Jin,

I agree with you on the disrespect but if you read into why they were made, not justifying, you will see that OP's standpoint is being challenged. Even though he hasn't claimed that he believes it 100%, just that from what he's read so far this is what he thinks.

Some members including myself have attributed answers to some of his questions and he has thanked is for that. I agree the wording has been disrespectful but I also see that most members have been fixated on the fact that OP wasn't as clear as we would like him to be about his intentions of this thread. But I don't see why no one seems to see that he has clarified that he saw that kent had similiar ideas as he had come to, that he isn't biased towards one belief or the other and that he is asking for our input.

So logically I would think members here could drop the argument about WHY he is asking questions and WHY he said this or said that and get back on topic to actually giving input like the scientifically minded community that were are suppose to be. Stop telling him what he's saying and ask for him to clarify, ask questions yourself rather than beating this thread to death.

And so what if he worshipped James kent and David icke. So what if he actually thought DMT is beyond a reasonable doubt just hallucinations of the mind. Instead of bashing him on why he shouldn't think that way do what you do best as a user of psychedelics that teach you how to be a better person and get along with everyone better and teach! This is a library of a wealth of information that we have all helped to build and instead of tryijg to just share that info were all going on about when it's ok to have a theory and how OP should word things so on and so forth.

I can't for the life of me understand why so many members continually believe that OP can't have a theory that is similiar to another persons and call it there own. Or that OP is asking for our point of view on what hyperspace is and what DMT is doing.

Stop fixating in one thing OP said, READ the entire thread and take into consideration the te-clarifications he has made to help us understand where he actually stands. Forgive or forget. You choose.

To all:

This thread has now steered far away from the original topic of the OP's views on DMT. We are all now discussing, ad nauseam, the OP's delivery instead of the topic itself. This is reason enough, in my opinion, to lock the thread. Either we start addressing his view on DMT or this thread no longer serves a purpose.

Please consider this when posting again. Otherwise, there is no reason to continue and this thread will be locked.

Thanks.

Not to mention that people are spelling Neural"s name wrong. You can always tell that a thread is going down the pan when we start mis-spelling eachother"s names .



I can very much relate to the above (if i am understanding it right). I often just recall flashes of an experience which gets translated by my own personal logic and then i may fill in the gaps to fit however i have related to said experience. In that case there is a high possibility that 80% of what i think are my DMT voyages are made in my head.

I can remember about the same percentage of the full day from 5 days ago as I can a DMT experience from 5 minutes ago. Does that mean the full day was all in my head too?

I don"t know. Only you can answer that question based on the actual events that you actually do recall from 5 days ago and how you have decided to put the rest of the day together in relation to those memories.
Say you went to a shop 5 days a go and decided to buy a bag of crisps. Normally you buy cheese and onion, because that is your favourite flavour. Maybe at the time you decided on salt and vinegar for a change. If that particular memory had been lost then perhaps, due to your embedded feelings on various crisp flavours, you recall a false memory that you bought a bag of cheese and onion 5 days ago.

ok coming back to topic and not derailing this thread further .....i believe the DMT experience or any experience , even the experience of life is not only a product of synapses firing , sure that plays a part too yet it is very much outside us , like we experience reality ....sights , sounds , smells , taste , feelings from outside us through our human bodies and brain which is equal to a tool for operating in our reality

well DMT attunes our senses to a higher reality , ever present yet beyond our ordinary senses, no doubt a lot of brain activity goes on yet brain activity is always going on ......that is nothing new

if the DMT reality was a product of our minds then we might not need to smoalk any ? simple as that !

this is not such a complicated issue ,

i have no proof yet i never needed any ,

edit: also if it is a product of our minds ........thats good eh we might be able to recreate the experience without any DMT , perhaps meditation , yogic postures , or whatever i don't know

yet what i do know is any experience be it drinking water or walking on the road its all real, and so is DMT , a real experience just like any other experience yet on a different level

many say life is an illusion , well i say its all real

illusions there are no illusions there is only that which is the truth - and this is original from my mind, not something i read , that is why its in my signature , this i believe is original statement

perhaps i should write a whole thread on this ......... i believe its all real ......dreams are real and they are really dreams , nothing more nothing less , whether they happen in our minds or we go somewhere is only speculation , the truth of the matter might be both is happening simultaneously , perhaps the brain activity is the bridge that pushes us into the higher realm ,

