This is one of the reasons DMT is so perplexing and difficult to pin down - often it seems the phenomenology/content of the experience can be rationalised in terms of the 'set' of the individual (their psychological/neurological context, as in your case it seems). However, just as often, particularly in certain individuals, the content appears completely unrelated to the individual context or, in fact, unrelated to anything that even closely resembles consensus reality or expected imagery (in my case in fact - I almost always visit places that I can't even begin to describe)... and all too often, the commonalities appear striking across individuals. There's a lot more work that needs to be done to establish what's going on. I think we can rule out a simple transition to an alternate reality that is fixed and constant, but there is something far stranger and less predictable going on...

PS - "Looking at a series of nude photos" - you can say "after watching porn", we're not going to judge you

I think it is well explained, we can model a molecule to hit the right receptors, alter the effect by changing the shape and demonstrate a relationship of structure to function.

It seems very clear that all of the effects can be explained so well by structure and biological function of receptors that we can play with this effect and alter it with all sorts of molecules.

The idea that it accesses a distinct reality is not supported by any measurable evidence. Do DMT analogs each allow for a different dimension? The idea is silly to me.
Having used DMT many times at a wide dose range including heavy breakthrough doses, and having broken through many times, i have never had any indication it allowed access to any alternate dimension or reality, just that it altered the processing of physical sensory stimulus.

Unfortunately it is not well explained - engineering a molecule to hit the right receptor(s) does very little to explain why this causes the shift in the way the brain contructs reality. You are making a massive explanatory leap from receptor function to alterations in consciousness that simply cannot be justified...



Again, not true - whilst we have some understanding of receptor function at the molecular level, it is not trivial to explain how this relates to changes in cognition/perception etc - not even close. We do have limited understanding of how this might work though (read my paper if you haven't done so - I explain what is known in some detail)



It is supported by the phenomenology of the experience and our understanding of how the brain learns to construct reality - if you haven't read my paper you should..hopefully it will clarify my position on this. Whether something seems silly to you is not a reason to dismiss it - after all, the idea of a round earth felt silly a few years ago... and nobody it saying that different analogues allow access to different dimensions. I, myself, in fact, am arguing from a DMT exceptionalist position - DMT analogues do not seem to allow access to different dimensions and DMT seems exceptional in this regard...



You are unusual in this regard - a large proportion of Strassman's volunteers experienced access to what appeared to be alternate realities... we can't make judgements based only on personal experience, but must look at the phenomenology across a large number of people...

I completely disagree, the reason for the effects of psychedelic molecules is rather well understood IMO.

Secondly my results are pretty typical, i have given DMT to around twenty people over the last eight years, not one reported some other form of reality.

Strassmans subjects displayed dose dependent effects including at higher levels alien abduction experiences that caused him to stop the experiments out of compassion, if the molecule allowed access to another reality why would that reality be dose dependent in terms of effects? Once you are there you would be there, increasing the dose should not keep altering the reality unless it is an effect and not a form of reality.

I did read the paper, and while i do not want to address it entirely, i will point out it completely ignores the NMDH receptor role and how without this receptor the 5-HT2A receptor does nothing regarding psychedelic action... that seems pretty vital to me.

That's simply untrue - there is some understanding, based on molecular studies and, more recently, fMRI work from Nutt's lab, but it is simply incorrect to say that it is understood why DMT and other psychedelics create the perceptual effects they do - there are theories and conjecture, but it is not clear yet. This is especially the case for DMT, where the effects are, in my opinion, extremely difficult to explain.



Again, there is massive observer bias here - all your subjects were given DMT (from where? characterised by NMR and GCMS?) by you...



Again this is untrue - of course the effects are dose-dependent... there needs to be sufficient DMT in the brain to effectively swamp the effects of 5HT (to simplify) and you'd expect to see a transitional phase (as is seen). Actually, there is a threshold at which the transition takes place, as would be expected. The dose-dependence says nothing about whether the DMT reality is autonomous or otherwise. And nobody is saying that you "go somewhere" in a literal sense, just that the brain shifts into an alternate world-building mode. Even when you are not on DMT, you aren't "there" (as in this consensus world) in any objective fashion - your brain is constructing your reality as a model of the external world whatever that may be - you can never have direct access to the external world (re Kant's phenomenon (world as it appears) vs noumenon (world-in-itself, which is not accessible)... when DMT floods the brain, it begins to construct a different reality, assuming dosage is sufficient - how this happens is what I'm interested in, but it is certainly not understood...

You mean NMDA right? Well, the paper only presented an overview of the effects of activation of the 5HT2A receptor - just enough to explain (admittedly in simplified terms) how psychedelic effects may be generated... it was not intended to be a detailed account of all receptors that are involved and the crux of the argument doesn't rest on 5HT2A alone (as I explain in the paper) and no doubt other receptor types are involved. However, 5HT2A is necessary, but perhaps not sufficient, as shown by the ketanserin experiments blocking 5HT2A in humans and preventing psilocybin effects...

I completely disagree with you.

I will not go into details critique of the paper, but find it untenable and glib for my tastes.

It also begins with a position which it seeks to justify instead of exploring the position in terms of evidence, for me it is not scientific.

However I have no problem with you believing it or crediting it as scientific.

Correct, NMDA, the psychedelic effect involves 5-HT2a and NMDA, prevent either one from being targeted and you have no effect, hit both and you have a psychedelic effect. The molecule however has to have a shape that transmits the signal in a refracted way, if it does not have this, it is not a psychedelic.

They are in concert the only two receptors implicated in the psychedelic effect.

