Why would you expect useful knowledge?

If a fly could somehow enter the realm of human beings, what useful knowledge could it bring back for its existence as a fly?

The existence of the FLYSWATTER?

But upon returning to ordinary "fly-thought", the knowledge of fly swatters and their true purpose would be lost. (Although I think that a fly who has been swatted at a few times gets the general idea of the function of a fly swatter.)

The difference being that i hear these so called beings can communicate with us perfectly well through our language and understanding. now if i could communicate in the same way with your fly and that fly then that fly could bring lots of knowledge back from its encounter with me.

Who says you can't bring back useful knowledge?

SWIM has brought back a ton of very useful informations he never knew before.

The main obstacles are that the beings will only teach you things that they think you are ready to learn... and remembering hyperspatial information can be rather difficult. As someone who has trained himself in dream recall, pulling back useable info can still be a challenge for SWIM.

I don't think hyperspace beings would simply give you the cure for cancer... though who is to say? If you were truly ready to manifest the reality of being the discoverer of the cure for cancer, and all that went along with that... even then, who is to say that the human race is ready for that knowledge.

It is awfully arrogant to assume that you can tell beings that are more intelligent than you what they should be teaching you. Kind of like an infant demanding to have a physics professor teach it Quantum Mechanics.

For tens of thousands of years people have believed in gods and spirits and demons and crystal healing and all that sort of woo-woo, and to be honesty it didnt really get us so far over such a large time frame. but in the last 300 years a small percentage of people have giving up on that old paradigm and instead put their trust into something that works, namely the scientific method. And within that time we have done wonders, we have traveled many many times faster than the speed of sound, we have put a man on the moon, created a network so that people from any where on the world can communicate with each other in real time, eradicted diseases that have afflicted mankind for who knows how many millenia, we have stared back over 13 billion years in time to see infant galaxies in the process of creation , and have seen the majestic and violent deaths of stars/

So please try to understand why i tend to be skeptical of claims of these hyperspace beings being real and want tangible evidence to back up this same old woo woo that has shackeled mankinds thinking in the same old rut for so so many millenia.

I completely understand your point.
The problem is there isn't any scientific evidence one way or the other. Most of the testing done on DMT was focused on neurochemistry and behavior in general. I don't even know how one could test whether or not hyperspace is real. That alone makes it a difficult question to answer, and perhaps one that is outside the realm of science.

I have pretty much given up on finding an answer to this question, the truth is we don't know. Regardless of how sure some of you on the forum may be, you can't know for sure. Even if you think you do, know that there are many people who have smoked spice and disagree and are equally sure of the opposite.

My point is don't think you can know for sure, you may not believe it, but that is different from it being possible. I admit it's possible hyperspace is a real dimension(and not just inside your head), I just don't think that's the case.

Oh, we understand why you are skeptical. It is good that you are... no one should just believe anything.

What we are saying is that some of us have proven the veracity of hyperspatial wisdom to ourselves, and far from being shackling woo woo, it reveals itself to be gobs of pure multidimensional noospherical goodness that is liberating, useful, transcendent, and actually break ruts for fun as an afterthought.



It could be a real dimension and also be inside your head...

why people continually feel the need to be the ones with the definitive answer leaning towards one polarity or the other is beyond me...I have never understood humanities need to grasp at such rigidly defined and linear explainations, that they can then categorize and collect as if they were anything more than a subjective operating system implimented by and limited to the confines of an "objective" collective paradigm that is itself based on a state of consiousness which is chemically induced(and most likely chemically limited).

There is no proof that hyperspace is a “real” place. Nor is there proof that our everyday reality is a “real” place. There is no tangible evidence proving our everyday experiences are "real".

Science is not concerned with ontology. Science examines phenomena and attempts to describe them mathematically, to relate them to other phenomena, and to describe the relationships mathematically. Whether the phenomena and their various relationships are real or not is a question that science cannot answer.

