This is annoying. Shamen depend on visions to heal the sick. Without visions their work would be impossible, if not extremely hard. Surely it should be obvious that there's a lot more to visions than something made up by the brain, or is Shamanism a crock of shit?

What Shamen see cannot be proven by Science, but the participants can tell you that their visions seemed more than real. Are you trying to argue with this? Is is narcisstic to believe in those visions, or do you need scientific proof...sigh?

Everyone wins if this situation is 50/50. Perhaps we sometime soon, we'll know for sure.

We should all think of a "test" to do regarding DMT trips. And that test's aim is to see if the entities are created in our brain or otherworldy. I dont know what the test will be, but I think were on to somthing.

[/quote=polytrip]
No...where did i say anything about the status of the DMT-experience? (except the statement that we cannot say anything about it with any certainty)I don´t give a fuck about what kent thinks btw. I´m just abstaining from a definitive judgement and staying on the cautious side when it comes to any claims about things we don´t know shit about.
...What irritates me, and that may be the cause of why you think i´m being a sceptic here, is when people say that anyone who doesn´t blindly belief in something he experiences on a powerfull HALLUCINOGENIC drug is some left-brain fascist who wants to rob the world from it´s beauty and who wants to trivialise your experience or, well...your very life itself.
...to reject criticism towards any random speculation about 'reality' is just a bit narcissistic...
Criticism is good. It´s the motor behind any real form of personal growth.
[/quote]

Ok a few things to address here.

On you making a statement on the status of the DMT experience, I quote:

"I think it´s important to realise that the brain is fully capable of producing these experiences by itself...the phenomena can be explained by pointing at the innate capability´s of the brain." However, you contradicted yourself above, when you said "I´m just abstaining from a definitive judgement and staying on the cautious side when it comes to any claims about things we don´t know shit about." Well, a few posts ago, you just made such a judgement.

It would be plain myopic on your part if you cannot see that this quote indeed pertains to the "status of the dmt experience". But let's not quibble any more over semantics, ok? (Speaking of semantics btw, narcissism isn't the word you're looking for...)

And as I said before (perhaps you glazed over this): While most mainstream scientists would would assert that the dmt induced "machine elves" are explainable solely on the basis of one's physiology/psychology in principle (i.e., entopic hallucinatory phenomena), most of these individuals would concede that such explanations extend far beyond neuroscience's explanatory capabilities at the present time.

You say criticism is good. Of course it is! Well, I'm criticizing your assertion on the basis of a there being a current lack of explanation or consensus, other than an a priori reductionistic stance. By the way your original post,
- "I think it´s important to realise that the brain is fully capable of producing these experiences by itself...the phenomena can be explained by pointing at the innate capability´s of the brain" - is NOT a fruitful criticism at all - it's just an assertion. In the absence of an argument/evidence, it will remain as such. (You did attempt to argue in subsequent posts, but initially you didn't).

About you "not giving a fuck about what Kent's thinks": Find a different thread to post and have a discourse, as this one is called "The Case Against DMT Elves - James Kent." Is it necessary for me to point out that the title reveals a little bit info about what is relevant to the content of the thread? And you should care what Kent thinks. He's an intelligent guy (apparently) with some interesting theories. Why limit yourself by eschewing another's ideas?

On skepticism: I'm the most skeptical person I know That's why I seriously question both the ontology of dmt elves AS WELL AS the explanatory power of mere neuroscientific explanations (or lack thereof) for certain phenomena - of course, only when the data/evidence compels me to. That's also precisely why a criticized your initial assertion, and James Kent's article. If I didn't do so, this discourse would not be happening.

You said: "when people say that anyone who doesn´t blindly belief in something he experiences on a powerfull HALLUCINOGENIC drug is some left-brain fascist who wants to rob the world from it´s beauty and who wants to trivialise your experience or, well...your very life itself."

That's cool, but fortunately, it doesn't apply to me, as I made no indication that teasing apart and analyzing an experience robs it of his beauty. Nor, i believe, has anyone else on this thread. You just created this dichotomy. Also aggravating is the way in which the word "hallucination" is carelessly thrown about. It just camouflages the debate, recasting it in new terms.

