He's not. Just some random personality who happens to have an opinion on DMT. I have never heard of him 1 week ago.



Again, just because I've never done DMT doesn't mean I can't be interested. I am here mostly to inquire about the experience.

Don't get all worked up now because I'm questioning whether these entities encountered are real beings or a product of the brain. Skepticism is good.

I think to form a valid opinion on something you really need to approach it from both sides of the argument. Even if I feel someone says something I agree with 100%, I won't actually know I agree with it until checking out the opposite/alternates. I might be surprised to find my opinion changes, but that can only be a good thing.

Maybe a DMT experience would do this for you? It might just serve to reinforce your current belief, but that's fine. More than fine, it's awesome.

Edit:

And a more specific response to your above post, nothing anyone ever says and nothing you ever read will come close to describing or explaining a DMT experience, in my opinion.

I agree completely but the only hitch I see, and what I believe has started such a popular thread, was the fact that OP stated after hours of research he has come to this conclusion. Now I don't know about you but hours of actual research to me would include reading about both sides of the spectrum.

All I saw was OP coming to a conclusion based on what one guy said, and someone that doesn't receive a whole lot of support from members of this forum. To me OP has come to a "theory" as stated in the title rather than a "conclusion" as stated in the OP. I'm just used to also hearing pros and cons about both ideas and I haven't seen much of that here from the one go has concluded that DMT is all in our head. Although I understand he mostly means to say this is what he thinks so far.

I am not biased towards any side, I am looking at this problem from a neutral perspective. Let me elaborate, by researching DMT I meant reading hundreds of trip reports and reading about the serotonin-like pharmacology of DMT. I've literally been obsessed with this topic for the past few months. Of course some first hand experience would be nice, but I don't have that at the moment, and might not at all. I've explained why here:

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...&m=471289#post471289

I am not making any definite claims. It's just my theory and I don't understand why a few of you are getting all angry.... Reminds me of what would happen if a Darwinist stumbles into a creationist forum making scientific claims.



Never mind David Icke. I just used that video as a thread start, it might have also been interesting to watch for some of you. He went off the deep end when he began talking about how DMT is part of the Illuminati-like conspiracy, but nonetheless it's interesting how he explains his experience.

I have to say from your initial post, it certainly doesn't seem like you were standing on neutral ground.

Well then you are mistaken. I would more than love for me to be wrong, but lets not ignore the giant elephant in the room, that DMT is a substance that messes with brain chemistry and distorts perception.

For comparison, let's say you could never have an orgasm, for some hypothetical genetic reason. Not an perfect comparison, but it is an intense and subjective experience with physiologically measurable effects. Substitute your peak experience of choice if you want.

You could read about orgasms, study the medical literature, do studies and collect data, learn everything you could learn 'about' orgasms without having one.

Would you have gained any actual internal experience which subjectively told what the experience was? With no grounds for comparison, how would you even know? Would you expect others to accept your ideas, opinions and learned facts over their own personal experience?

Now multiply the subjectivity of the experience by the intense weirdness factor that everyone describes, that this stuff barely even fits into language at all. How do you expect others to trust what you say you 'know' about the experience?

If you were blind would you expect the sighted to trust your ideas about the color red over what they see whan they look at a stop sign?

No intent to offend, but most people who are into this sort of stuff do so because by nature they reject the dogma of others over first hand experience. Some folks here are true believers in their own way of seeing, some are absolute skeptics and most I bet are too dumbfounded by it all to say they know anything for sure, but just coming in and telling people that you've done enough research to know what is and is not real about an experience you've never had seems sort of silly at best.

I'm well aware that if I had experience in DMT my understanding would be better, duh. But I was hoping some of you users would give me your opinions and help crack this thing. Let me know if I'm on the right track, but apparently I'm not because this thread generated lots of responses from bitter people who think I'm out to destroy the divinity of the DMT molecule. I repeat, just because I have no experience doesn't mean I can't be interested in this topic.

Just to elaborate, I am happy to see that you are interested in DMT, and are skeptical about the common belief of it being "real". I really don't think that anyone is upset that you feel that way, although to be sure I would have to go back and reread the entire thread again. Personally from my experience in this community it's more about the way you stated your theory and how you got there.

This community is very critical about its members being specific in what they say. I urge you as a friendly reminder to take that into consideration while posting. Simply assuming they will know what you have researched or whatever will just bring about confusion. If you researched both sides then just say so. Using the correct terminology, or close to it, will help future posts become more clear and precise about the idea they are representing.

