I've seen this question posed many times in here, and this has always popped up as the scientifically sound answer. Certainly makes sense from a logical point of view, but as far as I know, no one here has actually put it to the test.

I would be VERY interested to hear from someone matching this profile, as to what exactly it is they do experience. Imagine if it were in fact visual - what a game chaging prospect that would be...

I have read that blind people dream much as you think they would. With sounds, smells, etc. No sight.

I have read one instance of a blind person having a near death experience on a hospital bed with the silver cord, white light and all of the that and the blind person said it was the first and only time they could "see".

It doesn't necessarily discredit an alternate dimension because keep in mind that even in hyperspace, you're not experiencing that space for what it truly is either. Similar to waking consciousness, even in hyperspace your experience is still filtered by your brain nonetheless. If it's not a problem with your eyes, so much as your brain or neural connections, then the reality of hyperspace will be filtered without visuals.

I think on a recent RadioLab segment they talked about an individual who had been deaf since birth getting a cochlear implant. When it was first turned on, he could perceive “sensations”, but he didn’t realize it was sound. It was only after a period of time that he began to connect these new sensations to other familiar sensations such as sight. For this reason, I think that a deaf person hearing sounds during a psychedelic experience would be aware of strange new sensations, but would not necessarily realize the sensations were what we perceive as sound. It seems reasonable that the same would be true for sight.

I remember reading, I think in one of V. S. Ramachandran’s books, of a case where a man had damage to his visual cortex that resulted in him losing color perception. He could see light and shadow (can’t really call it black and white, since those are colors), but could no longer see color. What’s most interesting is that he could no longer remember color either.

Memory is a reconstructive process – the visual cortex is used to reconstruct visual memories, so if the visual cortex is damaged, not only does one lose the ability to perceive certain visual aspects, one loses the ability to remember those aspects of sight as well. So if a sighted person were to completely lose his sight as the result of severe visual cortex damage, he would lose both his sight and all visual memories.

Therefore, it seems reasonable that a person blinded as an adult as the result of visual cortex damage would not have visual experiences while under the influence of DMT.

Now if the blindness is the result of eye/retinal damage, then none of this applies, and it seems reasonable that a person blinded due to retinal damage would have visual psychedelic experiences.

See this link for an older discussion of this.

I don’t understand why you think this would be proof that entities, alternate realities, etc. do not exist.

To use the analogy – just because a black-and-white TV can’t receive color video signals and display color images doesn’t prove that color videos can’t exist.

In one sense, ALL perception is in our heads. Reality as you understand it is a “creation” of your brain. Your brain receives signals – neurochemical impulses – and translates those impulses into a meaningful reality. You have never really seen the sky, or heard music, or tasted ice cream. What actually happens is that your brain continuously receives incredibly complex neurochemical impulses, and creates “abstractions” that you call “sky” and “music” and “ice cream”.

Anyhow, the question really is “where do these impulses come from?” Outside in the world, inside our brains, or outside “beyond” our world?

I wholeheartedly agree

If someone asks me what an apple looks like I can picture one in my head, I can see it in detail.. even change its colour to purple if I chose. Could hyperspace manifest itself in this same imaginery place in our minds, only much much more complex?

Seen as we do not perceive this space with our eyes directly and DMT is non biased, people who have been blind from birth should see the same as us. If not.. they do indeed see nothing due to them having an under developed visual cortex.. then that would prove all events that take place in hyperspace for the seeing people happen internally.

I honestly dont know though, I dont think I ever will, but I do think its healthy to look at it subjectively from both sides of the fence.

Well you're just getting into technicalities and definitions. Of course we "see" these things, because we are our minds. We may not see most of the range of wavelengths of light, or hear all frequencies of sound, or identify every property of what we put on our tongues, but we are still connected to an objective world by thoughts and senses.

I don't believe it would be any less fascinating for all of it to be in our heads. Perhaps less mysterious, maybe not; but no less interesting and strange, in my opinion. This theory is the one with the least assumptions. You can say or add whatever you want; DMT takes the mind into another dimension, entities higher than us actually contact us... but all of these are based on what we feel, which we all agree is completely blown away from what it usually is by DMT. This can't be relied on!!! You can imagine anything... that you can imagine. If a cat experienced human consciousness for a few minutes or hours, it would be thinking crazy shit afterwards, too.

Well this puts more pressure on DMT:

People Born Blind Can See During a NDE

"Such reports, replete with visual imagery, were the rule, not the exception, among Ring and Cooper's blind respondents. Altogether, 80% of their entire sample claimed some visual perception during their near-death or out-of-body encounters."

http://www.near-death.co...eriences/evidence03.html

I find it hard to understand how someone who has never seen could visually recognize objects and make any sense of what they’re seeing. I’m not questioning the possibility, just expressing my lack of comprehension. For all I know, if enough congenitally blind people took DMT, maybe we’d get similar results.

Also, I don’t understand how this information or any other information “puts pressure” on DMT. What does that mean?

I’m wondering if you’re frightened by the idea that DMT takes us to other realms that are every bit as real as this one? You seem “determined” to show that this idea is false. Why is that?

"Also, I don’t understand how this information or any other information “puts pressure” on DMT. What does that mean?"
Well if blind people can see on NDEs than it sort of kills the argument that their damaged eyes would not be able to see on DMT.

"I’m wondering if you’re frightened by the idea that DMT takes us to other realms that are every bit as real as this one? You seem “determined” to show that this idea is false. Why is that?"
LOL. No dude. Here is where I am coming from in case you guys are wondering.

I am interseted in quantum physics and string theory. Basically science over the last 110 years is getting weirder and weirder in its implications which is the opposite of what one might suspect.