On science: As I have reiterated over and over again by now, I'm just looking for a good explanation for the data. This is the hallmark of good science. Without an explanation supported by empirical evidence, it's not science: It's dogma. Science is not a fixed, rigid, doctrine: it's a method of inquiry, a tool.

Lastly, I said before: I referenced a few articles in a previous post to "citta" that are quite interesting. They have led me to err on the side of supporting the view that neurochemistry alone is insufficient. Emphatically, this is NOT to say that I believe DMT elves are independently sentient entities inhabiting an ontologically separate parallel universe: There are many, more plausible theories in between these two extremes. You might wanna check these articles out. Again, its not good to limit oneself when good information is available.

Saying that you cannot know anything and saying that the brain is capable of producing experiences of things that aren´t real is not in any way a contradiction.

Objectively, it´s just more likely that the elves are not real. I´ve explained why, but apparently you didn´t fully understand. I will explain it one more time.

1-the brain is capable of producing an experience of something that isn´t real. (like in dreams...we all agree that dreams aren´t real i hope).
2-DMT affects the brain, and causes it to function in a different mode, producing altered states of mind.
3-If someone wants to explain an experience containing elves, there can be several scenario´s to explain the phenomenon. We know the truth about none of these scenario´s.
4-Some hypotheses need more other hypotheses to be true, to be true themselves.
5-The more a hypothesis needs other hypotheses to be true, to be even slightly possible itself, and the more these other hypotheses are impossible to verify, the weaker the hypothesis is compared to a hypothesis that doesn´t need these presuppositions.
6-If someone has seen an elve on DMT, the scenario where this is caused by brain-activity instead of an actual elf, depends only on the hypothesis that what apply´s to dreaming: that it is an experience of something that isn´t real, produced by the brain, could potentially also apply to a DMT-experience and actually does.
7-The scenario where the phenomenon of elves seen on DMT is explained by there actually being real elves needs the possibility for elves to exist, wich we don´t know anything about. It needs besides that mere possibility, the actual existence of elves wich again we don´t know anything about. It needs besides that, that one or more of these elves have actually where present at the time of the DMT experience. Again something that can´t be verified
8-All of the scenario´s that rely on real elves, if they should be taken seriously, should all contain a brain that is capable of producing experiences of something that isn´t real: in the 'actual elves' scenario, we are dealing with the same person with the same brain, wich IS capable to produce such an experience: dreams aren´t real.
9-All of the above proves nothing about the status of DMT-experiences, except that not every hypothesis is as likely as any other.
10-Saying that is not saying anything about the status of the DMT experience but about the status of hypotheses made about the status of DMT experiences. Don´t accuse me of being shortsighted because i see this difference and you clearly don´t.

Don´t take my words out of context. You keep doing that and i find it fucking annoying.
And yes, there have been people in this thread saying that people who try to talk about these elves in a rational manner, are trying to rob the experience of it´s beauty.

BTW..my criticism WAS fruitful, because the fact that other hypotheses are possible that depend less on yet other hypotheses that cannot ever be proven, is the very essence of why, if you don´t want to jump to comclusions carelessly, from an agnostic point of view, it´s better to say that elves are an unlikely phenomenon. Replacing a hypothesis about elves with a hypothesis that contains plant-spirits is what is not fruitfull. You cannot call it a serious debate when we start arguing about elves and plant-spirits without first assessing that both elves and plant spirits are purely hypothetical and that, if we start arguing hypothetical things, there are better hypothesis available.

The fact that better hypotheses are available is exactly why treating one less likely hypothesis as fact, is unlogical.

And if you seriously want to argue that it is not a fact that the brain is capable of producing experiences of things that aren´t real, then i fear that we simply live in different universes and that our views are totally incommensurable (since for instance, dreaming about killing someone, obviously doesn´t automatically make you a murderer). Especially when you at the same time do not express the same degree of criticism towards statemens about elves and plant-spirits.

zapped17;

I'm not gonna get involved in the word exchange you and polytrip are having, but thanks for your reply to me earlier (I hope you will continue speaking with me). I read your excerpts and found them... intriguing, but not overly convincing. Just to take one of the things that are spoken about, namely the similarities between experiences; this is certainly very interesting, but I'm not sure if I really figure that to be so mysterious. Our neurophysiology is very similar, and DMT practically works in the same way in all of us. Inducing similar visions doesn't come as a big surprise considering this. In fact, I think I would find it stranger if there were far more irregularities to the DMT experience. Moreover, does similarities necessary mean that it is something more going on? Psychiatric disorders can induce delusions and hallucinations that occur in a great number of patients, i.e they are shared and similar, but naturally this doesn't mean said delusions and hallucinations have any merit. Slightly poor analogy perhaps, but you get the point I think.

