I'm sorry, but it really is starting to sound like you haven't taken enough - NEVER during the peak of a DMT experience have I even contemplated the idea that I could control it - no way. And company? Anyone left in the consensus world is completely gone to me - the only company I have is that of strange hyperintelligent creatures beyond description...

I find myself wondering whether Autism may play a part in the subjective experience...
In content or intensity or other.

Perhaps Albert you could provide a view on this, since you are on the spectrum. (As am I)

I know it's not directly related to the paper but it may shed some light on the differences of experience shared by some.

I want to agree. None of the next level doses I have had were effected by anything going on. Now I have had many experiences that WERE effected by environment, the music I was playing, the people in the room, well in short EVERYTHING in this reality can technically effect the experience.

None of this has effect once I breakthrough to these certain levels. I have also tried to reproduce experiences in my self as well as my experiences in others and this was a big fail. So either you have some ability that no one else can figure out, or I think you havent gone that far. I am not saying you havent broken through, but possibly there is much farther to go?

Not once it starts, but yes, the use of suggestion and environment have demonstrated a strong ability to influence outcomes in myself and others at higher, but not lower dose ranges. Sub-breakthrough doses simply do not cause effects strong enough to be able to influence.

However at no point did I claim to be able to control the experience during the experience, quite the opposite, one must let go and give in to it. there is no controlling it or any other high level psychedelic dose.

You can find this environmental and dose dependent influence in the work of Strassman actually. At higher doses in particular.

Part of my point is that even with practice, one cannot guarantee in any reliable manner that one will traverse seemingly alien worlds, this varies.

I see the No True Scotsman fallacy here, that the assumption is that if I do not agree, then I have not gone that far. I have taken very high doses at times, irresponsibly high, and have gone about as far as you can with DMT (with the exception of certain combinations) and have combined it with various psychedelics as well.

Autism plays a role in thought, however my experiences are consistent with those I have given DMT to who are not autistic. Basically the major impact there is that i tend to be less emotionally attached to my psychedelic experiences than others, including people I have tripped with. The effects are the same, only my emotional attachment to it is different, hence I and a friend can experience the same basic state and they view it as amazingly profound in an emotional way and I am vastly more indifferent. I am able to explore emotional issues with psychedelics, but do not find the effect to be emotional in and of themselves.

I find it interesting that you dont see low doses as being able to influence. I find the opposite true. Low doses are highly configurable. I have had quite a few low doses where I was in direct influence of. My thoughts, emotions, fears ect. I have even been able to effect the experience with body positions, muscle flexing, laughter, smiling... the list goes on.

To throw a monkey wrench in the mix, my father has had much different experiences than anyone I have heard of a few times. Ones that would slightly support your idea, but also could support mine.

Which is that Deep Rooted understanding of your environment, the kinds that are the most difficult to change in a person, have the greatest effect on DMT, but is also not useful (as a tool) as they are you. The most fundamental parts of you and are very difficult to modify.

Albert, your claim regarding "no true scotsman" is erroneous here, much as your claim of "appeal to authority" regarding the Einstein example was off-base in gibran2's improbability of hyperspace II.

The issue here is that the claim, that "people experience alternate realities, other worlds, or other semantic equivalents to result from ingesting DMT" is not an unreasoned assertion. Rather, it's the compilation of experience reports from numerous users on this site, in our own personal experiences/circles, and throughout waking life.

The reason people are making the assertion that your experiences are different and, as a result, questioning the depth of your experiences is because they are at odds with myriads of data on the DMT experience.

This is not to say that you haven't taken large doses of DMT, or at least, I'm certainly not making that assertion. It does however seem to reason that, given the preponderance of times your experiences get singled out when these discussions arise, there IS something qualitatively different about your experiences or how you present them, or at least, there appears to be something different.

What confuses me, is that you seem insistent on discounting this difference...even though all of the evidence, at least from discussions held on this forum, points to the difference as being quite apparent.