Also to add, many people come to this forum from time to time claiming they "know" something and come to find out they have no clue what the heck they are talking about, so it's to be expected unless you bring forth to the table what you know, how you know it, why ect ect. Listing sources from both sides of the argument and why you agree/disagree would bring about a more thorough understanding of where you stand and why, which allows for more constructive talk.

Ya know?

Yes, it alters brain activity...now what? You haven't examined all the logical cause-effect possibilities. If I see a bird in consensual reality with open eyes, my brain activity would be altered by that too. Now if hypothetically DMT allows you to see other things that are "there" but not normally perceptible, the very perceiving of them would naturally and expectedly cause an alteration in brain activity, the very same as would the perception of the bird. It doesn't necessitate (though possible) that the altered brain activity is that which exclusively generates the hallucination.

I advocate a more genuinely neutral (IMO) stance which postulates that it is a combination of these perceptual distortions via filters in the brain alongside an autonomous hyperspace. How effective one is at delivering a dose of a particular size can seem to determine in part how much of which side of the spectrum you're getting (your own internal filters, or the crystal clear multidimensional alternate reality with its own set of autonomous inhabitants). If you try to assess the situation too linearly, as an "either or" kind of deal, you're bound to hit a wall from either side.

Good post. So to those DMT users who are convinced this experience is "real", does DMT enable us to bypass the brains normal filters and allow us to see things as they actually are? Is this "hyperspace" synonymous with the "afterlife" reported in NDE's? Why is the presence of Mantis-like beings a common trait among DMT experiences? Why is this experience so hard to put into words? Lots of questions but I'm unsatisfied with most of the answers.

This thread was too silly to jump into before... yet another person stating Kent's assertions as their own "theory."

Bringing Icke into this as proof of any sort is odd... considering David Icke also believes in shape changing Reptilians and hosts of things you probably would blanch at being associated with. Best to be careful about championing people you only heard of a week ago. (I have been familiar with Mr. Icke since the early 90's)

But WTH... If the thread has gone this many posts deep, it is probably worth wading in.

1) Having a strong opinion about something you have never experienced is generally not a wise thing.

2) Hours of reading is nothing, and 6 months of obsession is not a whole lot. Some of us have been doing DMT for decades.

3) Telling people with actual experience that they are misguided about something they have not only researched, but in many cases actually pushed the envelope of what is known about this stuff... is arrogant.

4) The backlash the OP has received would only be more pronounced if the subject at hand was nearly anything else. (i.e. I have a theory (which I borrowed) about what is really going on when you __________, though I have never actually done that before myself. Fill in: have sex, fall in love, travel to Bolivia, raise kids etc.)

5) Why is the OP so intent on studying DMT if he/she has no intention of trying it? If the OP is prone to psychosis (as indicated) then perhaps being obsessed with an hallucinogen is not the best use of your time.

6) All of the supposed knowledge of neuroscience on this thread amounts to nothing even remotely approaching any kind of proof of anything.

7) If someone has not yet had an experience themselves... it is healthy to be skeptical. This goes even more for spiritual or non-physical things.

Everyone, the OP included, is entitled to have an opinion. Even opinions that seem misguided to the majority of people who are not simply obsessed with DMT, but are doing it regularly and increasing the very knowledge base you seem to think gives you the ability to extrapolate from.

9) Insisting that your theory explains DMT or that OBEs are all illusions simply because they can be triggered by stimulating the brain a certain way is a classic rush to judgement fallacy.

10) As usual... Gibran2 has basically hit the nail on the head regarding all of this, and in his usual eloquent style.


That is enough I suppose.

Is DMT real?

A) As real as any other experience... depending on your definitions of the word.

B) People tend to start off doubting it, but eventually have to seriously question that stance if they use DMT enough at high doses. By the time people have a few dozen breakthroughs under their belt, they tend to change their tune entirely. Those of us with over 1000 entheogenic trips are nearly universally of the opinion that we are actually communicating with external intelligences that are well beyond our ability to imagine or make up... who are not archetypes... and who are not misfiring neurons.

C) When you are ready and worthy of the experience, the entities are very capable of proving themselves to you... in undeniable fashion. Once you have had them tell you things you never knew before and check it out in real life... things you could not know, like locations of objects you didn't even know existed... it will rock your world.

D) Even if DMT were an illusion generated purely neurochemically... The experience of time crawling to a standstill as you have years worth of subjective experience and glimpse worlds beyond your wildest imagining... have light beings explain the inner workings of the Universe to you and heal you of nagging ailments mental and physical....... This is all very practical and useful.