Anyway, this theory that I have been working on is that perhaps DMT allows humans to "see" the extra dimensions or whatever it is that is out there. My main reason for DMT is that it can be found in the body, as opposed to pretty much everything else. Also I find interesting that many DMT users say it is "realer than real".

This is nothing more than a theory of course. So I am trying to figure out if the DMT is strictlly internal or if it actually can make people see "real" weird things or communicate or whatever. I think I am not the only person to wonder this.

While my DMT theory may sound crazy to the lay person...what do theory do they have that is better? How can they explain the "Spooky Action at a Distance" or the 11 dimensions of String Theory?

However, the best way to prove my theory correct is to try and disprove it. I have found certain inconsistencies regarding DMT which I am pointing out hoping that the more enlightened ones in here can explain. I already can tell I have gotten on a few people's nerves. Most people seem to be pretty level headed about the whole thing though.

Anyway, we all should be searching for the truth here, even if we may be disappointed in the result. I have no idea what my conclusion will be on this. Here is appropriate quote:

"In reality, those who repudiate a theory that they had once proposed, or a theory that they had accepted enthusiastically and with which they had identified themselves, are very rare. The great majority of them shut their ears so as not to hear the crying facts, and shut their eyes so as not to see the glaring facts, in order to remain faitthful to their theories in spite of all and everything."
Nicolas Maurice Arthusin Philosophy of Scientific Investigation, 1921

Well…

There is no proof.
If only it were that simple.
There are mysteries. Some of them are eternal.

DMT will not give you proof, at least not in the way you might imagine, but if you’re fortunate, it will allow you to participate in, and become a part of, the eternal mystery.

And once you participate in the eternal mystery, you’ll see how small and limiting our human ideas are.

I am not ready to give up the ship quite yet.

Look at the progress science has made in the last 110 years.
1905 Theory of Relativity
1920s Quantum Mechanics
1968+ String Theory.

Look at the advances in medicine. TV. Computers. Life expectancy.

No, we are never going to know everything. But we keep on hacking away, little by little hitting singles.

The concepts these guys come up with are pretty much impossible to believe. Spacetime.

Look where we are at now with String Theory. Should we just say "This crazy theory says we are living in a 11 dimension world. There is no way in hell we are going to figure this crap out. Let's just give up."

Hell no. This could take centuries or maybe tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years to work out.

100 years ago we didn't even know about black holes. Now we think there is one for every galaxy in the universe.

Crick came up with DNA on a LSD trip. Who knows, maybe somebody here will chat with an alien which will drop off a big hint and will cause the next scientific breakthrough.

Actually, if a blind man could see on DMT that would be a big deal.

Another experiment, which I have read b4, would be to ask some guy an almost impossible question for him to answer and have him come back and tell the answer.

Another "proof" would be an entity telling somebody something which no human currently knows and scientists discovering it to be correct.

There are all sorts of ideas out there one can do to become more scientific about this. Einstein had his Spooky Action at a Distance idea in 1935 and I think they didn't have the technology to prove it until 1962 or something like that.

Another possibility is something to do with brain scans somehow. Supposedly they can detect if people are lying now. So who knows what they can do next with that stuff.

Folks, right now we don't even know where the hell DMT is stored. The pineal gland is nothing more than a theory. What is its purpose? We don't know jack crap about this stuff. Scientific inquiries have been a complete joke. Since the 60s we had what, Strassman shoot up a bunch of people and do trip reports? It is a nice start, but we have a long ways to go before this very mysterious substance is anywhere near from being thoroughly analyzed.

There is all sorts of stuff you can do with this scienficially. To say it is hopeless is way off base.

Crick was not the one to discover DNA. Though he is often given credit for it. DNA was discovered in the late 1800's by Friedrich Miescher, and it was known that DNA contained genetic information about two decades before Crick and Watson even entered the spotlight on the matter. What they are given credit for is their proposition of the double helix. What most don't know is that they don't even deserve credit for that as they plagiarized it from one of their female colleagues (I forget the name). Regardless I've never heard that LSD-DNA connection with Crick. Where did you hear about this?

You are right...it was the shape that Crick figured out in a trip, not DNA itself. I knew that but just got a bit sloppy in my haste.

I have read it a bunch of places over the years.
http://www.book-of-thoth.com/ftopict-6034.html

If you GOOG it, you should find all sorts of articles on the subject.

I also read this earlier. It refers to congenitally blind dreaming, but I would venture to guess that it would go hand in hand with DMT, as they would simply would not have the information needed to process the visions.




I think it would be interesting to hear a first hand account regarding DMT use though, which I haven't been able to find.

I'm pretty sure there was an erowid post I read some time ago that was allegedly from a blind man who took DMT...shame I can't remember what it said lol

Yea, after learning that I pretty much stopped reciting the Crick-LSD inspiration in meaningful discussions (although it's still a great card to play if you wanna get under a "straight" person's skin while discussing science/psychedelics)

If I'm remembering correctly, they didn't plagiarize it from Mrs. Franklin. It was a culmination of all of their work. Franklin was very protective of her studies and she didn't believe in theorizing structures until the structure was actually known. Somehow, Watson and Crick got ahold of her x-rays of DNA and used it to conclude the helical nature of it. Franklin was her own worst enemy; Watson and Crick took advantage of her insecurities, in my opinion. No doubt she would have figured it out sooner or later, but her greed was her downfall.

Where LSD comes into play in all of this, I'm unaware. But instead of pointing to Crick and the structure of DNA, how about you bring up Kary Mullis and his discover of PCR?
Here is a link to him speaking of his use of LSD and his discovery. This is something that cannot be debated. The man won the Nobel Prize for PCR and says (publicly!!) that he doubts he would have figured it out without the help of the psychedelic drug LSD.