Well, I guess we'll never find out...



When I say that minds create what we call the world, I only mean that brains/minds create a phenomenal model of the world - I have nothing to say about the noumenal world, but presumably there is one, although not necessarily where we think it is. And I'm not sure the world creates minds either. This is a really difficult issue that I actually deliberately sidestep in the paper and talk only about the informational structure of the world, which cannot be denied and is a more tractable problem. Really, the paper is about how the brain learns/evolves to represent the informational structure of the world and the implications for this in terms of DMT's effects - the interaction/relationship between brain and consciousness isn't something I consider in detail. So I think you're drawing conclusions from the paper that aren't actually in there (maybe my fault) - I tried to write a sort of 'consciousness disclaimer' in the introduction to deal with this issue, because one of the reviewers also thought it might be construed that I was making unsupportable assumptions about consciousness, which I really wasn't.





I actually think we can probably remove the word 'construct' from the discussion as it's only causing us problems. Perhaps I can put it succinctly as:

1. The brain is an information receiver/generator and uses neural coding to represent the informational structure of the world;
2. The brain has evolved to generate an informational representation of the world that is most adaptive to survival;
3. As the brain learned to generate a model of the world and wasn't dropped to earth ready to do so (as far as we know), it is surprising that it is capable of representing the information structure of worlds that ostensibly don't exist (e.g. bizarre alien worlds);
4. How did the brain learn to represent these bizarre worlds and why does the brain do so so reliably when DMT is present? This is really the question I'm trying to answer...


The latter parts of the paper are highly speculative, but are just ideas that I do my best to justify in order to provide an answer to question 4. Some might think they're unrealistic and that's fine with me. They're just ideas to play with...

Hope that makes sense...

peace train laughingcat i dig your interest in the question

Consider that i have given DMT to many and none claimed to experience alternate reality, when i shared this the author challenged it asking if i had verified it was DMT, this innate distrust is problematic.

Would he challenge the site and say that nobody here has used DMT for certain unless they had tested it to verify it?

That acacia and MHRB extractions cannot be said to be DMT?

The truth is that even here at this site we have a diversity of experiences reported and to claim that DMT causes the user to experience alternate reality is glib and untenable. Such a claim is not an accurate representation of the effects of DMT, it is merely a narrow and overly simplistic view and yet is the premise of the paper.

When posed as a question instead of a claim this is much more suitable for discussion and consideration.

However i challenge A: that the brain 'learned' this, and B: that is does so reliably.

To make the claim it does so reliably is to deny the experiences of countless others where this does not take place.

Likewise there is not much consideration of possible explanations for the experience, the paper assumes the experience is that of alternate reality. However it is also possible that the representation is a strong form of sensory modification that results in an experience reflective of the individual and their surroundings. This also indicated by the diversity of experience that seems personally dependent and the ability of enviroment to impact the experience.
What is the evidence that the experience constitutes perception of an alternate reality? I saw none in the paper.

It is actually unusual for 20+ people to independently take a 'sufficient' dose of DMT, properly prepared, and none of them experience another reality. This is why I said you need to look at a larger sample size that weren't all given the DMT by yourself. The same would apply if it was me giving the DMT - this isn't a personal attack on you, but there is always observer bias. In reality (ahem), very large proportions do seem to visit a place that is not of this Earth! Despite your claims to the contrary, a large proportion of users report eerily similar types of experiences, together with a number of other features (e.g. a strong sense of familiarity and the unshakeable conviction that the experience is really real) - I think these affective and emotional responses to DMT are as important as the visuals.The most controlled study is of course Strassman's, where all participants received a carefully titred dose of pure DMT - the proportion that experienced other worlds? I forget the exact figure, but I think it was about 40%...



I neither assume nor do I believe it - I merely suggest that it is among one of the explanations (proposed not just by me, but by Strassman, Peter Meyer, Graham Hancock and many others) for the experience (although it has obvious problems, which I also discuss).