E) Thus the question of illusion or not is relatively moot. The real questions are what can we learn from these experiences, how can we use them to our advantage, how many times do you have to be struck speechless with awe and flabbergasted to the point of drooling... before you are willing to accept that the stuff you are seeing is not just neurons or your imagination... It is a divine gift of the highest order.



I really think that the current wave of interest in DMT by young, inexperienced, non-psychonaut materialists is a bit disheartening. Most of these kids are not really cut out for DMT. If someone has a hard time with weed and hasn't even done LSD... they should probably put off doing DMT until they learn to doggy paddle in the shallow end of the pool.


HF

I can assure you I did not borrow this theory from James Kent, I only used some of his quotes because perhaps he has more credibility, and expereince with DMT than me. Besides, all this theory is just the complete opposite of the "hyperspace is real" crowd. It's not hard to come by.



If you actually took the time to read the OP, you would have realized that I am not agreeing with Icke at all, but actually criticizing him.



So I'm not allowed to inquire about it just because I've never done it?



Please give me a quote where I said someone was misguided.



Again, please do not assume I have borrowed the theory from James Kent, because that simply isn't true.



Another quick witted assumption. I do have the intention of trying DMT, in the form of Ayhuasca. It would be safer for my psyche because it's more gradual and less intense.





I believe you are mistaking me with another poster. Though I know of Dr.Persingers "god helmet", I did not mention anything of the sort on this thread.



Interesting. Thanks.



I can't help but think this is somehow directed at me. Unfortunately it is not my fault that I am having problems with weed, it is genetic.... For this reason I am very hesitant to take a dive into hyperspace, I don't want to end up in a straight jacket speaking gibberish. I'm a very down to earth person and I think this experience would leave me in a complete mind-fuck. Especially with my habit of having to rationalize and explain everything.

First I'm going to quote myself from some other relevant thread






I'll try and answer your questions to the best of my abilities. Hyperspace is a very frequency-based phenomenon. The notion of frequency ties into the experience at every step along the way. There are visual colors of light, there are audio frequencies (often high in pitch), there are tactile frequencies in the form of buzzing, and at the end of the day, all of these frequencies often are well-interconnected. Perhaps it is the case that we are dialing into a different frequency. We for example have radio waves and ultraviolet rays bombarding us and passing through us constantly, yet we remain perpetually unaware of them. Had we not developed devices to detect them, we would have no way of knowing that they exist. DMT may be thought of as a biological frequency detector.

Part of the problem is that these experiences appear to be non-consensual. That is that we cannot verify them with others in consensual reality, however if it is the case that the entities are real and autonomous, then it is consensual with them. For all the entities present at the experience, everyone involved can all sense each other, so the "consensuality" (if I may make up a word) can be dependent on perspective. Because of the quick metabolization of DMT via MAO, we naturally and quickly revert back to baseline brain chemistry. If through evolution we were to have produced more DMT than serotonin, our view of with whom consensual refers to might be quite altered.

I can't say that hyperspace is synonymous with the NDE's as I've never had one, but I have had DMT experiences that were NDE-like with the bright white light, in a seemingly timeless state. Though not particularly common (for me) it remains a possibility that there is overlap of the spaces. In Ebin Alexander's famous recent book on his NDE, I found many similarities with my DMT experiences. Of particular note was describing going to different "heavens" or something to that extent, accentuating his particular like of the beautifully adorned "Egyptian heaven". That is quite congruent with my numerous Egyptian experiences which do in fact carry a superb element of beauty, superseding much other hyperspatial imagery in my opinion.

There's a lot of overlap in people's experiences other than just mantises. Personally I see all types of animals from lions to gorillas to anacondas to insects to horses, and others I'm probably forgetting. A lot of these animals carry strong and consistent cross-cultural mythological symbolism, and this symbolism is sometimes consistent within the experience. When it is, it reifies at least in part the possible external nature of the experience.

Lastly it's so hard to put into words because the vast majority of things that one encounters there can tend to have no reference point to anything from consensual reality. There are simply many things which have no consensual reality analogues. Because it is for practicality's sake non-consensual, developing any kind of new working language around these new kinds of objects and details which is a communal task can be quite challenging. What good are words anyway? If we take a cheesy example like a Star Wars movie, and try to describe the movie or a particular scene to someone who has not only never seen a Star Wars movie, but has never seen any sci-fi movie of any kind, what that scene was like, the chance that the person would actually be able to accurately recreate that scene in his head is close to nil.

