I am just wondering how many times people have read this book,
as I am about to venture into its texts and indulge
my mind with information from my new found passion.


Also to continue good chat from this thread,
What is your favorite part of the book?
Do you believe it? Any skepticism?

I'll reply with my answers as soon as I'm finished with the literature.

I thought it was a great book and a great study. But I think some of his speculations about dmt and the pineal gland lead to, too many myths about dmt popping up all over the web and in various books. That was very much speculation and not fact at this point. In fact most evidence is pointing away from that idea and towards something else.

Funny however, Strassman sterted dismissing the spiritual aspects of dmt (at least IV dmt as he administered it). As far as I remember, he commented to a good length on the fact that really few subjects has spiritual experiences (at least spiritual experiences comparable to those when other psychedelics like psilocybin are used).

Yet, he kept the title of his book as DMT: The Spirit Molecule.

I think he said that many of the subjects had spiritual experiences, but very few of them seemed to have any lasting effect from it. People didn't follow up on the insights they were given, so he theorized that there was tremendous short term spiritual transformation, yet those effects rarely lasted long.

Aye, maybe.

I don't remember these parts very well, I should read the book anew at some point and refresh these bits.

DING!

Check out some of the scientific literature on endogeneous hallucinogens too. This go into a little more plausible theories, which Strassman also acknowledges.
These endogenous hallucinogens likely play an important physiological role in normal neural functioning. One of the new beliefs is that they may play a role in areas of the brian involved in sensory perception.

http://www.erowid.org/re...=7404&DocPartID=6553

http://www.tripzine.com/pit/DMT_TA_anxiolytic.pdf

Junk dna is not junk. Thats a horrible term. It has many functions that are only know being unraveled such as controlling regulation and structure of other genes. Also if all your DNA was to encode for genetic material and you had mutations it would be far more devastating, thats a huge advantage to have long strands of code that is not translatable into RNA because it contains no start sequences. They serve as a buffer to protect to important genes.

People are inquiring into the purposes of so called junk dna. But there is no reason why DNA stores direct conscious knowledge. At least I don't see it. DNA encodes RNA which encode's protein do the work inside our cells, which regulate many functions and provides cellular structure.

I see so called scientific evidence that indicates junk DNA has linguistic structure but there is no validity to that claim (if there is please present it). So far I see it as a ploy for those who believe in intelligent design to make up things that are confusing to make science seem like its wrong and that some intelligent creature designed us.



There is a consistency in human real experience too. The reality of this experience is still very much in question. The receiver idea is very intriguing but it must be supported by objective scientific analysis not purely subjective hallucinogenic experiences. At least that's my take on what approach provides solid evidence. The mind can trick you into believing almost anything. Anyway nice ideas. I don't discount that by changing the brain you change the subjective experience of reality that is of course true. We recieve information all the time. We turn that information into a picture of reality and that influence our consciousness. But is that information conscious? Why do you think that it is?

Its still just as likely that our consciousness is nothing more then the sum of our memories and experiences.

Yeah. I can tell you that there's not such thing as "junk" dna, Every bit has some kind of use in organising and regulating the genome. The term "junk" dna was coined at around the time the first draft of the human genome project published and people were surprised that only like 3% of the whole dna actually encoded for something meaningful (that is, proteins as it was thought at this time).

Since then scientists have made great efforts at understanding what this phenomenally junk is. In fact it is so complex, and interesting that new fields in biology arose.

And bear in mind that not only humans are entitled to "junk" dna; more-or-less almost all of the higher eukaryotes carry "junk" dna. Less so however the pufferfish Fugu rubripes.

In biological disciplines, if one uses the term "junk" dna it means he's retarded.

In reply to the original question, I found the book laughable at best and sadly pathetic at its worst. The only redeeming value, beyond the possible use of the paper that it's printed on as kindling, are the initial chapters documenting the process of getting legal clearance for the tests. The rest is an embarrassing account of someone, who I'd prefer to hope has some intelligence, bumbling through pseudo-science while systematically destroying their professional career and personal life. In the hands of a decent editor it might have been salvaged by removing all references to his careening speculations and personal opinions. Instead, focusing on documenting the results of the tests without the delusory fiddle-faddle commentary, and unnecessary details of his awkward social life.

Unfortunately, even an editor with the disposition of the Texas chainsaw murderer couldn't improve on the poor conduct and documentation of the tests themselves. There's no end to the hilarity as the author continuously expresses his bewilderment over test subjects IN A HOSPITAL, WITH ALL MANNER OF MONITORING DEVICES AFFIXED TO THEIR BODIES, UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A POWERFUL HALLUCINOGEN, EXPERIENCING FEELINGS OF BEING STUDIED AND PROBED. Ponder that one as he spends pages speculating why these super dimensional aliens are studying people on DMT. This man can only be an idiot.

The amount of damage this single piece of work has done by hemorrhaging misinformation into the general zeitgeist is unfathomable. Look no further for proof than the likes of Joe Rogan, a fucking washed up host of b-rate television, becoming pop-culture's poster boy for this substance by re-iterating Strassman's birth/death/peneal/spirit rubbish into the vacuous space that is the consciousness of the lowest common denominator. Next time some brainwashed 16 year old comes up to you, bright eyed and bushy tailed, asking if you've ever heard of DMT - the death drug that releases in your brain when you're born and when you die, slap them. Slap them across the face with your open palm as hard as you possibly can for there is unfortunately no room left for discussion since this nonsense was published.

Actually, I lied. It has another redeeming value of making McKenna's spew seem almost tolerable by comparison.
Best wishes.