Surely somebody already mentioned this in the 12 pages of this thread somewhere, but it seems to me that hyperspace is probable. The argument assumes that there are many states in which physical reality may exist but only one such state that includes hyperspace. I think that, because of the infinitely abstract nature of hyperspace, there are far more marble states that include hyperspace than there are that do not.

The way I see it, there are two boxes of marbles: One represents the state of physical reality and the other represents the state of hyperspace, with the marbles being the various possible components of each reality. Person Y claims that there are certain [scientifically observed] marbles in the physical reality box but no marbles in the black box that is hyperspace. If we take the number of possible physical reality states to be Np and the number of possible hyperspace states to be Nh, then the total probability of some form of hyperspace existing is Nh/(Np+Nh), which I would argue is greater than Np/(Np+Nh) (the probability that physical reality exists) due to my understanding of hyperspace as being much more complex than physical reality.
Please correct me if this is some sort of statistical fallacy.

The title of the thread is a bit misleading. The topic isn’t really about whether or not hyperspace exists, but rather whether or not anyone’s interpretations of it are correct.

There is no doubt that hyperspace exists – the probability of that is 100%. But does it exist as a drug-induced hallucination? The result of neurons misfiring? An independent reality? An awakening from a dream? Heaven? Hell? A region of space far, far away? A mirror? A collective unconscious revealing itself? The probability of any particular interpretation being correct is likely very close to zero.

All of the above, plus anything else you can think of (that's what I've been told by 'them'.

It's like that episode of Futurama called Godfellas. In it Bender meets a galaxy that he thinks is god and when he asks it if it's god it responds with 'Yes that seems likely, I do feel compassion for all things'. Bender second guesses himself and asks again 'well, maybe your not god but the remains of a satellite space probe that collided with god', to which the galaxy responds 'Yes that seems probable.'

It's not this or that, rather it's this AND that. For this explorer, hyperspace exists as both an independant free-standing reality and is also just a product of my own neurons misfiring. With the way I look at everything, there is no paradox with hyperspace being both, neither, and everything else at the same time.

The answer is obvious, but the question is wrong imo. Worst part is the answer is constructed in such a way that it can't really be spoken about. That to me is a big part of the joke of life, that if you REALLY get it you'll never be able to tell anyone else what it is you really got.

Been there. That's so true. Sometimes I feel like reality is winking at me by showing me that unspeakable truth.

Indeed friend.

I also followed reasonings similar to yours on this thread. It is a lengthy one... one that has lain fallow for long stretches, only to be picked up and debated further.

Truthfully, this subject is a favorite here... and certainly one that is dear to everyone of us who have experienced things that simply don't jibe with the "accepted notion" of "it's all in your mind."

Modern string theory is at the point where they acknowledge that there are at least 10 to the 500 possible structures for the higher dimensions to coil around each other. An astronomical number that many are saying may well be infinite. When you realize that only one of those structures corresponds to how this Universe operates (actually dictating its structure like DNA dictates ours)... and that in a Multiverse, all of those structures would exist somewhere... it becomes obvious that modern science actually insists upon the existence of Hyperspace.

The question of how and why the consumption of a tiny alkaloid would facilitate the travel to there is a whole nother question.

It is possible that Hyperspace exists, but that is not where spicenauts go... but rather perhaps some echo of it in the vast collective unconsciousness.

Personally, I think that there are as many Hyperspaces as there are Universes, and that they all connect at the highest dimensions.

Anyway, I like your equation.

And Tek, you're right on with your whole "ineffable cosmic joke" motif. Hehehehe. That is really the way it seems during and immediately after. It is only when waking life rationality and critical consciousness has had plenty of time to minimize, defuse, and evaporate the memories... that it can begin to seem even remotely explainable in words.

YES!!! NOW LETS EAT CAKE!!!!

Your mind encompasses all you can ever know, including experience. So you can never use your own private experience as a foundation for claims about anything of wich you know that the mind is able of fabricating it.

I don't understand the need to disprove the validity of some experiences, while proving the validity of other experiences.

Maybe DMT takes place only in the mind. Why would that make it any less "real"? As I see things it doesn't matter if you
experience a day on planet earth in physical reality, a dream experience at night or a visionairy experience on an
entheogenic plant/brew/compound; They're all experiences. They are real on some level.

I can argue that these experiences are illusions and hold no true reality, but I experience them anyway so they are part of my reality anyway.
The realm of mind is not physical, not tangible, not clearly definable by means of our current scientific methods,
but that should be no reason to state that it holds no true meaning other than being some sort of phantasmagoric mindfart.
It's almost like people try to clearly define and cathegorise the realm of mind with inadequate tools, then get mad at the realm of mind for
being undefinable in the absolute, scientific sence and denie it any credibility and call it "illusions of mind" as a sort of retaliation.