afterall what is conciousness ?, what is awareness ? is it your body ? is it your reality .......the truth is it is conciousness its neither you me or anybody .......its free to reside and be wherever it chooses to be and it exists everywhere simultaneously , it inhabits all of us you , me and everybody and our brains and bodies are tools for it to be

is the brain really performing on this reality , afterall the brain can even look into the past and future while in truth only the present moment exist , isn't the brain an extradimensional organ with a connection to true awareness , how is it we are able to imagine how does the brain allow us to travel at the speed of thought

what is it ? isn't the brain our bridge to a higher dimensions , and what about those scientific theories that talk of ten diemensions , i means if diemensions exist as they certainly do otherwise why would we be talking about something that does'nt exist ? why invent the word diemensions if there are none in the first place

some say dreams are not real , perhaps they are not reality , yet they are very real as real a dream needs to be and so is life , its all very real

those who say its not real .........well "real" is just a word brother ain't that true that real is nothing more than a word we use to describe an aspect of reality , yet real is still different from reality

real is real
reality is reality
dreams are dreams
DMT is DMT

everything is what it is , this real Vs in your head debate is ,,,,,,,unreal as i believe the head is very real and if its in your head its real because your head is real aswell , its as real as its needs to be as everything is real

Pechenek, since you indicated that Global's and my response were the most relative to your question, I am taking the liberty in chiming in for some extra (those who do not care about what scientific theories have to say, or what we can infer from them are free to abstain).

I can tell you this regarding your OP :

If indeed we can claim that a hallucination of a neurological nature (e.g. thinning of cortical areas / neurodegeneration) is comparable to a hallucination induced by the action of psychoactive molecules, we will unfortunately fall into the trap of bringing up a straw-man argument.

We can compare the psychedelic effects under the umbrella of a concept and only that. Because in reality, while all of these kind of trips fall into the "psychedelic" category, they are all produced by different molecules. Although some of them bind to the same receptors (with different affinities, distributions and rates however), others bind to very different receptors. Yet they produce an altered state of perception (I am not saying consciousness, since it is a much higher-level concept altogether, and still a mystery).

So we cannot even easily or validly understand the differences these bindings offer our perception, imagine how difficult it would be to compare actual states of being. Our states, of any kind, are so complex, with so many interactions, that to even attempt to understand the fine similarities between two states will bring even the most efficient researcher (again, of any kind, feel free to use the term scholar if it suits your worldview) to his knees.

Example:
I'll give you one example. The Salvinorin A (SA) molecule is virtually replacing the action of Dynorphin in our brain. Dynorphin binds strongly to the kappa opioid receptors. Our supraoptic nucleus has quite a lot of k-opioid receptors. So I can personally infer that SA binds freely to the supraoptic nucleus, and because it is a different molecule from dynorphin, it exhibits different parameters, thus rendering the action of the supraoptic nucleus different than before. I can recall that the supraoptic nucleus is partly responsible for the patterning of the electrical activity that is carried from the eyes to our striatal areas. By that logic, by introducing SA to our system, the patterning of our vision (e.g. in a monitor where it starts from top left and ends bottom right pixel by pixel) gets scrambled. Of course, since we do not operate like monitors, the "scrambling" will manifest itself differently. I can infer, that this is how SA can produce this kaleidoscopic phenomenon on our perception of vision.

This, could easily have been a slippery slope, and most likely is.

Conclusion:
It boils down to only believing in this theory if it meets your needs (for a specific purpose). Other than that, we truly cannot claim it is thus. Whatever method we use, be it the pedantic scientific one, instinctual, "gut-feeling", ancestral knowledge, or from plain brainstorming discussions.

You're not being fair. You should point out the fact I only made those comments AFTER people were taking shots at my credibility, simply because I've never tried DMT. Those were lame attempts to belittle me over and over. Either way the "insults" I made are petty in comparison from how some received me in this forum:





Oh, and what's this? you admit that you are a trouble maker and instigator. Then question why OP has the nerve to throw in a couple petty insults when defending himself? Dude, you are the epitome of a hypocrite:




You lack common sense. If I made up my mind I wouldn't create a whole thread inquiring about this all. If you think I came here to argue than you are dead wrong.



Yeah right.



Great lecture, this is what I was looking for.

^ And this thread has run its course.

Locked.

People, enough with this. We already stated that it is rediculous for someone to formulate and use a theory without having tried the actual "observation". Over, and over, and over.... and over again.

However, everyone is free to ask about a theory. Those who do not like to contribute, please do not. Those who do, can do. Simple as that. Stop the bickering. Keep threads relevant as much as you can, isn't this one of the Nexus' rules anyway?