Well, I go into some depth in the paper to challenge the idea that the brain is particularly spontaneously creative in the type of reality it is able to present to consciousness (I discuss this specifically with reference to dreams, which tend to be a continuity of waking). Assuming the brain learned to represent the informational structure of this reality (through evolution), then there is no simple explanation for how it would suddenly begin representing the structure of worlds that bear no relationship to this reality and that ostensibly don't exist. That is why DMT is interesting. But DMT is also interesting because of its unique pharmacological characteristics and the fact that it is ubiquitous in nature and arguably the simplest structurally of the classical psychedelics. All together, this suggests to me that there is something very special about DMT and I am trying, despite the opposition, to feel my way in the darkness and present a few new ideas - that is all... I continue to work on this subject and you can expect further papers to enjoy in the future whether I turn out to be correct is not important... hopefully, one day we might get to understand a little bit more about what DMT means, because I and many millions of people around the world feel that DMT is extremely important... as McKenna said, "DMT is not a secret, it is the secret." I am driven by this belief, based on my own personal experiences and those of others.... what more can I say?

Beings that the experience is highly subjective, i think its safe to say that the users mind, mindset, and internal outlook on whatever has a very strong effect on manipulating the experience.

This leads me to believe that your experiences in life which construct who you are and how you view the world we live, also has as much of an effect on where your taken, how you view that "reality" and what you experience while on DMT.

Some people are driving a two wheel drive, but those with a 4x4 access much deeper forests.

This is a very good point - we all enter all our experiences with a powerful internal context and to think that, even if the DMT reality is truly real, that everyone that reaches this realm would experience exactly the same thing is unrealistic, especially with worlds so very bizarre... it's as if the brain is doing its best to parse and render data that it hasn't ever (or at least for a very long time) received - the result may vary, but I think the parallels seen across many users hint at something non entirely subjective... one day we may know whether this is true or not and I am not ruling it out...



Very nicely put! Albert, you're gonna need a bigger car...

Another thing i have noticed while dosing others, which i have done quite a bit, is that you can temporarily offset ones inability to perceive these deeper other worldly experiences with larger doses.

Just like how if you experiment with the lowest dose you can sense, and slowly work your way up you notice atleast one mechanism that is at play. The dissociation of your mind from your body.

In this case i believe it calls for an understanding that there is another aspect to the experiences besides sub breakthrough and breakthrough. It is possible to breakthrough but still not have reached that other level.

Dont know what to call it but it could be described as low level breakthrough or high level sub breakthrough. I have experienced both multiple times.

Larger doses are not necessarily recommended for obvious reasons but there needs to be an understanding that the vehicle you are driving is only capable of reaching a destination that you are aware of, unless you wander and stumble upon it.

The same idea can be understood if you are familiar with the fact that you are able to understand the language of the experience better the more you dose. Just like how, at least for some, once you breakthrough you are often able to breakthrough much easier.

That is an opinion you are entitled to, but it is speculative. I have yet to see it supported or evidenced.


This is my point, the concept of alternate reality is so subjective and inconsistent that it cannot be considered validated.

It also seem that the view that DMT affords alternate reality experiences is the 2 wheel drive, and not particularly deep, for it is bound by expectation, suggestion and thus is limited in scope and depth.

I agree that reaching and navigating these realms is not something you can assume will always happen, even if you take a large dose - it takes work and practice, just as with anything else... I've been through frustrating periods of not being able to even get off the ground... almost as if 'it' was saying no, not tonight - go away and come back when you're ready... then I've had times when the whole experience overwhelmed me in such a profound way that I couldn't recall even what had happened... the best experiences for me are those in between - a clean breakthrough into the other.... amazing...

OK, let's just agree to disagree on this - it's really not that important...

It seems there are an awful lot of people on this board who support laughingcat's statement. Perhaps this could be considered a step towards evidence?

Albert, I also remember at least a couple of threads where numerous people said your recountings of your DMT experiences (and subsequent statements about the mundanity of it all) seemed at odds with their own experiences.