Even for those who are well familiar with the movie or a particular scene, the simple act of remembering is hindered by memory being based primarily in expectation and not genuine recollection. If for example, you try to remember your last visit to the grocery store, and you try and picture the items on the shelves, the only reason you can really do that is because you have a decent amount of experience with grocery shopping (and probably the particular store) and so you'd expect to find soda cans, and soup and this and that on the shelves, and you have word labels for all of these things so they are easily accessible by the dominant language-driven left hemisphere. When you attempt the memory, you are visualizing more of what you expect to see, and less of what you actually saw. In the case of DMT, there are vastly fewer labels, expectations are lower, and memory of the experience is shattered even moments after it's over. With repeated experience, expectations become more accurate and reliable and thus memory of the experience can be enhanced even if worded labels are still a bit lacking.

But what is it you expect? What would 'crack' it for you? You can't actually know an experience by knowing about the experience. What more can someone else tell you, and what do you expect that to do? Even the idea that it can be cracked sort of shows a lack of perspective.

Now I am not attacking you, just wanted to clear a few things up for you. Hope this helps. Also I think your taking everyones replies personally. I know firsthand that most of the times your accusing someone of being upset or angry they are not, they are just questing your stand point, sometimes aggresively but thats only because you came on here with a theory and we are challenging you. So please dont take it so personally otherwise this thread will go nowhere and you wont get what you came for. Which was answers, clarification, and some insight from experienced users of psychedelics and most importantly DMT. Right?



Having a strong opinion is not the same thing as inquiring about something. Your posts come off slightly strong as if you are saying "I Know".



Ok here's one.



misguided  [mis-gahy-did]
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: ill-advised, deluded
Synonyms: bearded, bum-steer, confused,...



Ok so how about some background then, because if you take exactly what you have told us, which is, after hours of research this is what I believe, which is very similiar to James Kents ideas if not exact cause you havent been to descriptive of exactly what your theory is, especially what is different from kents. I am pretty sure James Kent came up with his ideas more than 6 months ago...



I would go back and do some more research. Cause both those are incorrect. Freebase DMT in small doses (10-15mg) is not only accurate but very easy to deal with in comparison to an ayahuasca dose where you would get something out of it. Some of my most memorable experiences were on 15-20mg and were intense but def manageable and easy on the psyche.



HF is referring to when you stated its just a drug and has serotonergic effects making it just mess with your perception. For example:





Ok to start, one of the things you brought up was not understanding why its so hard to put into words a DMT experience. This kind of question I can understand and have heard it asked before. First off, can you imagine a world that works on a completely different set of physics than this one? Now take that world and turn it inside out. Shake it a little, add some beings that also seem to have their own set of physics that is changing every few seconds. Oh and throw everything you thought you knew out the window. Now couple that with being able to see an object, often times geometric but sometimes an actual object (that isnt clear but you can see through it) and make it fold and unfold at THE SAME TIME. All while you are being uploaded so much information you can barely process 1% of it, forget about remembering 1% of that, and all this while feeling everything in existence loving you like you are its soul mate ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

Thats about as good as I can explain it, and trust me that doesnt even get close.

this thread...




much love,
tat

Here's some links to some videos of the kind of multidimensional geometry from hyperspace. Bear in mind these are all of the crudest examples. It would be like saying a cube is a 3D object, bearing in mind that humans in 3D bear little resemblance to the simplistic cube. You can think of these sort of as the mechanics for some of the interdimensional geometry that we perceive.

Here is the four dimensional tesseract.

This video climaxes with the four dimensional 120 cell

This is the eight dimensional E8

To anticipate a possible question, when you watch your television set, although the light is being projected from a two dimensional surface, the brain interprets the images as three dimensional. This is due to perspective. Planes (or dimensions) juxtaposed at right angles can further create the experience of perceiving the upper dimensions projected from your two dimensional computer screen.

I am mostly only speculating and hoping that you all will provide input.



All this theory is about is the opposite of the those who believe hyperspace is "real" (again, I don't want to argue semantics about the definition of real). I don't know why James Kent should have some kind of copy right on this theory, because take my word for it I had the belief that the DMT experience is a product of the complex brains neurology before I ever heard of James Kent, and so did many others. It's like the Swastika, a universal symbol that is found in both India and the Americas (among other places), but this basic design developed independently. It's not like Indians migrated to the Americas in antiquity or anything.

?

I hope were done going back and forth about the past threads, just trying to let you know that your posts havent been very revealing. Anyways, ayahuasca is fine I'm not bashing on it. You might take into consideration that they are two different experiences were talking about.

Not sure what you meant by , but I can assure you you have only just begun climbing the never ending hill. Just reaching my hand out to help you up to a higher viewpoint.