If numerous people are saying "that's different than what I experience" it seems odd to dismiss them as all being influenced by a singular meme...but that's precisely what you've done.

Suffice it to say that this line of back and forth is incredibly confounding to me...and I don't really see the value of it, nor understand why you insist on contradicting the equally valid experiences of others on this board.

Surely those who have convictions as strong as your own regarding this experience, however different they may be in content, have just as much to assert them without being negated by your own subjective experiences. As this is something you have (understandably) expressed extreme distaste for when you are on the receiving end, why should it be any different for them?

I just don't understand how the apparent difference between your experiences and many others seems visible to so many others, but not you.

Snozz, the assertion of No True Scotsman is apt.

Likewise my experiences are very consistent with those of others I have witnessed first hand, which is no small number, likewise a significant number of people here also report similar experiences to mine.

What you may not realize is that two people can experience the same thing and have different views of it, my having a different view does not mean I did not experience what others did. that you fail to realize this does not bother me.

That you conflate my perspective with a discounting of experience is also your issue, not mine.

Not only do I find all experiences equally valid, I wonder why you do not?
Why are you bent on invalidating my perspective? Yours is the position of intolerance for my experience, while I am stating that results vary, as do interpretations of those results, so while I am allowing for all experience to be valid, you and others are claiming that only those experiences which meet a specific ontology are valid and all others must require more practice or larger doses.

Doe you fail to realize I have insisted that peoples experiences are valid, but that diversity of experience occurs?

Do you fail to realize that there is testimony in this thread from those claiming to disagree with me that states that their own experiences vary and they do not always experience the same effects?

While I have never expected you to get along with me, for whatever reason you have always had issue and taken issue with me and any perspective I have shared ever since I posted about supporting an authors choice to not have their material pirated, it is still peculiar you overlook so much to make your arguments against my own perspective and experience.

Reminds me of Schultes...

I guess you haven't read Strassman's study...Its not speculative at all. I'm not saying that it is another realm, but that is how it is often experienced.

Projecting your own experience turning people on to dmt isn't really getting this conversation anywhere, especially when it contradicts what the vast majority of people here have experienced, and Strassmans large study on it.

I have read it.
I have also seen him lecture once.

It is not my problem people are intolerant of the idea that there are debatable concepts in the paper. Nor is it my problem that people do not like the idea that results can vary in regard to DMT experiences and conclusions drawn from them.

Many would like to silence anyone with a different view or perspective and say there is only one that is right. I am not among those people.

My understanding is, NOT seeing something does not mean it is not there. Do you even consider the idea that you are just simply not seeing something that could be there?

This seems like trying to convince a blind person that the possibility of colors exist.

Consider the above. Many, but not all, users of DMT encounter the entities.
Strassman's statement of them being West Coast eccentricity is fascinating. It allows for the perceptions to be valid, but also relates the subjectivity of content regarding them.



Of course.

Have you considered that seeing something does not mean it is there?

Of course there are debatable concepts in the paper - I put it up here to discuss/debate, but my feeling is that you have simply shot it down and dismissed it based on your own personal experiences with DMT... can I be so bold as to ask what your scientific background is?

My stance is not that of, It is real GTFO, I am not assigning a belief to my experiences except that I learn from them and it has been an integral tool in my further development as a loving human being.

It just looks to me from reading your posts that you are shooting the hypothesis down as if it has no merit. The way I see it, is there is no real evidence except for how we know the human brain to function, and that our understanding leads to the most likely possibility as to it being an actual experience of something out of this reality as we know it. Experiences that do not support this idea also do not support the opposite to be true. Experiences that DO support it are backed by our understanding of the way the brain decrypts information to display our environment.

Consider this:

Multiple contradictory and exclusive claims in terms of religion are esteemed and testified by their advocates as being true to the exclusion of other views.

The basis for this personal testimony is largely experiential in terms of emotional effect.
If a person feels something to be true, in terms of emotion, this in turn persuades them of the factual claims inherent to the ontology associated with the experience.