I will agree it is possible hyperspace is real and these beings are too but i am very skeptical about it. Mainly because most accounts of it come from people taking substances that interfere with the normal functioning of the brain, that and that there has not been any proper corroborating evidence. One thing though is that just because there is no evidence against it doesnt mean you should take it as 50/50. In many cases proving it doesnt exist can be impossible while proving it does exist is easy in comparison. lets take the invisible incorpreal dragon i have in my garage. there is no evidence that it does exist but does that mean you will simply take it at 50/50 that i do have one in my garage without any evidence proving it?


The problem here is that so many people have proven to themselves so many different and often contradictory claims that there is no way they are all true. And so no matter how much they believe x, with no objective evidence there is no way to sort out the truth of x. You must understand that subjective belief is useless at telling the truth about most things. You have people who will swear blind things like homeopathy and crystal healing and laying on hands or whatever is the 100% truth because of their subjective experiences. and yet every single time it has been thouroghly tested in double blind studies it has been showen to be bunk. You have people who will swaer down things like telepathy , telekenesis and remote viewing are the truth, and yet again when properly tested they show no deviation from normal parameters.
The other thing to take into account is how easy our brains can lie to us. take optical illusions for example, or as they should be called "brain failures" they show that our brains are hardwired to lie to us about our experiences. and the funny thing is that even once you have been showen the trick and you know your brain is lying to you it will make no difference to how you percieve the optical illusion. check this out to see what i mean. it is called the checker shadow illusion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Sen1HTu5o

now please dont get me wrong. i have had trips and meditations that have completely changed me and the way i looked at the world. But the thing is all the epiphanies and feeling of peace was withing my mind already. Often all it was was looking at the same information in a new way . but never have i go any information that it would have been impossible for me to know. that is why i said if i had gotten something tangible like the cure to aids while on a drug then that would be proof it came from a being that was not just a part of my mind, since i know very little about the subject and there is no way i could come up with that info on my own. but what i have got is the understanding that we are all connected or an epiphany on how i had been leading my life or the way i see the world. but that is all stuff that was in my brain already and doesnt need to have come from without me. as far as i am concerned drugs and meditaions are wonderfull ways at exploring my subconcious mind and having fun. but i am extremely hesitant to attach any outside corporeal reality to it

so what are you a solipsist? because if you are then go right ahead as i cant prove you wrong. but then understand there is no point in me having any further communication with you because you have violated any meaningfull discussion we could have

Everything you know about existence you know through your subjective experiences. All “truths” have been acquired via subjective experience.

…

I have received much information that would have been impossible for me to otherwise know. I have often described hyperspace as something beyond imagination, and I mean that quite literally. While under the influence of DMT, there are things I have seen and experiences I’ve had that are beyond the creative/cognitive capacity of my brain.

Everything you know about existence you know through your subjective experiences. All “truths” have been acquired via subjective experience.

I have received much information that would have been impossible for me to otherwise know. I have often described hyperspace as something beyond imagination, and I mean that quite literally. While under the influence of DMT, there are things I have seen and experiences I’ve had that are beyond the creative/cognitive capacity of my brain. [/quote]

You are clearly wrong. i could subjectivly believe radiation was a lie made up by the NWO and illuminati to controll the media, yet if i stood in a nuclear reactor i would be proved wrong objectivly by dying of radiaton poisoning. i could subjectivly believe that you could breath underwater but you objectivly dead body floating in my swiming pool would prove i was wrong. so please dont tell me everything is subjective unless you want to sink down into the murky unreason of solipsism or its close kin.

and all i hear is claims about recieving knowledge it would be impossible for people to know. give me clear cut examples

We are using the term “subjective” differently here.

You are loosely defining it: “Formed, as in opinions, based upon a person's feelings or intuition, not upon observation or reasoning”

I define it more like: “Pertaining to subjects as opposed to objects”, or more precisely as “personal consciousness”. Your consciousness is the only phenomenon you know to exist, and even though you know with absolute certainty that it exists, there is no method to prove it exists.

