A very real possibility, but, if we are really limited (as gibran suggests)... then you are not seeing 'the real thing', but merely an illusion inside a hallucination.
Unless of course, when you enter that place, all your perceptions become perfect or unlimited. Thing I wouldn't bet on, to be honest.

hope this helps the discussion

And these are just some examples... I'm leaving out LSD CEV'S mild visions, Datura intoxication hallucinations, Optical illusions, CEV's schizo audio hallucination, etc, Pure cognitive illusions, etc. There are tons of examples and variants. I'm sure some even would add meditation and dreams and so on

Don't think too much about it. Everything you say there is dependent on how a person defines "another dimension", which is also subjective. Who is a person to define what a dimension is? Or what reality is?

Perception allows us to interpret the world, not to see things as they are. We never actually perceive things “as they really are”. This is not possible, not because of our human limitations, but because our notion of perception is an abstraction that, upon deeper examination, doesn’t mean what we think it means.

We do not perceive things. We perceive interactions between things and their surroundings and then mentally postulate a plausible model of the things based on the interactions.

Light strikes an object and interacts with it. This light then strikes another object (the eye) and interacts with it. A complex chain of interaction leads to nerve impulses that we interpret as “seeing” the object. Our brain posits the existence of a particular object based on the particular pattern of impulses it receives.

There is no way to prove, scientifically or otherwise, that an objective reality exists outside of my subjective conscious experience. As I’ve said before, I can only be certain that I am having subjective conscious experiences. Everything else is belief.

Cognition allows us to interpret the world.

And yes, I agree that we cannot see things as they really are, because our perception is limited. I never said that a person can see pure reality (or objective stimulus), I said that in order to perceive an illusion, there must be some objective stimulus. And if 'hyperspace' is independent from this reality, then there is the possibility that what people see there is still an illusion caused by a limited human perception... and that's just without mentioning cognition (which has to do with interpretation, and was never my intention to even go this far).



What about the proof that the planet existed even before the first human? Isn't that a scientific proof?

How do you know that the earth objectively exists?

Can you prove that the reality you experience is more than some sort of dream being had by some sort of dreamer? Maybe you’re a “brain in a vat” connected to a sophisticated computer that simulates everything you experience – how could you prove one way or the other? Maybe you, in your “physical” entirety, are part of a computer simulation. Maybe you are a singular consciousness who has imagined this world into existence for your own amusement.

You accept the world around you as real. You believe it to be real. Your subjective experiences continuously reinforce your belief in an apparent objective reality. Yet ultimately, there is no proof that any of “this” is real.

Brain in a vat

nice one

There's ultimately no proof of anything, really. Not even our own experiences. How do you know that your memory of the past few seconds wasn't fabricated? Asking for, or even speaking of proof, is irrelevant.

Belief is a gamble (as you've all said in one way or another).


As it stands, the idea that a DMT trip happens entirely within the confines of your skull IS the most logical. Ever heard of the principle of locality? According to the majority of scientific observation, one physical particle can only affect another in a directly adjacent region of space.

Yeah, you all can have your own beliefs, and you will. That doesn't stop me from voicing mine.

It’s true that even our memories might not be “real”, but I can be certain that I am conscious. It’s the only certainty that a conscious person can have.

The idea that a DMT trip happens entirely within the confines of your skull is the most logical explanation only if you accept current scientific paradigms.

At one time, it was believed that the earth was at the center of the universe and all of the stars circled it in perfect circular orbits. Observation was consistent with this belief, and therefore it was the most “logical” explanation. However, there were “wanderers” – the planets – that didn’t move in perfect circles around the earth. Many attempts were made to explain their inconsistent behavior, most notably “epicycles” – circles within circles. (It was important to preserve the perfection of the circle.) But even epicycles couldn’t fully explain planetary motion. It was only when the paradigm of an earth-centered universe was given up (and it wasn’t given up easily) that the elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun could be considered “logical”.

Here’s a good video about changing scientific paradigms. The Primacy of Consciousness is an interesting talk by physicist Peter Russell. Take a look.

The fact is that even if this reality is a simulation, it has rules, and time, and math and objects that may be 'false' if you want, but they are as real as it gets. So again, suppose that your 'real brain' is wired to a real technological artifact that allows you to believe you have a body, an environment, etc. In any case, this illusion reality has values that are True in this reality, mathematically speaking. So they are real in this reality, but not real in the allegedly ULTIMATE TRUE REALITY where the vat is.

If I enter a 'virtual reality' in this reality using some 3D Lenses and Dolby Surround Audio, I am then entering a reality, which I know is not the ultimate reality, but still it has rules and objective stimulus. It is an environment in which I have a body and I am limited (unless I hack the program). What I mean is that EVEN if what we perceive is an illusion (which of course it is), there are still objective stimulus (whether they are ontologically Real or Unreal).

I may believe that everything is inside my mind... but I wouldn't do things that go against the odds that this is actually objective reality. You know what I mean hehe.