People with Rigid Religious beliefs commonly make the rational mistake of declaring everything they cannot understand "Divine".
People with Rigid Scientific beliefs commonly make the rational mistake of declaring everything they cannot understand "Untrue".
Both of them assume too much and fail to maintain a truely objective & rational viewpoint.

It seems weird and contradictory to me to claim that an experience has no truth and is only an illusion and yet enjoy having that
experience so many times, claiming it has given you profound insights and changed your life drastically and (usually) most positively so.

If this experience held no true reality, then how could it cause these very real changes you percieve in yourself after a proper NN journey?

I wouldn´t want to disprove the validity of any experience. I´m just saying that experiences cannot be used to proof that something is NOT all in your head. Because experience itself is in your head as well.

I don't think anyone on either side of the fence are saying the experiences are not real or personally worthless, because they are certainly real experiences with potential personal value. The real problem is whether or not these experiences are anything more than extremely sophisticated hallucinations from a DMT flooded brain, or if they are real in the sense that for example an object falling towards earth due to gravity (an objective indisputable fact) is real.

I think that people of both groups also make the mistake of thinking that truth can be handed to them when it seems to me that truth comes from within (truth/knowledge is a phenomenon created by the mind). Religious people have usually been handed their religion at birth, while scientists take the scientific discoveries of other people as being true (instead of, say, questioning whether other people even exist). I think it's a problem of lack of skepticism. Most people just aren't skeptical enough to really grasp the deep philosophical concepts. Such concepts are usually written off as crazy or philosophical esoterica instead of being recognized as being possibly true.

What does it matter wether visions aren't real in the sense that gravity is real?
How would you define "real in the sense that an object falls towards earth due to gravity"?

Yes it is an objectively observed phenomenon, but why should that by default make it more probable?
If I get the gist of what you're saying, you think phenomena that are observable by all individuals
have a higher probability of being "real" than phenomena observed by only few individuals.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

We cannot say of DMT experiences that they're experienced by only few individuals. We can also not say
that the content of DMT experiences, which is quite peculiar to say the least, is very different in the
experiences of different individuals from different cultural backgrounds.

"merely DMT flowing into the brain causing sophisticated hallucinations" doesn't explain why the experience
seems so universal and allways includes geometric architecture/spaces, intelligent beings communicating and
intense forward traveling through tunnels/tubes/halls. If they were really just "visions caused by a
chemically imbalanced mind", you'd expect the content of these experiences to differ ALOT more, don't you
think?

I've heard from a less than responsible friend he had the weirdest hallucination once. He had taken extacy pills,
which around here can be anything; pure MDMA, MDMA + Amphetamine or MDA + 2CB. You never know. He was cycling
downhill somewhere, when suddenly his view of the road was ...replaced with a strange view of some house.
I believe he actually slammed into something and fell because his view of the road was totally obscured by
this weird hallucination. Like his brain suddenly decided to replace the percieved visual reality with
a view of a house, maybe from subconscious memory? who knows. But this is what I would define as a true
hallucination. A capital brain error. One that caused this friend to fall with his bicycle.
I really wonder what was in that fucked up pill he took.

Well anyways, this hallucination I explained seems completely of a different nature than the visions
NN DMT can produce. I'm sure you understand what I mean.
What makes me feel that the DMT experience is how universal in content & how amazingly well-structured
the experience is. So much more structured & ordered than I know my imagination or to be.
The nature of the whole DMT experience seems too alien, too structured, intelligent and artistic to
be the product of some kind of brain/consciousness malfunction, like the true hallucination I described
earlier.

Malfunctions seem more likely to be chaotic, meaningless, incoherent.
To me DMT experiences seem like fine works of art. The very idea of saying a DMT
experience is the result of a malfunction of our brain/mind, is parallel to
proposing Da Vinci made the Mona Lisa by mistake, by accidentally spilling
several buckets of paint over a canvas and the colors ending up to form the
legendairy painting as we know it today.

To me that seems a far stretch of the imagination, whereas I find the idea that such
visions are a natural function of our consciousness much easier to conceive.

I don't know. Our brains are all wired more or less the same at birth because we've evolved to see the world in a certain way. For example, we're particularly good at picking out symmetrical patterns because animal faces are symmetrical and being able to spot symmetry quickly helps us to spot certain predators before they spot us. So if we take a particular drug and we all see a particular type of symmetry, that would just confirm that our brains are programmed to work with certain visual patterns more easily than others.

