Axiom.

"Tao can be said, not usual way"

"The Way that can be told of is not an unvarying way;
The names that can be named are not unvarying names.
It was from the Nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang;
The named is but the mother that rears the ten thousand creatures, each after its kind."

=opening of Tao Te Ching

As far as I know, consciousness can only be experienced/produced by entities with a "body", and in most cases (if not all) with a nervous system.

The term "pure consciousness" sound like the term "pure software".

"Pure software" cannot exist without the basic hardware first.
Do you know a computer that is made of pure software? Do you know a factory that creates hardware using only software?

Matter and Energy are everywhere. And Consciousness seems to be present only in living beings.

Consciousness seems to be a very elegant and complex phenomena... dont get me wrong, Matter and Energy are complex too, but it seems that matter and energy dont need consciousness to exist. Consciousness on the other hand...


Remember that when you ingest DMT/Salvia and then enter the cosmic hole that feels like a place of pure divinity, light, love and consciousness... you first ingested a substance that is interacting with the substances of your brain. I guess I dont even really need to tell you that, but I just want to make my point clear as well.

I'm not saying that there isn't a way to experience "pure consciousness". I'm saying that it seems that matter and energy are necessary for that place to exists and also to be experienced (sensed/perceived).


To me, consciousness is a "higher" phenomena than matter and energy. And maybe... what you experience when smoking DMT/Salvia is something even more complex than consciousness. Hell, maybe it needs a new word of its own. (I'm talking about the phenomena, not the "place" which is "hyperspace".)


Matter/Energy (Universe) ► Consciousness (Brain) ► ??????? (Hyperspace)



I look forward to the day where someone can develop some sort of technological progress in hyperspace and brings back evidence to this Universe.

Solipsism: Is the belief that only ones mind is sure to exist.

The only difference between typical solipsism and what many here are proposing is that instead of one mind there is a kind of universal mind. I don't see any other difference essentially with what many here are claiming.

You are doing exactly what I discussed in my very first post: you are making claims that are not supported by evidence. Maybe “suggested” by related evidence, but not currently supported. In other words, you are pondering the unknown. There is nothing wrong with this – we all do it here.

But what you are doing is assigning special status to your ponderings about existence. This is an error. Just as someone under the influence of a psychedelic may feel that the experience is “beyond real” and as a result assign special significance to their interpretations, you assign special significance to your musings because they seem to be consistent with what is already known (yet in science, big new discoveries are often not consistent with what is known – existing knowledge must often be revised, adjusted, or discarded).

Here are a few examples of what I mean. These excerpts from your post are guesses, suppositions, and imaginings about things that are currently unknown. Until we have more information, there is no reason to believe that these interpretations about the nature of reality are any more true than any psychedelic-inspired interpretations.

“As far as I know, consciousness can only be experienced/produced by entities with a ‘body’,…”

“Matter and Energy are everywhere.”

“…Consciousness seems to be present only in living beings.”

“…it seems that matter and energy dont need consciousness to exist”

“…it seems that matter and energy are necessary for that place to exists and also to be experienced (sensed/perceived).”

You qualified most of your statements with “it seems” or similar language, which is good. You understand that there is still much unknown about how things work. But your error is assigning special status to certain unknowns.

Using the box and marble analogy, here’s what you’re doing:

Suppose that instead of 8 marbles, we have 9 marbles. One marble is always shown (representing the known). The other 8 may or may not be placed in the box (representing the unknown).

I show you a light blue marble, and ask you about the marbles in the box. You guess that the box contains the blue marble and the green one. You go on to explain, quite rationally, that it seems to you that the marbles in the box should be of similar colors to the one seen. Since you can see the light blue one, it only makes sense that the blue one is in the box. And since green is a mix of blue and yellow, it’s reasonable that the green one is also in the box.

Someone with a really crazy psychedelic-inspired theory guesses the red one, the yellow one, and the black one. He claims to have literally been inside the box. The experience was “realer than real” and he clearly saw the marbles in the box.

Who’s right?

As you should know, the odds of you being right are, as always, 1/256.

The odds of the “crazy” theory being right are also 1/256.

Having a plausible-sounding explanation that relates the contents of the box to the seen marble outside of the box does not improve one’s odds of guessing right!

A sensible, rational “theory” about the contents of the box does not improve the odds compared to a crazy “supernatural” theory. The probability of being right is the same for both and very close to zero.

The difference between solipsism and the idea of a “realm of consciousness” is as extreme as the difference between a single living organism and the entire bio-mass of the Earth.

Do you see that a single living organism is different from the entire bio-mass of the Earth? Or do you see all life as “one”?

Why "supernatural"? Why crazy?
Ingesting psychedelics is not something supernatural and the effects are not something that should be classified as crazy.

