Well, I have already said in some post I don't take much of it seriously. It is a model, not a conclusion. I am with McKenna on this one. You know what he said about guru's.

But yes. The full test of it all is still gonna come. It is speculative but then again, just about everything is as this point. Nothing is carved in stone anymore. Boundaries are dissolving around us. Just today I got a tip about biosynthesis and how you can now go on the internet and find genetic building blocks you can basically custom design anything with. They got goats now crossed with silk spiders that give milk and from the milk you can extract the silk.

There is the quantum reality they are struggling with. We have meta/materials on the rise. If you check www.sciencedaily.com you are astonished as to what they are working on.

We will have to wait a long time before they gonna start doing research again into DMT.

Well, I grabbed my guitar as I listened to the carrier wave. It turned out to be a D that resonated harmonically with the pitch for me. So the D string was the right pitch and the D note on the high E string, 10th fret.

If anyone else play an instrument, please share your results. I am very interested in 'hearing' from you :-)

We have a pretty good thread going about it here:
https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=30433

Yes there are some back and forth issues that are up in the air but I think that a result regardless of what it is will be something of value. In the end we arent looking to just prove something we are looking to prove or disprove something. Ruling something out is a good thing too.

Have a listen to this about 5 seconds in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqfVEE--ySA

My small sub-breakthrough dose had a frequency that sounded like the C scale on a piano. But further research needs to be done.

Visty - were you doing a sub-breakthrough? Or a full blown breakthrough?

I have not broken through yet. Four times so far. Soon I will break through though. I now have very nice looking powder instead of yellow goo. All I need to do is make a machine. Which needs some study. And I am waiting for my 0,000 scales so I can actually measure rather than gamble my eternal soul

I wonder if next time I will hear the same pitch. You know, it is sort of surprising it turned out to be a D for me. Cause A-minor is really my favorite chord. I like minor chords a lot. Dm, Bm, all good stuff to my ears.

But D isn't in Am. A is in Dm though. In regards to hearing the same pitch twice, in my personal experience, the tones and modulations can be highly variable.

That is why I said it is surprising.,..

Applying single notes to the variable frequencies of the neuroelectric system in a different octave is not going to work.

Watching youtube videos in the 20hz-20khz spectrum is not going to work, either.

These are not the ways to scientifically understand this phenomena.

Science is not my goal. This is a subjective experiment. Music is not arithmetic, it is feeling.

A couple of points: music has both emotional/sensual components as well as being mathematically based. The intervals and harmonics are based on very specific whole number ratios (without which we wouldn't have our tuning system or any workable tuning system for that matter). Music is hinged around a variety of mathematical properties. Music means different things to different people. Some people derive feeling from the cold, hard aesthetics of the mathematical side to music with a most notable example being John Cage. You also say that science is not your goal, that it's a subjective experiment...and yet you're attempting to collect objective empirical data (the pitch of the carrier wave) which is not subjective. The analytical side to life should be balanced, not shunned.

It is also worth mentioning that these mathematical features occur in music from every culture. Every tone-system, for instance is based on the octave. There are no tone-systems anywhere, where one octave can have different tones than another. In some cultures, modulation is an important part of music, so it may sometimes seem as if this rule doesn´t aply. But these musical structures are also pretty consistent in themselves.

Of course there is a math component to music. But did they come from math or from emotions? I suspect they come from within and from nature. The sounds of rain on a rock or leafs, thunder, lightning strikes, animals and what not. And they resonate within the human animal. As a result people try to mimic these sounds for all sort of shamanic reasons long ago.
And I think some sounds were preferred because for some reason they resonate in some subtle way we find pleasant. From that I think people made music early on and sought out the instruments that could create the preferred sounds. And from there on, when people could count, they gave names to these sounds and slowly the music systems developed.

When math was finally up to speed, it could catch these resonances and create a mathematical structure. But I think that structure is based on our earlier appreciation for certain sounds, pitches and modalities.

I am not sure as to why people always think science is the root cause of things. Or don;t you think that?

I am also not after empirical data. I just want to know what people are hearing and if possible give me a note. If people check the pitch regularly at some point they might see that the most common note or modulation or whatever characteristic stands out for them and maybe it depends on mood, dosage, time of year. It is collecting data but in a most subjective way. The only precise thing is a well tuned guitar.

So I am not shunning anything, but to call this science or empirical is hardly worth the label.

A large part of where the mathematical component comes is from physics - perhaps not the study of physics, but from the behavior of physical phenomena such as the properties of a vibrating string and the harmonic series, or the properties of air moving along a tube.



agreed



Didn't say science is the root cause of things. Science can aid in understanding of many things, including the esoteric and philosophical. It's by no means an absolute, and should be used as a supplementary tool to other more right-brain oriented approaches to understanding, but one must be careful to not throw the baby out with the bath water on either side of the fence.



I wouldn't call this science either; however, it does not sound very subjective. A subjective collection of data would include such data as "the carrier wave sounds mechanical/organic/like a UFO/loud/soft/simple/complex/calming/energizing/penetrating/noisy/harmonious/dissonant...Analyzing a quantifiable frequency is not the "most subjective way" to collect data.