Alcohol, for example: If we gave 10 people alcohol and they all reported that the world seemed to be spinning, we might conclude that the world is actually spinning somehow in such a way that only people whose minds have been opened, by this drug, are able to perceive. Another conclusion might be that our brains are fine-tuned systems, and that certain drugs tip these systems in predictable ways because our brains are so systematically similar to begin with.

what i just do not understand is the more real than real feeling. and the things i see the construct of it building in front of me and the way it happens and the things i see.. too many of them are nothing like anything i have ever seen on any drug. so where do they come from? how it is never the same. i have done other things that i could always remind myself its the drug.. but with this it seems to make sure you see it and feel it to be completly real.. the lines in the waiting room and the builds are perfect in its build..like some form of higher math built this.. if i could find one thing that was common after breakthrough i could question it a little more.. to me it is like this molecule allows a vibration to move your ablity to enter this realm.. to me the vibration is the key. and to me i can turn my head and move around this as a complet world.. nothing has ever allowed me to do this.. this is the biggest puzzle between real and in my head? being able to look around and follow the construct.. i try to find flaw in the angles to prove to myself its not real just an illusion. i just have not been able to find it.. i have tried it in the bright light. and the construct still seems perfect.. how can this be explaned? on so many things that i have ingested i can find the flaws i can understand the illusion. but this is something i just cannot rip apart.. the emotions it gives, the purfect build, and the things it imparts... how can this be.. plus the interaction? to me the secret seems to be in the vibration and the tone.

A constant theme in my DMT experiences is this sensation of infinite love. A sensation that implies that I have been missing something my whole life. The more I ponder this the more I'd like to think that it's something more personal than entities proclaiming their unconditional love for me. It seems the stronger psychedelic I use, the deeper I go. I find solace in the idea that when it feels like I've reached the corners of the universe, I'm actually bouncing around the boundaries of my own mind.

I grew up trying to please others, trying to find people to love me back. When I smoke DMT and there is an entity dancing in complete synchronicity to whichever song I've chosen and is sending me massively intense waves of empathy, love, pure joy and happiness I start to realize it's part of my Self, a part I've set on the back burner my whole life. It says to me "Hey, we've missed you! Where have you been! We Love you so much! Give it up to yourself, feel all that love!?" I can't truly love or care for a human being to my fullest potential until I accept this message my subconscious SCREAMS at me during ecstatic hyperspace visits. Love thyself.

This link has been posted to the threads before, but I think deserves more attention. I normally don't appreciate TED videos, as I find they are too often decidedly uncritical. But nevertheless, and despite the presenter's stated intentions, the video features two interesting supercomputer simulations.

One these simulations is of "memories" and/or "sensory datum" as it moves through and is processed within the neural networks of the brain.

The other simulation--and it is less clear whether it is grounded on any "hard science" like the first one--shows us a room as it "actually" appears before we've have had a chance to mediate it cognitively. I think this simulation offers allot in the way of the probability/improbability of hyperspace.

I read something somewhere recently--I could never find it now--it suggested that HPPD is caused by the residual epileptic/aberrant electrical patterns left in the brain in the wake of a psychedelic experience. In other words, the balanced and reasonable economy of a brain, when hit with ergot acids / relatively enormous doses of exogenous neurotransmitter resembling molecules / and so on, undergoes a disturbance from which it can never fully recover, and so loses some of the clarity it once had in its perception of the world.

While I do find something productive in the image of an epileptic electrical loop--in that it would provide an analogy to the various "loop like" experiences I've had--I find nothing productive in supposing this means that damage and/or aberrance is somehow involved, or that clarity was lost. Not only is this notion loaded with normative ethical judgements, but I think it also runs contrary to everything the science of biology is actually telling us. Biology suggests that 'normal' experience is something that developed out of an interested calculus, that is, out of the evolutionary advantage it afforded, and so I would presume that it is also telling us that it is this 'normal' experience itself which lacks clarity regarding the world, at least as it might stand before this interested "kill or be killed" calculus, that is, as it might actually be seen before any mediations have been made in the interests of survival.

All of my speculations here are simply to augment the point if what the simulation of the room suggests is 'objectively true,' then it would seem to follow that it is also 'objectively true' that a visit to hyperspace is a visit to a world more closely resembling the world as 'objectively stands' before our 'normal' experience of it...

Everything we humans experience is a drug induced hallucination.

Normal reality is just your endogenous neurotransmitters while hyperspace is your brain flooded with DMT.

Peace.

And bingo was his name, oh.

Why?

On what foundation would you rest this assumption?

It seems appealing enough, but are similar experiences really evidence of anything other than people having similar experiences?

Everyone who gets into a flight simulator has a similar experience, what makes dmt any different...any more or less real? Similarity of experience does not seem to indicate anything about the reality of that experience, just the similarity.

Similarity indicates similarity.

God I love that.

JBArk