This is not to attack you or to provide "solid evidence" one way or the other, merely to point out that there is a continual evidencing that your experiences do seem somewhat "out of the ordinary" with regards to what many people experience under the influence of DMT.

Would you disagree with this?

It has little to do with practice, it always varies.

For you to say the above but claim in the paper that DMT does this reliably is problematic and contradictory, the claim is at best debatable.

I have broken through on DMT many times and never considered the experience to be one of an alternate reality, despite being profound and meaningful in a personal way. I have also spent 6+ hours in the same state using other chemicals and have had amazing experiences, yet no matter how far i went or what i saw i could still affect the experience by altering my environment. Likewise the dose dependent effects were apparent and undermine the concept that the reality is alternative.
To me it seems analagous to saying when you look through a lense that you experience an alternate reality or world, even if it seems so that does not evidence it.

I'm more interested in your answer to Snozzleberry's question now...

I think if you spend a few hours browsing the experience report section you will find it is HIGHLY supported. Is it evidence? I feel hesitant to call it that, but it is evidence that many "feel" that is their own experience.

I think you are playing with wording rather than following what he has said through out this thread. It is fairly reliable but with some aspects and for some people it DOES take practice and work. It also DOES take practice and work to become proficient at navigating certain levels of the experience. Although certain levels are very common for people to stumble upon due to proper dosing, set and setting ect. This is supported by the massive reports of experiences from users all over the internet not just here.



This statement, from my experiences as well as others I personally know and some on this forum, just goes to further support the possibility that with practice and work in the correct manner you too would be able to achieve what we are describing. It seems to me that you are slighlty biased through your own subjective experiences, allowing you to ignore the possibility of something deeper than what you have experienced. Now this is just an assessment based on words I am reading from you and does not mean fact or anything of that manner.

Yes.

For 3 reasons.

1, the members of this forum do not represent an average in any way shape or form, This can be related to the topicality and the ontology the forum represents. For example, people here tend to find this place after watching or reading material that supports and suggests this outlook and thus the forum reflects this.

2, in person experience with dozens of people who have not read or viewed material suggesting this ontology their experiences are remarkably consistent with my own.

3, in all discussions about the variation of effects there were still numerous individuals, while a minority at this site, who confirmed experiences very similar to my own.


The indication is that that environment and personality, expectation and suggestion all affect the manifestation of effects to the degree that the role of suggestion cannot be ruled out.

You will also find that those with the deepest convictions are the most prolific in terms of speaking and writing upon the subjects, this likewise reflects not an average or standard in terms of reliable effects but constitutes a subset of experiences which prove motivating in this regard.

I think you misunderstand, the experiences described of other "worlds" is something I have experienced. Navigating these worlds likewise is something I have experienced. However they have never given me the impression that they were an alternate reality or a different location in time and space. The impression was that it was a subjective dose, environment and mood dependent effect that i could largely influence and control via setting, mood and company.

Well, of course - Terence McKenna almost devoted a lifetime to speaking and writing on the effects of DMT. I don't know of any other specific substance that evokes such passion and awe and an eagerness to 'tell the world'... you seem to be actively trying to sideline these individuals and for some reason want to focus on the 'average' mundane or mediocre experience - I want to focus on the exceptional experiences and with DMT there appears to be an inordinate number of them...

AlbertKLloyd,

The same stands for me. Almost zero of the people I have dosed have even visited this site, nor have I discussed to them an opinion of what I think DMT might be or anything of the sort before dosing. Only 1 person that I dosed actually created an account here. Also, I am personally completely open minded about it all. Even though my experiences push me to believe this possibility of an other world, my skepticism keeps me in check. I do not believe one way or another, I do however, don't see any evidence either way.

You speak of bias due to visiting this site, although I do not see evidence of that. Many people also believe otherwise, and I think that peoples beliefs are more tied to the experiences they have had than being influenced by what others believe here. Again none of this is evidence, but either is anything you have put forth.

edit: wait, you said control. You are implying you can control the experience?