In this regard different religions that are essentially factually mutually exclusive persuade individuals using the same psychological and emotional mechanisms into accepting an ontology which has been presented to the people.

The method employs a feeling of subjective emotional truth and then asks or motivates the individual to project that truth onto the claims of the religion. A common method is to invoke a sensation of love, peace or awe, the person so moved by this state then feels those emotional qualities as true, and then projects this sensation of real or true onto the ontological claims. Thus in regard to various religions, the testimony of truth is not based upon evidence in any measurable way, but is instead based upon emotional impact of experience. This is consistent for spiritual claims of conflicting ontological claims that cannot both be true.

The conviction thus arising is so strong and individually convincing that conflict arises where two cultures, individuals or groups with conflicting ontology cannot agree and thus literally go to war with one another due to their individual conviction and experience of truth. They will in effect, die for this emotional truth, for so compelling is the experience, despite being devoid of factual accuracy or objective evidence, that the individuals are utterly and totally convinced that their perceptions and derived informed beliefs are true.

This is compounded by the situation that each ontology is shared as a community or group, this reinforces the concepts of the ontology as true via a form of an appeal to authority fallacy where the authority it itself the group. Thus the individual convictions rest not only upon the emotional impact of experience, but likewise upon the shared ontology, the logic being that because so many believe or share in the ontology, it must be true. This works in all group ontologies, including those mutually exclusive, again to the point of causing beliefs that people are willing to die for because of emotional convictions and group reinforcement.

In context however, some individuals do not share group mentality and do not experience the same emotionality, these individuals often have the same experiences as others, but view these experiences differently. Such individuals are not convinced by group mentality or emotional impact of experiences.


What I would like you to consider is that the same psychological, emotional and social aspects that are found in religious ontologies also apply in this context to DMT experiences and the emergent ontology that has become recently codified regarding it. That is to say that DMT is increasingly associated with a set of beliefs that are informed, as opposed to individually formed in an independent manner. Much as is the case with religion people read testimony of experience and thus seek out these experiences for themselves. This informs both expectation and result by associating a set of beliefs with the experience and likewise involves an emotional experience. As is also the case with religions this emergent system is also associated with intolerance for view that do not fit into the sets of beliefs that are associated with the ontology, as opposed to associated with the experience.

I would like you to consider that what is occurring here is literally the emergence of a new organized religion, with a set of beliefs, expectations and even sanctified personages who act or have acted as spokespeople for the set of beliefs. These individuals are deified by the codification of their opinions into belief systems that are validated by emotional impact of experiences having suggestive content and by group mentality.

This religion is increasingly intolerant of alternative views, such as the perception that DMT experiences and conclusions can vary. The concept that underlies this is; that to say that experiences vary contradicts the claims inherent to the religion that DMT causes a specific reliable effect that is spiritual, extra-dimensional and real. To allow for diversity of experience, for the experience of some to suggest that DMT use can vary in terms of result, is to undermine the claims of this organized religion, in effect it constitutes heresy. Claims that DMT effects can vary are then met defensively in this regard, this defense (as is the case with all organized religion) rests upon appeal to group mentality and emotional conviction resulting in personal testimony.

In effect people are saying that if you experience something different than they do, or have a different belief about those experiences, then your results are abnormal and thus invalid. It does not matter if your experience supports varied results, for the view here is uniformity in regard to evocation. The set of beliefs for this emergent religious ideology does not allow for a non-uniform result, in this regard it is no different than any other major religious ideology, nor is the group and individual behavior associated with this ideology and ontology divergent from what is to be expected for a religious community.

Thus for the emergent DMT organized religion, there is no debate or question as to the nature of effects, for this culture that is analogous to a catholic questioning the validity of the bible. It falls outside the accepted set of beliefs that has been codified, largely from the teachings of the deified figures.

