I looked around and could only find a year old poll on the subject, forgive me if there's a more recent discussion on this.

When we visit hyperspace and come in contact with entities; are they a reflection of self, transcendent alien beings or a combination?

I fully believe it's a subjective reflection of self only. How many people look up at clouds and see faces? Now what if those clouds are zooming towards you miles a second? When it's happening that fast, the brain doesn't have time to break it down and see that "oh that flying cow-serpent is really just a cloud". At least my experiences have led me to believe this.

What have your experiences taught you about entities? Obviously we can't prove or disprove their existence currently, so I would like to hear your opinions along with the experiences which led you to believe such.

They are as real as you make them to be.

I think this sums it up for me:

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=11579

Ah I knew this had to exist already, thanks I'll join that discussion.

Edit: Mods feel free to delete this

When you're on DMT, your central nervous system is on over-drive, and you are experiencing rapid possibilities.
What I mean by that is, the imagination seems to be pumped with every possible parameter that could exist in this universe.
When these hyperspacial algorithms are introduced to an observer who's been locked in 4D for a couple decades,
it's elementary for the brain to want to make sense of this information by interpreting patterns as faces, eyes, beings, etc.

I think these experiences and their reports make much more sense when you flip the words "they" to "I".

I've seen and experienced these certain types of entities
Many times after a while they have become so real to me
That , as irrational and non-scientific as it may seem
I do now believe that these things do exist autonomously
In some other dimensional reality . This reality is not
Perceivable by our current senses .
I know I,m going out in a limb for most people. I do not think the
Things I encounter are simple reflections of the self . They are
So much more than that. Believe me I am good with this perspective
At the moment. The funny thing is that I,m very rational sane and scientifically
Based . Someday western science will proove the existence of these things .

What one believes regarding the nature of one’s DMT experiences is, to some extent, maybe to a large extent, dependent on the nature of the DMT experiences one has.

This does seem to be the question. How 'bout a quote?



It's possible these entities truly are a product of the psyche. If the ego was previously thought to be a god, perhaps the reptilians, greys, machine elves, and what have you are psychic products as well; we just have not yet integrated them into our psychic organization.

What of dreams and the hallucinations elicited by other substances? Years ago, I dreamed I found my cat's head nailed upside down to my bedroom door. This does not mean it happened, but it was so real it unnerved me deeply. And what of the conversations with friends many are reported to have under the influence of datura? Are those individuals real? It is presumed they are not for two reasons. First, the dual existence of an individual is unacceptable to a rational mind, but this is the same mind that may believe in aliens, God, and the like. Second is tryptocentrism, a belief in the preeminence of tryptamine hallucinogens above all others, particularly in their efficacy as a spiritual sacrament. By accepting the axiom that tryptamines (or any other substance for that matter) have a monopoly on reality immediately eliminates the possibility that another substances or class of substances may reveal objective truth.

There are probably subjective and objective. But I don't think it's the main question when it comes to these beings.

Although I have opinions regarding the subjective vs. objective nature of DMT-induced entities, what I find more interesting is, in general, how we decide what is real and what is not?

Why do we consider our everyday reality to be “real”? Because of its persistence? Because of its level of detail? Its stability? Its rules and physical laws? Because it "feels" real?

The more I think about such questions, the more I think that our definitions of reality are arbitrary, and that if we struggle with questions concerning the reality of entities in hyperspace, we should at least give some thought to questions concerning the reality of our everyday experience.

Good idea, I consider "real" to be factors which effect all things in an objective manor. A vision I dreamed up could be considered "real" to me at the time, but only to me as it holds no basis in this world we call real.