know it. They would believe history existed.

I could go on.

The point isn’t to say I’m smart. First of all, if I think that way, regardless of whether it’s true or not, it makes me feel lonely. Besides, I was serious when I wrote that I am not sure anymore my childhood happened at all.

About what else could it be?

It could show, for example, we are indeed a single mind. Then it’s not about being smart but being connected to what we or I always knew or always imagined to be true.

If it’s one mind, it doesn’t mean you don’t exist. It means you are I. I could say you are my subconsciousness.

But what if you feel or think the same? Then, who is right? Could both of us be right? Then why do we seem fragmented? What kind of mind is that?

If I were the “boss” anyhow, what are we doing on planet Earth, and why aren’t we now and always at the female-only gods vs. demons orgy?

And what if solipsism is accurate only on a local scale? What if this reality, Earth, is indeed a single mind or one creature, but it’s not alone?

I saw our Universe as a single-cell being in an ocean (or petri dish in a laboratory) surrounded by other single-cell creatures. They were other gods, other universes. They wanted to eat us.

Maybe the alien doctor is working on a multi-resistant bacteria. Only the strongest can survive.

There are other reasons this reality would be or could be a single mind or a simulation in a world where it’s not alone.

I wrote it earlier that human thinking is often wrong from the core. Here is an example.

A lot of people came up with the simulator idea.

They come up with it, and they try to explain it without seeing the obvious.

Almost every explanation-idea to why we would live in a simulator translates to “humans live in a simulator because they existed”.

That’s what it means when one says the future humans built the simulator, maybe for studying the ancestors, maybe for fun. Many permutations exist.

After a long search, I found a single page whose author considered the reasonable explanation. While he didn’t put it into the words I put it below, the direction was the same.

It’s that humans are being simulated because they’ve never existed.

Why?

(He didn’t explain it. I will.)

If you ever built a simulator, you might know that you don’t simulate something because you couldn’t make it real.

Most of the time, you could.

You simulate something because you don’t want it to exist or happen for real. Never. Not at all.

You simulate biological viruses, explosions, dangerous reactions. You run malicious software in a sandbox.

That’s why you build a simulator.

Or because one who built it is evil and wants humans to realize they never existed, and they’ll never have a chance to change that. The constructor might be alone, and they want to see someone suffer.

That would at least give Buddhism a little bit of meaning after all.

doubledog,

I hope I didn’t write anything offensive or depressive.

I’m a bit worried about the simulator. Soon after I started taking pharma and mushrooms, I felt I "knew" "everything", at least during the trips.

I put the "knew" in quotes because, in that state, doubts didn’t exist. And "everything" was an understanding of how little the world was.

Now I feel confused.

I started seeing digital artifacts. Pixels, digital noise, even signs of compression. Some of them can appear when I’m sober.

I don’t know what’s going on.

If someone built a simulator, and we are inside it, and they didn't want us to know it, we wouldn’t know it. It’s freaking easy. One line of software code:

"IF humanity knows they are in a simulator THEN make humanity forget they are in a simulator"

That’s it. If we are in one, and we know it, it’s either the laziness or the intention of the programmer.

See?

I wrote that "solipsism can be local", and the "Welcome discussion" section of the Nexus has been silent already for two days.

There were two tiny posts after that statement, only to prevent me from going crazy. Compared to its normal activity, it’s dead.

Maybe it’s good I have no access to the rest of the sections.

Don't worry, Anonymous2, I am not a snowflake I was on ayahuasca session yesterday.
Lot of interesting points from you, quite difficult to comment some or all of it.

With that paradox, I meant something similar as this Achilles thing. It needs maybe some education and thinking to understand, why your fingers touches each other and Achilles overtakes turtle despite seeming impossibility.
(sum of infinite count of number is not necessarily infinite)

But you are right, my advice was nothing against thinking, but more about what to focus on.
Sometimes you have and need to think intensively, sometimes not so much.
The frog was pedalling, not thinking about it. (yes, I know the tale)

Yes, one of simulator's basic properties is our amnesia, it would not work well without it.
From some reason, it is not total and is possible to remember.

"cogito ergo sum" is common misundertanding, you should read Descartes more, you just used popular understanding. It was meant different, it was not about priority of thinking.

Your confusion could be typical sign of overused mushrooms. I have seen it few times, so I am quite curious if I am right and what is going to happen to you.

Some days are quite here and this forum is not very alive nevertheles.

One day, we will learn the truth. It will be fun.

How was your session? Was there any public detail?

knocked on your door? explain

So, is any of the below correct?

"Cogito, ergo sum, (Latin: “I think, therefore I am) dictum coined by the French philosopher René Descartes in his Discourse on Method (1637) as a first step in demonstrating the attainability of certain knowledge. It is the only statement to survive the test of his methodic doubt. The statement is indubitable, as Descartes argued in the second of his six Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), because even if an all-powerful demon were to try to deceive him into thinking that he exists when he does not, he would have to exist in order for the demon to deceive him. Therefore, whenever he thinks, he exists. Furthermore, as he argued in his replies to critics in the second edition (1642) of the Meditations, the statement “I am” (sum) expresses an immediate intuition, not the conclusion of a piece of reasoning (regarding the steps of which he could be deceived), and is thus indubitable. However, in a later work, the Principles of Philosophy (1644), Descartes suggested that the cogito is indeed the conclusion of a syllogism whose premises include the propositions that he is thinking and that whatever thinks must exist."

(These demons seem to be everywhere)

'Here’s another way of putting it: The skeptic says: "It is possible that everything is an illusion" Descartes responds: "I will show how that is not possible by proving the existence of something without referring to any sense data or observations, using reason alone."'

Full version of the phrase is: Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum.
It is not a single phrase, but and outcome of longer set of statement, which needs to be known to understand fully the meaning.
And his aim was to find something which is indubitable, something which must exist beyond any doubts.
Meaning is that it must be somebody who think (or doubt or dream) if there is a thinking (or doubting or dreaming) .
It could also be phrased like " I dream, therefore I am." if he would have chosen slightly different example. It would mean the same, actually it was about indubitable existence.

It is also very interesting what followed in his book after this very well known phrase.

But still, thinking itself is precious and great and we should think as good as we can.

Thank for asking, my session went great as expected, lot of purgatory effects, and lot of states of of mind which I can not put into words.
Almost exactly what I wanted, feel refreshed.

Likewise! if you ever want to pm either on dmt nexus or some other way let me know, I'd be happy to make conversation with you more often.




Once more pm me if your comfortable to talk about it. We end up talking about interesting stuff and I'm very open to more.



I feel the same way when you messaged. I'm glad to have found the DMT-Nexus because no other minds I've given the time to listen to came anywhere close to what people give on here. Your all fucking beautiful




Since I'm a full member now could I start a conversation with you or would you need member as well?