My point is that this aspect of religious culture underlies efforts such as the paper of this thread and thus such efforts become justificatory and begin from the supposition that the religious ideology is true. Essentially two reactions arise to what is considered an experience outside of the accepted set of beliefs, the first is to approach that experience and any drawn beliefs from it as invalidated in contrast to accepted teachings and principals, the second is to perform apologetics regarding those experiences and beliefs, that is to say that those experiences which fail to conform to the accepted set of beliefs are valid but will eventually be explained as not in contradiction to the accepted tenets of the DMT faith. That is to say that some reason or excuse underlies their lack of conformity, as opposed to considering them valid in their own right.

Inevitably the same religious aspects apply, and the faithful must both ask that individual form their own conclusions, but likewise reject all conclusions that do not conform to their faith and expectations; as invalid.

To the first, I'm not...or at least I'm not intending to. Rather, I thought you were and was pushing for the inclusion of all viewpoints, with, perhaps, the caveat that your presentation seems to consistently present itself as a bit of an outlier when these discussions arise. This is not judgment, merely an observation.

To the second, yes, I did fail to realize that. If that it's your assertion, I apologize for misunderstanding.

I'm aware that people can draw different conclusions from the same observations, my issue was that you appeared to be explicitly negating the experiences of others. Now you say you were not, and I'm happy to take you at your word.

I was not trying to add contention to this thread, on the contrary, I was attempting to diffuse what I saw as conflict and attempt to make room for all subjective experiences.

I don't have any personal beef with you. I think you're a very intelligent person and a great asset to this community even though we disagree on a number of issues. I know that I tend to get very impassioned when discussing certain topics, some of which we disagree strongly on. But I promise you, I feel no animosity towards you as a person

The problem with your explanation is based almost entirely on belief, as opposed to DMT where those that are qualified are showing biological processes that support the common experience that many people have.

You also are ignoring the fact that there is obviously those that in fact had no such influence and yet still come to an understanding that there is something more than just mere belief when it comes to these types of experiences.

I agree it can and has happened, bias is every where. But in the same sense your explanation can also explain why many people disregard many things due to bias that there's nothing to it but simple hallucinations.

Atheism and theism. Both based on belief, not the same as what we are talking about.

I really need to read the paper in full before commenting here, but I liked Albert's lengthy reply and think his point is well made. On the other hand, I disagree with an entirely materialistic model of the DMT experience but also reject the suggestion that DMT gives one access to any sort of objectively existent "other world". I think the power of DMT is being overlooked by many in favour of what I consider to be the side-effects, i.e. the visuals, the sense of alien presence, etc.

I'll shut up and go read the paper first, but this is a really good thread with a lot of interesting opinions!

And quotes like this are part of what makes this site such a pleasure to be a part of.

My explanation is what again?

As for the second part, I have two questions, what about the uncommon experiences people have and can you link to or give examples of those individuals and the experiences you mention?


Please provide examples and I will gladly not ignore them.
I am thus far unfamiliar with any such individuals or testimony to that effect.

What is my explanation again?
I am unsure if you know are familiar with my position.

I disagree.
I think this underlies the entire conversation, that DMT culture is a religious phenmomena meeting multiple definitions of religion, and while I find it typical in terms of human behavior I also believe that the best case case for legalization and legitimacy of use of DMT lies in the recognition of this emergent religion and it's set of deities, beliefs and community and of course the legitimacy of the sacrament of DMT in this context.

However it also means that within the religious community any questioning of faith or belief sets will be met with rejection. There is no allowance for diversity of views or varied belief sets in a typical religion.

It is my position that the paper oversimplifies the results of DMT to present them as consistent and reliable in a way that is simply not true, and that it does so as an attempt to justify a conclusion that is not considered as being able to be questioned.

Similar to any religious exposition it also contains opinions regarding the conclusions it proceeds from and arrives at:


it does not read like a scientific paper, but more like an opinion/editorial, but it is presented as a scientific paper, which opens it to critical review and consideration.

And thus I have commented.