It is my pleasure to meet you all!

My words here are given in the spirit of unity, love, peace, and understanding. We all are coming from different viewpoints and by sharing them we help one another to understand each other and hopefully also to grow in our understanding of reality in general.

I am a very "scientifically-minded," non-mystical, atheistic Buddhist. I believe there is "magic" in the universe...but that the magic can and will ultimately all be scientifically studied, analyzed and eventually completely understood with the utmost of mathematical precision. This will in no way detract from the "magic" but will actually allow humanity to harness the "magic" in new, beautiful and powerful ways.

So...what do I actually mean by "magic?" We live in a world of matter and energy: things we can touch, sense, etc. Yet, from this matter and energy arises mind and consciousness. That is "magic" enough, but even more "magical" is the infinite array of experience open to our consciousness, and infinite "ways of being."

It has been MANY years since I have experimented with any forms of chemical or drug as a means of modifying my consciousness, with the exception of very limited amounts of caffeine. For many years my only "experiments" with consciousness have been strictly limited to meditation: simply sitting and emptying my mind (as much as possible) from "discursive" thought.

The psychedelic experience (of which there are many varieties, to be sure) certainly can provide a "shift in perspective" that can last long beyond the actual experience itself; sometimes this can last a lifetime. At a certain point, however, it seems to become more of a distraction than a promoter of "true enlightenment."

I don't believe that any sort of "trip" actually transports any part of your consciousness to any sort of real "place," be it "hyperspace" or anywhere else. I do think, however, it modifies the normal neural processing of information in interesting and perhaps illuminating ways, provided one understands and can interpret what is happening in a reality-based way, rather than a mystical, non-reality-based way.

It is known that before we are conscious of anything, the brain performs a lot of non-conscious pre-processing of information, and then integrates this information into that which we are ultimately conscious of. For example, there is an amazing amount of visual pre-processing which takes place after images enter our eyes and are detected by the rods and cones of the retina, and the final image of which we are conscious. There is processing used to detect edges, horizontal and vertical lines, and all sorts of other geometrical and other visual elements.

I believe that one of the powerful functions of psychedelics is to modify our neural processing so that we become conscious of aspects of our normally non-conscious pre-processing. (This may be due to a temporary bypassing of well-worn neural pathways, perhaps due to other, unusual pathways becoming "activated" in such that they are much easier to traverse, or perhaps because the normally strong connections of the well-worn pathways are temporarily weakened.} One effect of this would be "seeing" all sorts of geometrical artifacts which are produced by parts of our visual pre-processing system, before they can be integrated in the normal way we typically experience them in a non-psychedelic state, which is certainly part of the psychedelic experience.

The modification of neural processing does not only take place on visual aspects of brain function, but on other aspects as well. For example, painful memories which are typically repressed may come to the surface; this can be upsetting, but it also can be useful as a means for dealing with "issues" from one's past. Also, there are parts of our mind which are used to determine if some "thing" in our experience is human, animal, food, or whatever, and our brain in general is obviously constantly seeking "meaning." I believe that the psychedelic experience can cause one to "mis-process" such things so that it seems as though there are "entities" or "presences" accompanying one during parts of the "trip."

I am here because a relative of mine recently told me of some of his personal experiences with DMT and other psychedelics, and this lead to a number of very long and interesting conversations. He essentially agrees with my views on the general mechanism by which psychedelics modify normal thinking. I am wondering what some of you think of this viewpoint. I will be writing about this topic for a website of my own, and would like as much information as possible from those experienced in such things. My own experiences occurred, as I say, MANY years ago, and I am not interested in exploring these things personally at this time; I feel that for me it would be more of a distracting influence upon my meditative practices. I am, however, particularly interested in the analysis of the psychedelic experience from other "scientifically-minded" individuals who are current or recent users.