The multidimensional geometric perception within these states I can't really address, but this is perhaps one of the more interesting phenomenologies of the DMT experience. I have no say against this. Actually I have experienced this myself, and it puzzles me indeed. Any thoughts on this?

Anyway, it seems you are not really buying into the whole autonomous sentient elf or plant spirits thing, neither do I. But yet your experience and data suggests to you something more is going on than pure neurophysiology - perhaps you can elaborate on this? Or do you mean, and I haven't followed all your posts that closely and might have missed this point, that neuroscience is currently inadequate to explain the full features of certain DMT experiences? If so, I can agree, but it doesn't mean it can't in the future and it certainly doesn't open up for every other wild speculation about more extraordinary stuff is going on. Would you not say that there are more plausible alternatives than ascribing an objective, autonomous existence to these beings and these places? I certainly do, but of course I can't give satisfactory explanations based in neuroscience. Much because I don't know neuroscience by heart as I am becoming a physicist, and just as much or even more because neuroscience probably can't satisfactory account for a lot of these things yet. At any rate, do you have any thoughts on explanatory models to account for some of the phenomenology in DMT states?

how can anyone pretend that a experience is not real??????????????

Hyperspace is real when you take dmt.
When I sleep, reality is not real. I cant even consider what reality means when I sleep. A dream is a experience. Any experience is real.
When I dont walk, walking is a imagination, its not real. but I can also walk, and when I walk, its real.

Any experience is real. No matter how bad our brain show us reality, everything he shows us is. It is folks, otherwise it wouldnt be! I dont care if my computer is real or not, it is real and it is not. It is real for me right now, it will not be real later when I'll be in my car. But for now, this is real.

How can any sane person affirm that a experience is not real. For me all this scientist bullshit is scary. How can a smart individual is able to see life like nothing more then brain reactions. Oh yeah, theres nothing fucking crazy about beign conscious, this is only your brain, all your brain. all this life means nothing! Yeah right , keep on hoping that life is not important so you can accept you actions. Every actions count. everything we do is meaningful. There is nothing that is not real. Otherwise that would creates a lot of philosophical problem.

We are not just bodies, each and everyone of us are limited by our bodies. Without our bodies, we are limitless. Everything is relative to our body, therefore everything is real within that parameter. Nothin is real but for the one experiencing it. Simple as that. no?

This is not a very productive outrage in a serious discussion about the phenomenology of DMT experiences. I suggest you think through what it is you're writing, and perhaps more importantly what it is others are saying and discussing, before bursting out like this again.

No one has denied that experiences are real. Every experience is real by definition. The more subtle, difficult and important question however, is whether or not what is experienced represents something more than a distorted model of reality. That is what we are discussing here, and if you wish to contribute productively that is what you should be addressing as well.

No one has said it's not something crazy to be conscious either, because it certainly is, but again the discussion here would be whether or not we can account for consciousness through natural mechanisms in the brain. It doesn't take the magic away from it, it just makes us able to better understand what the fuck is going on. Lastly, who said this life means nothing? No one. Again you're just putting words into peoples mouth.

While I personally agree with you, your approach won't win many converts. Its just one of those things that can't be conveyed to another person if they don't see it themselves. There is NOTHING wrong with that either. If someone thinks its all in the brain and another person thinks something mystical is going on, these are not mutually exclusive ways of viewing reality. If I eat a piece of toast for breakfast and someone else eats eggs, how does one effect the other? I think the real issue lies when we try to convince someone in another camp that its this way or that way. Personally, I find it refreshing and beautiful that there are people who interpret reality differently than I. It just adds to the dimensionality of experience involved in living a human life.

I totally agree.

But I cant help but know that all this discussion is about trying to convince people who are not conscious about their consiousness.