Then you have structure and function relationships for the refraction of the signal and you can modify structure to alter the refraction and alter effects and even tailor them, then you can alter structure to tailor metabolism, you can design molecules around this and largely control effects and duration and other aspects like potency.

Is there any experiment that confirms the reception of data from outside the environment and the individual during a DMT episode or from any psychedelic? To my knowledge there has not been.

You are welcome to disagree with me, but you might want to explain exactly why.



Glib? I think I carefully explain everything I propose in a clear and cogent manner - it went through 2 referees and many revisions to ensure that this was the case. Your tastes aren't really relevant...



Of course, but that's not how I actually went about developing the ideas - I'm just presenting the conclusion that I will attempt to justify, but in reality the reverse happened... the paper isn't a chronological document - the introduction was just to draw the reader in and explain what I was going to justify, in order that it may help the reader understand where I am going and aid understanding on the way...

Please provide a reference that demonstrates a psychedelic drug binding to NMDA receptors. Yes there's an interaction between 5HT2A and NMDA, but this is intrinsic.




You're not making any sense here - "refraction of the signal"? "tailor metabolism"? Whatever you mean by this, you haven't explained the perceptual effects of DMT.



No you're right and it is an open question as to whether such data reception is even possible - I draw no definitive conclusions on this...

http://www.erowid.org/re...=6616&DocPartID=6141

Worth reading if you have not yet.

I disagree, I believe a straightforward explanation exists and it is such that allows the engineering of molecules with similar effects.


I do not think this has been demonstrated, for example the effects you attribute as unique to DMT are experienced by many people involving other molecules at high doses.


The worlds DMT users find themselves in are completely unlike the dream world, bear no apparent relationship to consensus reality, and yet possess commonalities that are
diffi cult to explain, unless they are modulated by an extrinsic sensory
component of an unknown nature or are expressions of autonomous
structures within the collective unconscious.[/quote]
Emphasis mine, this narrow dichotomy excludes alternative explanations and is a false dichotomy. Moreover there is not enough conservation of effect and symbolism in the experience to support the latter conclusion, there is too much diversity.



We can demonstrate alien world type effects with other molecules that are totally synthetic, thus this premise is unsupported.

Lastly the premise here is dubious:




Can I have their names?
I would love to discuss this paper with them instead of you.
I want to know their thoughts on certain claims.

Do not answer that question.


Albert, you know better than to ask.

Did you miss the part where he said he is a COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGIST? He is a scientist, he knows the craft almost certainly better than you ever will. Your opinion is just that. An opinion. When you can muster up the motivation and courage to research, write, submit, and get published a paper on psychedelics IN ANY JOURNAL then maybe you will be taken serious, but if you honestly think your childish retorts in this thread will mean anything to any future readers of this thread I believe you are mistaken. Seriously just run back along to your cave of negativity.

BTW Laughingcat I loved reading your paper... (I'm a computational chemist myself and have done a good bit of computational biology work in my day as well... )

Yes I've read this paper - I don't deny the interaction between 5HT2A and NMDA, just that psychedelics interact directly with this receptor. Anyway, as I said, the model I discuss doesn't rely solely on a pure 5HT2A effect, which is obviously unrealistic anyway.




I think we can agree to disagree on this issue, as going back and forth on it isn't going to get us anywhere...




I think it can be justified that DMT is exceptional in many phenomenological features, all of which I explain in the paper.





I don't think the dichotomy is false - I think it is well-justified and whilst there is a great deal of diversity in experiences, the commonalities are striking.





The conclusion I suggest with respect to DMT's relationship with the brain doesn't rest solely on alien world experiences, but on a range of other properties that make DMT exceptional... further, the reliability with which DMT facilitates access to these alien realities is, in my opinion, unique. However, I don't doubt that synthetic analogues might generate comparable effects.



I think it's arguable, which is why I said arguably... is your brain's ability to construct your entire world not remarkable?



Well, it's supposed to be anonymous....

Thanks - glad you liked it... it's very easy to be negative and pooh-pooh someone's work from across the wires but I'm surprised by the vitriol on this site... thanks for the positive comments, especially from a fellow computational scientist...

I think it is arguable that the brain constructs the world we experience.
Would the evidence not also support that it filters and processes the world, via sensory stimulus? Certainly organisms lacking a developed brain respond to their environment and appear to perceive stimulus.

I did not mean to intrude by asking about the referees, I have exchanged with various people involved in psychedelic publications and find the topic incredibly interesting.



This reliability appears debatable at best and may rest upon creative interpretation.

I think it well-established that the perceived world is a 'model' of the external world that is indeed constructed by the brain. And whilst organisms with more primitive brains can respond to the environment (as can a robot for that matter), our exquisite representation of the world is pretty special.



No problem. Perhaps watch your tone in your exchanges?




Perhaps, perhaps not - this is certainly debatable and this is what an academic discussion should be - a debate... I don't expect everyone to agree with me and my paper was intended to stimulate further discussion, not to be a definitive explanation...If you disagree with what I say in the paper and think it is straightforward to explain DMT's effects, pulling together ideas from neuroscience, psychology, pharmacology etc into a coherent explanation for DMT's effects and pharmacological peculiarities, please write a paper doing so, get it published in a peer-reviewed journal and send me the link when it's published. Believe me, it ain't easy and most journals aren't interested in viewpoints that stray from conventional neuroscientific paradigms and I dare say that we need fresh ideas in this field, even if they eventually turn out to be incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete...

We can discuss this further with PM, another thread or agree to disagree.
I believe the claim is strongly debatable.


Agreed.

However some of the issue may arise from the lack of understanding of what consciousness is in terms of a total explanation of it's peculiarities.

this.
for definitely.