I think this explanation/belief/argument is a rabbit hole. Unanswerable and in my opinion akin to asking "What is the meaning of life?".

The fact of the matter is that where we exist (outside of our psychedelic tangents) is here and now. Normality is, to an extent, what we have been collectively perceiving for thousands or millions of years. So in order to believe that evolution (or linear consciousness) is just a cosmic joke is a false step. It seems as if paranoia is the stem of your argument; in my experience, this only leads to insanity.


Of course, this is just my opinion.

A video that uses Quantum mechanics to explain Consciousness?

No - not at all.

The only reason I bring up arguments like this is to counter the absolute certainty that some people seem to have regarding the nature of reality. Some are certain that the world of matter and time and space is all there is. Others are certain that this reality is an illusion or a dream – a figment of divine imagination.

We can’t be certain of such things! We must acknowledge that most of the things we are certain about are not certainties, but rather beliefs. (Including the belief that we have been collectively perceiving this reality for thousands or millions of years.)

Beliefs are not inconsequential. Without our beliefs we would be unable to function in the here and now. It is very easy to mistakenly see our beliefs about reality as “facts”, even though the “facts” of reality are ultimately unknowable.

Still, gibran2, I don't think you understood my point.
I understand where you are coming from and your reverence for disbelief, but our society would not be on the technological, complex point that it has reached if we were to all garner your wisdom.

What you are doing is merely redefining labels: certainty, beliefs, facts, etc.
If everyone went around saying "the belief of evolution," "the belief of electromagnetism," "the belief of relativity," "the belief in chemistry," etc. would that make you feel better? Even if everyone relabeled them as beliefs it does not stifle the fact that these principles/theories/ideas work and we can regard them as facts until a new theory comes along and takes its place. They are complex models that have been proven to work (your extraction of DMT is proof).


Not to be offensive, but your sound is comparable to a religious zealot saying the devil put the fossils in the ground.
At some point - at some level - you have to accept reality for what it is. The path you travel is shaky at best, as I have myself traveled it.


EDIT: The purpose of science and the foundation of facts, theories, etc. is to expand our knowledge. I don't think any reputable scientist would say "We know everything right now". We know we don't know everything; we may never. But that does not and should not stop us from putting together foundations, building on them, and improving the web of complexity that it is.

EDIT2: Just as an example, and not to steer this conversation the way of evolution, when you are in your mothers wound, at about the 4 week period, there is formation of a vestigal tail. You have an apendix, a pinkie toe which does nothing, and "wisdom" teeth that do nothing but damage. How do you reconcile these facts?
If you have ever looked at the coding of DNA and the comparison between ape like creatures and ourselves, even lower forms of life, you would see evidence, nay proof, of evolution.
You are part of this reality and you cannot just "disbelieve", for lack of a better word, the results of these connotations. Well, I guess you can "disbelieve" in them. You've said it yourself. I don't know where I'm going with this. Fin.

I don’t deny our reality, but I do question its true nature. As clouds stated:

There’s no doubt that our reality is governed by inviolable rules and laws. The questions I ponder – the unanswerable questions – concern the “ultimate” reality of which our subjective consciousness is a part. (Is there even such a thing as an ultimate reality?)

For example, let’s suppose that our reality is the dream of an “immaterial dreamer”. Within the dream there is matter, energy, time, space, and physical laws governing how all of these elements work together. Within the dream there are biological organisms that evolve and change over time. Within the dream civilizations rise and fall, people are born, they live, and they die – all unaware that they are elements of the dream of an immaterial dreamer.

Science is not equipped to address such ideas. To use the example, science is concerned with the characteristics of the dream, but unaware of the dreamer, and is not able to examine nor interested in examining the dreamer.

What I’m really talking about is spirituality.

Yes. But acceptance of the current scientific paradigms is logical, because they're the founded upon the cumulative observations made by humanity thus far. Before it was empirically proven that celestial bodies did not move in perfect circles around the earth, it was perfectly rational to believe that they did -- all you had to do was look at the stars circle the earth in the night sky to "prove" that one.



I just finished watching that entire talk. Very interesting and thought-provoking indeed. Couldn't one say that the rejection of a distinction between matter and consciousness is equivalent to describing us all as "philosophical zombies"? He's saying that everything is consciousness, and in doing so is basically replacing the term "matter" with "consciousness" -- in other words, everything is matter, and the existence of consciousness is an illusion. Everything is perturbations in the absolute, as he says. Whatever you want to call the perturbations.

I think Peter Russell is promoting a form of panpsychism – stating that consciousness is an attribute of everything. Actually, I think he’s going even further than that and suggesting that consciousness is everything. This is diametrically opposed to the idea of a philosophical zombie – a material entity devoid of consciousness. He’s not simply substituting terms – replacing “matter” with “consciousness”. I think he’s suggesting that consciousness is responsible for matter – consciousness creates the apparent existence of matter. Matter is the result of consciousness aware of and interacting with itself - perturbing itself.