Any person who spent their daily lives in a spiritual state knows, from experience, that the consciousness is not created by our brain. That it is something completely different from the bodies. We are not bodies.
Anyone who try to understand are just not doing the life style one need to see that. Anyone who try to understand the consciousness should, for a week, not touch a computer, not work, and just experience life and all the information our brain tells us about reality in nature. In no time, one will know that trying to understand consciousness is hilarious.

My own, most recent journey into hyperspace seemed to confirm for me that there is at least SOME correlation between personal, internal, mental "set and setting" and the "flavor" of hyperspace when you get there. In my most recent trip, I wanted to see exactly how long I was spending in the peak experience of the trip, I set a stopwatch on my phone, and timed everything, and recorded whatever I could recall as soon as I regained the ability to hold a pen.

As soon as I entered the space, the beings were upon me, looking at me. There were three or four of them, with their faces right up against mine, as if I was laying on an operating table. They got closer and closer and their faces elongated and turned into strange, phallic probes which they inserted into my mouth and ears and nose and eyes.... My own desire to investigate the experience scientifically and observationally seems to color the entire experience toward such things. Only "I" was the ultimate subject of scientific inquiry.

You can't really know that consciousness does not arise from the brain from pure subjective experience alone. This is completely fallacious, dogmatic and intellectually dishonest. I have had experiences in "mystical" states where I feel, there and then, that this might be the case, but I don't come back from these experiences and draw unfounded and unjustified conclusions about the nature of reality on the basis of them.

When you say that "Anyone who try to understand are just not doing the life style one need to see" that consciousness is, without doubt, not a consequence of material processes just comes off as "I am enlightened, I know the answer, the rest of you don't because you have not done as I have". It is arrogant and repulsive. You no more know this than anyone else. Trying to understand consciousness is not hilarious, but saying that you know we are more than physical processes because you experienced so in some trip or whatever is. Stay real man.

where's your evidence of this?

it's easy to make grandiose, anecdotal claims based on altered states of mind; now show some evidence that the mind exists independently from the brain.

He experienced it! Duuh

Try not to overanalise life too much, for there is beauty in the experiencing of something as wondrous as a simple humble elf. Sit back, relax and get to know the chap. Say hello from the Nexus, and offer a mug of beer.....

We should stop trying to argue this point. Subjective experience is exactly that; subjective. Nothing can be proven in this regard, but if you REALLY get it, you know you don't NEED to prove it. The experience is enough to convince certain people, others not so much. Why can't we all just agree to disagree on it?

If the conversation isn't going anywhere, only derailing into bashing one side or the other, is this in any way productive?

yea, man.
if i wanna believe pixies are real because I'm so spiritual, who are you to tell me they're not real

i'm in touch with the cosmic consciousness. you just have to believe

Consciousness indeed cannot be without a recipient (bodies or brain). The recipient is nothing more then a recipient for consciousness.

if you think that consciousness comes from the brain, you then think that consciousness is your brain talking to you.

Well who is you? how can your brain talk to you. talk to who? Your brain already knows, it doesnt need to talk to you. but it does. the brain talks to your conscience. they are exchanging stuff.

Your brain is not talking to itself, the brain is in relation with the conscience to achieve certain goals.
They are as separate as you think they are. If you think that your conscience only comes from your body, you restrict your consciousence to you and your recipient and will probably not look around and see that around you, the same consicence lives, in bees, in trees, etc. It's the same conscience. therefore we have different bodies, but the conscience is the same.

now, the interesting question is, what the consciousness wants! Probably love, but what else.

explain how a tree is conscious

You want evidence, not the truth.
You want security and assurance. Stop trying to make us believe that you want the truth.

But I'll try to adress you even if you are badly intentionate.

What is evident , is that you dont even know exactly what I mean yet you declare that I make grandiose claims. If you want evidence, you should try to understand how I'm able to say what I say. but yet you think that everyone believing what I believe are stupid.

I have read one of your marvelous comment about that was going like : anyone who belives in chakras are idiot.

how you are able to laugh at others must be really hard for you. It must be hard to think that everyone but your point of vue is stupid. I dont know how to help you really towards who you are.
If you want to believe that we are chemicals reaction and that the whole point of life is to try to seek scientific evidence, fine.