Nothing escapes nature. Not even hallucinations caused by plants. The word "supernatural" is a fallacy.
You know what would be supernatural? Someone flying naked. THAT is more supernatural than hyperspace. Why? Because no one can fly naked. On the other hand, 99.9% of the world population can enter hyperspace. There is NOTHING supernatural about psychedelic visions. There is SOMETHING supernatural about a flying naked human being without wings... and the moment that occurs, it will be the most odd phenomena in this world... but it still wouldn't be supernatural, by definition. I would appreciate it if you addressed this argument.

A psychedelic-inspired theory is as possible as a non-psychedelic-inspired theory. They could be right or wrong.
That doesn't have ANYTHING to do with scientific/logical models of reality.

If someone brings back evidence of anything (whether he used drugs or not) then he/she has something worth looking at.


And yes, we dont know the nature of reality for certain. The only thing we know for certain is that we are having a subjective conscious experience. Its not what I believe. Its what I know for certain. This is logical.

The biologist in me completely rejects the idea the entire biomass of earth is an organism. Earth misses many of the criteria to be considered alive. Also from a biological perspective the idea that all life is 'one' is completely meaningless and superficial.

I don't really see a strong difference between solipsism and the idea of a realm of consciousness except the one I already pointed out. I used the analogy "universal mind" you used analogy "realm of consciousness". I think we meant the same thing. They are both unprovable philosophical musings that prove nothing, answer nothing, and are self contradicting.


Also this notion that there is no evidence that consciousness is generated by the human body / brain is completely untrue. So is the notion that there is no evidence that psychoactive drugs cause subjective changes in consciousness by altering brain chemistry. There is a mountain of direct evidence for both.

@ clouds - I agree with you 100%. I was projecting what detractors might say. I was enhancing the contrast between the two “theories” to emphasize that, in actuality, they are equally improbable.

I also agree that there is nothing that can properly be called “supernatural”. If hyperspace actually exists as a realm out there somewhere, then it is as much a part of nature as our natural universe.

Your current post seems to be taking a different position from your previous post. Is that the case, or am I just misinterpreting your previous post?

Remember my original post: when contemplating a vast unknown such as the nature of reality and existence, any ideas one might imagine are almost certainly wrong.

A “realm of consciousness” is just one of infinitely many possibilities that I entertained. And remember, I’m claiming that any explanation of the “ultimate” nature of reality and existence has a probability of being correct that is close to zero.

Another example I gave is the “computer simulation” argument. This does not address consciousness at all, but rather demonstrates that it is possible that reality is constructed in such a way that certain aspects of it will remain forever outside of our understanding.

You often discuss scientific evidence that shows one thing or another to be true (which is reasonable), and then jump to the conclusion that this evidence says something about the deeper nature of reality. I use the simulation example to highlight the fact that any evidence gathered within the simulation describes the simulation and says nothing about what lies outside the simulation.

This marble analogy is only relevant if you have no evidence for anything with regards to the question being asked. This is simply not the case with regards to hyperspace.



I am not at all concerned with what lie outside the boundries of the universe as a system. I am only concerned with the system known as human being in this discussion. As humans we can observe other humans. We can't directly experience their consciousness but that hardly matters for figuring out what goes on when one has psychedelic journeys into hyperspace as we can all experience such journeys by taking the substance.

If you read my previous post, you’d see that I modified it to include 9 marbles: one is shown (to represent the known) and the remaining eight may or may not be in the box (to represent the unknown). You’ll notice that the probability of guessing the contents of the box is unchanged.

That is because it happened what I meant in my very first post: Levels of reality in a philosophical debate may create confusion.

1) There is a level of philosophical debate where we are 100% certain that a rock is made if atoms... or that 2+2 equals 4.
2) There is a level of philosophical debate where we dont know with a 100% certainty if atoms are real or if mathematical abstractions are objective.

I passed from number 1 to number 2. But my opinions are still the same.

Ok as far as I understand it seems gibran is trying to make a point that when dealing with the unknown all ideas about the unknown are equally likely to be wrong. But my point is that this system is not a complete unknown. Not even close. Epistomology aside.

OK, maybe this will convince you. Let’s say that an “all-knowing being” gives you a sheet of paper. The title at the top of the sheet is:

50 Things Essential to Understanding the Nature of Existence Which May or May Not Be True

The list contains 50 assertions about the nature of reality. These assertions may or may not be true. They are all independent (the truth or falsehood of one doesn’t determine the truth or falsehood of any other) and they are independent of our current knowledge (what we already know to be true/false does not determine the truth/falsehood of any of the assertions).

You are also told that the true assertions are sufficient to fully reveal the true nature of existence. The all-knowing being isn’t going to make it too easy though – you have to figure out which assertions are true and which are false. You are also told that it is essential to determine the truth/falsehood of all 50 assertions in order to fully understand the true nature of existence.

The all-knowing being also tells you that it is possible to determine the truth/falsehood of each assertion, but doesn’t tell you how. Let’s also assume that with current knowledge, there is no obvious way to determine the truth/falsehood of any of the assertions.

So what do you do?

