Your disdain for simulation is wholly misplaced - simulations are essential if we are to understand the computational complexity of the brain, for example...

I am more of a computational biologist these days, but here's a paper from my PhD, when I was a wet biochemist....

cool!
thanks

No problem, nothing to do with DMT though...

yea, that much I gathered. I just love biochem.
sorry to derail; nice paper in the original post, must've been really tedious. Well-presented, though.

I hate wet biochem (i.e. actually doing it - pipetting, pipetting, pipetting, plating, pipetting), which is why I got out and moved into computational work... and, no, it wasn't tedious as such... a labour of love I would say...

I'm the opposite, a pipette jockey; born for the lab.

but I like that...your pure interest of DMT, and how it works on the brain. you've devoted time and effort to the study of this molecule. Hats off to you.

dear laughingcat,



For me it does give me a view on what kind of work would or would not be accepted. The standards of screening for articles are usually broader than a review system.

In my opinion the JSE is a platform for promoting things like ufo's,the reality of dowsing, ESP and so forth, written and presented in a scientific way. And since I really don't believe in any of those things I think it's a pseudoscience journal. With this in mind I think it is valid to point out to other members of this community that the JSE is a somewhat controversial journal that is not accepted in mainstream science.

So for now I'm going to quit this discussion since I really get the feeling your offended by my opinion. Also I think your reply's are not really constructive and leave no room for different opinions.

all the best.

I don't even know who James Kent is

I would say that sensing alien life forms sounds silly to me. I doubt most people would disagree.

Have you ever seen something out of the corner of your eye assumed it to be one thing yet on closer inspection it turns out to be something entirely different? This is your brain assigning an identity to an object and getting it wrong. Now lest assume that this part of your brain is overstimulated and not communicating particularly well with the part of your brain that deals with logic and reason. Now it is also reviving a lot of scrambled shapes colours and noise from the areas that deal with vision. Why would it not be logical that it could conjure up snakes, demons, fractals and alien landscapes which themselves could trigger feelings and emotions.

States such as dreaming the brain has evolved with and are triggered internally through the careful release of neurotransmitters a DMT flash is so different because our minds are overwhelmed by something that profoundly alters the normal thought process.

I'm not offended at all - I just thought it fair to defend the JSE and point out why I don't think it pseudoscience, just like the well-credentialed authors and editorial board. You disagree and that's fine.

I also don't think I have shot anyone's opinions down (can you give an example?) - of course I have answered criticisms and queries, but what am I supposed to do? That's what a scientific (ahem) debate/discussion is about... I never said I was right and anyone that doesn't agree with me is wrong, but how else am I supposed to defend my position? By just agreeing when someone doesn't agree with what I've written? I'm slightly confused by your comment...

And you're probably right - all I'm saying is we must be careful not to dismiss something when, to be honest, we really don't know...



Well this is the standard explanation, but as I've explained, the brain will normally make sense of chaotic data it doesn't understand by trying to match it to known forms - ultra-bizarre alien landscapes and unimaginably powerful entities don't fall into that category generally - this is why I think this explanation falls short of being satisfactory.



This is kind of circular - how does DMT profoundly alter normal thought processes? What's the mechanism? Why does the brain then start building complex and completely non-standard worlds? These are the questions I'm trying to answer...

tough crowd

but that's a good thing, as you know. The members here love hard science, evidence. It separates us from the new-agey crowd who distrust science, and favor metaphysical conjecture.
I didn't notice any metaphysical conjecture in the paper.

I believe it is possible that the experience could be only internal. I have had many experiences to where I experienced this. BUT, that does not mean it is. Just like how you say that its logical that the brain could conjure up these things does not mean it is. Maybe it is capable, maybe not. If it is capable does not mean that DMT is just that, brain conjurations.

I have also had experiences that lend me to believe completely otherwise. There is nothing going on that should cause you to truly believe one way or another. It's all completely subjective at this point so your argument isn't really valid.



Aren't our minds overwhelmed by serotonin also? We can't forget that DMT is also naturally produced somewhere in our body, and its mode of action is not understood. This entire reality could be conjured up by our natural release of DMT in our bodies, which it could also conjure up the DMT state. Which COULD mean that both are real. Or both are an illusion. Or both.

I don't mind hard science, but only when it's actually hard science and not "I just think it's my brain making it up" - this is what I was trying to tackle when writing the paper... Is it just your brain? What does neuroscience tell us about this possibility? Does it stack up? It's very easy to say "it's just hallucination", but I wanted to take this presumption apart and see if it holds water...

Exactly. Dennis McKenna calls reality a serotonin hallucination - this is kind of what he means... both the serotonin and DMT hallucination may be illusions or both real... at this point we lose any frame of reference for what reality means and this may be necessary if we are to understand DMT....

According to the Vedas, everything is illusion, apart from the Self... perhaps these age-old mystics were onto something...

By that your saying that you don't care what I have to say and by that I get the feeling your discrediting my opinion.


that's not nice, are your implying I'm not


actually I did and this is how I formed my opinion


wow are you implying I'm that 1 percent?

I could go on but see no reason for that.

hope your well

Yes, I think too many people are comparing the reality that DMT brings us to the reality we currently experience. Which we have no idea what it even is. We do not yet understand who we are, how we are, what we are doing, and why we have no recollection of anything before having been born.

The biggest issue with this entire idea, in debatable form, is that we do not currently have the ability to measure what we are experiencing, whether during normal states or psychedelic states, because we have nothing solid to measure them against. So instead we measure everything against normal waking states. So then we compare what we see in DMT land with what we see here and it isn't all that impossible to see, just using that understanding, that we could imagine such a place. Although, being able to imagine such a place does not make that place non existent.

Scientifically we measure what the brain is doing while in these states against what we know it does while in normal waking states, dream states ect. I remember seeing a study that showed there actually was a difference in brain activity between dreaming and a psychedelic state. That the psychedelic state produced brain activity that was more akin to when the brain is actually seeing something. For the life of me I can't find it nor can I remember exactly what the study was on.

No, he is saying that certain things are not important in this discussion. Scientific or not isn't important. The paper and how people feel about what it says is, anyones opinion on anything else is irrelevant.



Now you are just taking offense.



again, taking offense.

expandaneum, you have posted more than once how you are "no longer partaking in the conversation". And it seems more that the offense you have taken is being applied to laughingcat, as if he is offended. No need to challenge the validity of paper itself, but healthy discussion about its contents is welcome.

I wasn't referring to you personally and I didn't mean your opinion on whether it was scientific wasn't important, only that ANY debate on whether it's scientific is only going to go nowhere... I wanted to discuss the content of the paper rather than defining it as scientific or otherwise... does that make sense?


that's not nice, are your implying I'm not

... I just thought saying that the JSE might not have high "standards of screening" suggested somehow that my paper slipped through the net and wasn't worthy of being published... can you not see how I read that?


actually I did and this is how I formed my opinion

... apologies if I was abrupt here - one writes things quickly and doesn't necessarily read them aloud....




No, not at all - I think you've raised some interesting points, but there have been a few that seem only to want to poo-poo my work and that's not really the point of this forum...

I quite enjoyed the read, very well written and obviously had a lot of thought and work put into it. it showed.






This is something that has been catching my interest a lot as of late. Though my knowledge of neurochemistry is well, not there, it's fun to think about nonetheless.