I sort of look at things in a Platonist perspective. Our physical world is but a shadow world of the divine realm, or the world of thoughts and ideas. As such, which is more real: the thought, or the thing? Put another way, what came first in our 3D space, the thought or the thing? Take a beloved cartoon character like Mickey Mouse. We think in our cause and effect 3D earth space that a guy, Walt Disney, had a great idea one day and created Mickey Mouse, however psychedelics provide a different way to interpret the creative process. If we assume the realm we enter on psychedelics to be Plato's theorized divine realm of thoughts, and if this realm is as infinate as it seems to be, then every idea already exists in the timeless sea of eternity, including Mickey Mouse. In other words, Micky Mouse was not Walt Disney's creation per se, merely Walt Disney was a channel or way for the concept of Mickey Mouse to become manifest in this world of 3D space, you dig? Mickey might exist independently of Walt Disney in another parallel Earth or an alien system entirely. Indeed perhaps every thought is alive in some strange sense, as in everything god (used loosely here) thinks has a life as god is a divine creator of all things. This theory offers a partial understanding why things like cartoon elves exist as independent, seemingly self-aware entities in hyperspace.

I hope that all made sense and was applicable.

That's awesome! I've always seen it that way too. Great analogy with Micky Mouse. It's crazy to think of all the possible forms of awareness there are, and so many possible ways to perceive that awareness.

In fact, if you understand M Theory or what Bryanton proposes in his blogs... Hyperspace would HAVE to be real. Not only that, but such theories insist on such higher dimensional causal realms where one can access other timelines and other realities.

It brings me back to the old idea that scientists don't require evidence. In fact, evidence can rarely be said to exist for the stuff that theoretical science affirms. Science is a faith based endeavor, in that scientists believe on faith from books without having done any confirmations themselves.

They are not the empiricists they like to believe they are. Rather, they are simply inclined to believe members of their tribe, no matter how far-fetched their conjectures might be... so long as they have an appropriate amount of degrees behind their name, and explain their fantasies in the languages that are deemed appropriate for their priesthood (i.e. mathematics).

I find it odd that people who espouse scientific materialism and balk at anything remotely mystical can entertain this stuff, though. How is the idea of 10th dimensional strings giving rise to infinite multiple universes and alternate realities more reasonable than Hyperspace?

It brings me back to the old idea that scientists don't require evidence. In fact, evidence can rarely be said to exist for the stuff that theoretical science affirms. Science is a faith based endeavor, in that scientists believe on faith from books without having done any confirmations themselves.

They are not the empiricists they like to believe they are. Rather, they are simply inclined to believe members of their tribe, no matter how far-fetched their conjectures might be... so long as they have an appropriate amount of degrees behind their name, and explain their fantasies in the languages that are deemed appropriate for their priesthood (i.e. mathematics).

Still, they are usually my favorite religious group. At least their pragmatism and progressive streak tends to always land them in the top 3 or so.

Ironically enough, the father of rational scientific materialism Rene Descartes actually had a series of three dreams or visions that he claimed caused him to devote his life to science. I had first heard about this while listening to a Terence McKenna lecture and I couldn't believe my ears when I heard it! Our entire paradigm of science has it's roots literally entrenched in deep mysticism, and most scientists don't even acknowledge this!

Francis Crick, one of the first discoverers of DNA, admitted that the idea came to him after he had a powerful LSD trip. Again, a basic scientific pillar founded in a mystical context. Carl Sagan, a great astrophysicist and promoter of science, wrote several papers about reconsidering the effects of Marijuana. Sagan admitted late in his life that many of his scientific breakthroughs came to him after smoking pot, but fearing his scientific credibility would be jeopardized he wrote these papers under an assumed name Mr. X.

Steve Jobs talked about one of the top 5 experiences of his life was an LSD trip from when he was younger, and one wonders how much that experience helped shape his future career in technology. I wonder how many great minds owe their success to a mystical source?

Still, they are usually my favorite religious group. At least their pragmatism and progressive streak tends to always land them in the top 3 or so.

There is an interesting book called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics" by: Gary Zukav that compares and contrasts quantum mechanical theory to mystical theory. It shows how similar the two actually are. Parts of the book are pretty heavy but it is written in lay-mans terms relatively speaking. Its a great book. I actually would enjoy reading through it again.

Ironically enough, the father of rational scientific materialism Rene Descartes actually had a series of three dreams or visions that he claimed caused him to devote his life to science. I had first heard about this while listening to a Terence McKenna lecture and I couldn't believe my ears when I heard it! Our entire paradigm of science has it's roots literally entrenched in deep mysticism, and most scientists don't even acknowledge this!
<snip>

1) You only remember a tiny fraction of what you actually experience when you blast off.

This varies from person to person and from blast off to blast off.

I agree it's useless to ask alien lifeform about our little human matters.