Solipsism as the term is generally used could be defined as “the theory or view that the self is the only reality”. My claim is quite different. Other than claiming consciousness exists, I make no claims at all regarding what else exists or what is real. In fact, if I had to make a claim, I’d say that outside of consciousness, nothing exists.

I agree that it’s best not to try to breathe under water or to expose oneself to high levels of radiation, but the fact that cause-effect relationships exist in our everyday experience doesn’t prove that our everyday experiences are “real”. Similar cause-effect relationships exist in dreams and in hyperspace. If the only criteria for “reality” is that cause-effect relationships exist, then everyday experience is real, dreams are real, and hyperspace is real.

I’ve heard arguments similar to yours many times now, and I respond in the same way - not by claiming that hyperspace is real, but by pointing out that the proof you demand of its reality is proof you don’t have of everyday experience.

You are asking for evidence of the objective reality of one experiential realm (hyperspace) that you yourself don’t have for another more familiar experiential realm (everyday experience).

So rather than ask others to provide proof that hyperspace is “real”, attempt yourself to prove that everyday experience is “real”. When you find proof or evidence, please report back.

Jiddu Krishnamurti:

Gibran if you describe subjective in those terms then why do we even have a word called objective since from your point of view everything is subjective. and please dont tell me i am loosely defining it since the way i am using it is its most common and well understood use in relation to what we are talking about

"Your consciousness is the only phenomenon you know to exist, and even though you know with absolute certainty that it exists, there is no method to prove it exists." acyually if you want to walk done the path of absurdity then i can easily claim you cant even know this. in some versions of the simulated reality hypothesis we may be nothing more than a non sentient program, and the only reason we believe we exist is because whe have been programmed to believe it. so if you really want to walk down this path then you cannot even claim that your consciousness exists

Now take note as i equated your position to solipsism or its close kin, like the brain the the jar theory, or the simulated reality theory. how you have described your belief is the brain the jar theory in a nutshell, which is related to solipsism.

Now if you want to believe those sort of things then it is fine. but realise that then there is no point in me taking this conversation further as we no longer have a medium in which to have a discussion. if that is what you believe then you no longer have anything to base any further argument on or communication on. personaly i have no truck with those theories because they render all language and experience as useless and mean i might as well sit in a corner untill i die because nothing is real, not even my consciousness

In this conversation, my beliefs are irrelevant. I’m not pushing one belief system over another. In it’s simplest form, what I’m saying is this:

1. There is no proof that hyperspace exists.

2. There is no proof that everyday “reality” exists.


You demand proof for #1, yet offer no proof for #2.

As a scientist I would like to urge you to continue down the path of your skepticism. Don't stop were you have stopped now.

What is the world you see around you? Well here's the raw science of it.

Photons hit your ~2D retina which send signals down your optic nerves to the visual cortex. The visual cortex then creates an entire world map for you. Just ponder that for a few moments. Your brain creates your world from photons. Your brain doesn't actually have any information other than wavelength and velocity of a particle with which it presumably is able to use as a construct for the 'real' world. This world is constructed from your brain by the relative concentration off all the brains neurotransmitters. Is it really to much of a leap to at least formulate the hypothesis that what you see on DMT is just as real or unreal as what you see with your own eye's?

BTW What is real? It would seem that science itself is fast approaching the point when it will have to claim that nothing is actually real as well. On the quantum level we have particles that change based on our measurements and by extension our awareness? ON the larger galactic scale we have matter eating black holes that seem to crunch matter down into a quantum dot of infinit mass? From my vantage point science is by far the most mystical of the worlds current religions...yet ironically I think many scientists miss this fact...

Believe Nothing. Allow for Anything. Question Everything.

Peace

and i am arguing that the reason to take everyday reality as existing is because if you dont then everything else becomes meaningless and absurd. that is not the case with hyperspace.

i need the context of 2 for the concept of 1 being true or not to even make aany sense. otherwise it is just gibberish