The best you can do right now is guess, but if you were to guess, the probability of you guessing right is 1/(2^50), which is a number very close to zero.

Some assertions may “feel” true, others may “seem” to be false, many others just seem strange. If you rely on your intuition and feelings to guide you, the probability of you guessing right is 1/(2^50). If you ignore the fact that these assertions are independent of current knowledge, and try to use current knowledge to guide you, the probability of your selections being correct is 1/(2^50). If you have very deep and meaningful psychedelic experiences and attempt to apply those experiences to your choices, the probability of being correct is 1/(2^50).

---

It’s true that we know very much about the physical world, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that we have much more to learn. It is not unreasonable to assume that there are many characteristics/qualities/facts about existence that we don’t know. It is also reasonable to assume that many of those things are essential to coming closer to knowing the true nature of existence. I bet there are more than 50 essential facts we don't yet know!

So when someone – anyone – makes assertions about the truth/falsehood of unknown aspects of existence, they are almost certainly wrong. This is true for those who make claims based on psychedelic experiences (such as myself) and those who make claims based on our current understanding of the world (such as burnt).

I agree with your overall point with regards to this and the marble analogy.



Sure we have a lot more to learn. Agreed.



All I try to do is interpret the psychedelic experience within a context that fits with current ideas about human consciousness, neuroscience, and the basic known laws of chemistry and physics. I think this is more accurate then just basing ideas on experiences alone. I don't think the marble analogy applies in this case because its not just a black box we actually do know some stuff. My theories are usually falsifiable so therefore anyone is open to disproving them. Or at least offering problems with them or alternatives. I believe this discussion was inspired by me claiming that the "oneness" experience is the result of dmt affecting the systems in the brain actively involved in creating the sensation of self with relation to the rest of world. This is testable. A statement like dmt is opening my brains filters to the universal consciousness field and we are all really one big consciousness is not testable because no one has ever offered coherent theories about how consciousness can create a universe with stuff in it or really anything else about it. Its a very vague idea.

Scientific progress often doesn’t happen when scientists attempt to explain new and unusual phenomena in terms of existing scientific knowledge. If everything could always be explained in terms of current knowledge, then we would never really gain any new knowledge and would not progress scientifically.

Quantum mechanics is a perfect example: The results of some experiments were very unusual. Any scientist who tried to explain the results of such experiments in terms of what was then current scientific understanding would have failed.

If, prior to Einstein’s insights, an astronomer were to observe something such as gravitational lensing or various relativistic phenomena and then attempt to explain said phenomena in terms of existing scientific understanding, he would fail.

Sometimes a square peg just doesn’t fit into a round hole, no matter how hard you hammer on it.

The same may be true for certain psychedelic phenomena. We may be experiencing phenomena that cannot be adequately explained in terms of current scientific ideas. If this is the case, any attempt to do so will ultimately fail. This is not to say we shouldn’t try to explain such phenomena in terms of our existing knowledge, but we should always be aware that the psychedelic phenomena may be revealing something new and currently not understood. To deny this possibility is to hamper scientific growth and understanding.

Its precisely the failure that leads to new theories and ideas. If you start from nowhere ie. random ideas based on experiences you have to test way more things. If you offer testable hypothesis and they all prove wrong then you have to start coming up with some really novel ways of looking at the problem. You can't do that the other way around and be efficient.



I'm not denying that possibility. Psychoactive drugs have already led to a deeper understanding of the human mind. Psychedelics will only add to that. What I am skeptical about is just random ideas that come out of nowhere and lack a strong foundation. They could be correct but lets start somewhere. I often try to propose very practical testable starting points to try and gain a deeper understanding of dmt's effects. No one is going to get grants to study dmt by starting from the proposal that consciousness creates all of external reality because no one has proven that the more commonly accepted alternative is false. The commonly accepted idea that consciousness is created by the brain also has a lot of evidence to back it up and psychedelics are actually part of that evidence.

Failure does not automatically lead to new ideas and theories. A scientist who refuses to accept the possibility that an unusual phenomena may represent something that can’t be explained in terms of existing knowledge will just fail again and again and again.

It is the scientist who is willing to stick his neck out and consider something that may, at the time, seem preposterous or ridiculous or maybe even crazy who will potentially add to our knowledge of existence.

I strongly believe that aspects of the psychedelic phenomena cannot be explained within the confines of existing scientific knowledge. This is a belief, and since I’m not a neuroscientist, it doesn’t really matter, but it is my belief.

You may believe that psychedelic phenomena can be explained with existing science, but please remember that until it is explained, it’s only a belief.


Getting back to the original post, I’d say the only legitimate response to the vast unknown is silent agnosticism. Any theory of existence, whether based on current science or subjective experiences, is almost certainly wrong.

Such as?

you ever read "LSD: Doorway to the Numinous" by Stanislav Grof, M.D. ?

There are quite a few things he witnessed with his patients that current science cannot explain.