That said, I am NOT ENCOURAGING anyone to do anything illegal. If, however, you are already experienced or experimenting (or if you know of "Someone Who Isn't You" then I would be interested as to whether you agree with my assessments above (particularly if you are of a "scientific-mindset," as indicated) or if you have some other "take" on the mechanism(s) by which psychedelics modify normal thinking.

Above all: Please stay SAFE!

Hello and welcome. I agree with the above comment but i am not so sure about "completely" understanding everything. Due to the possible infinite nature of reality there may always be something more just beyond reach to learn about.

Have you tried DMT in the past?

You may find these threads interesting

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=51112

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=37853

Hi, welcome to the nexus

I think if you're going to honestly write about such matters on your website, you are somewhat obligated to at least explore these things again yourself after all these years. At about the time when I think we can understand everything is just about when I'm in for a rude (but insightful) awakening in my experience. Just my 2 cents

You can discern my general views by reading my article on page 33 of the first Nexian e-zine. In general it is the context-specific nature of some of these experiences that clouds the issue a bit for me. A striking example is the DMT Ganesha phenomenon. After years of reading the rare Ganesha thread that would pop up every now and then, it began to become clear to me that the vast majority of those that encountered this Hindu deity were doing so on their first time. This is contextually significant because Ganesha is considered to be an initiator, a Lord of Beginnings, and a Gatekeeper or Remover of Obstacles. I would be hard pressed to try and align such incidences with a visual processing theory.

Thanks so much for your comments. I knew when I started this thread that there would be a level of controversy to some of what I said, but it seems that you are all taking it in the positive spirit which with it was intended.

==========================================

@hug46: When I said that "the magic can and will ultimately all be scientifically studied, analyzed and eventually completely understood with the utmost of mathematical precision," I actually meant what I said. I did not mean that we would "know everything," but that we would understand the scientific principles behind every type of phenomenon.

For example: to the ancients, the movements of the celestial bodies (Sun, Moon, stars, planets, "shooting stars," etc.) seemed like "magic." They thought the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe, and that everything in the universe moved around that center. Millennia later it was discovered that the universe has no center in the conventional sense, and that the Earth is round; furthermore, we now have the Laws of Motion (and gravity) formulated by Isaac Newton and the General Theory of Relativity formulated by Einstein. We now KNOW why things in the sky move the way they do. The science of their motion is now "completely understood with the utmost of mathematical precision." This does not mean, however, that we know where every star in the universe is, so our knowledge is limited in that sense, but this is not what I was referring to in my original post. (Also, it does not remove the "magical" sense of wonder we often feel when looking up into to sky and contemplating our smallness both in space and time in comparison with the vastness of the universe.)

We are living at a time when the "mechanism of consciousness" is still quite mysterious. I do believe, however, that the time will come when it too "will ultimately all be scientifically studied, analyzed and eventually completely understood with the utmost of mathematical precision." I hope you get what I am saying now.

==========================================

@Global: I will address the "Ganesha" phenomenon, but first I would like to point out that what I described in my original post was more than merely a "visual processing theory:"



That said, even those who are not of the Hindu faith and who know little to nothing at all about Ganesha have seem images of Ganesha, with four arms and elephant head, so they are at least familiar with the image, if not the mythology or religion surrounding the image. I will say that I do not believe that there is any "real" entity which corresponds to Ganesha. (And I mean no offense to anyone who does.) There are, however, a few possible explanations for this "Ganesha phenomenon." One possibility is that there may be certain "visual patterns" which occasionally manifest themselves under certain conditions, such as during a DMT experience, which has a vague resemblance to the Ganesha image. That is not to say that it actually IS an image of a person with four arms and an elephant's head, but that it is visually similar enough to resemble such a creature. This may actually have been the source for the original Ganesha image, when someone hallucinated or dreamed of such a thing (and remember that DMT is naturally found in the brain) and interpreted the "visual pattern" as a person with four arms and and elephant's head. This person described, drew, or painted the image for others, and eventually it became part of the religious tradition of Hinduism. Later on, when others experienced similar visual patterns, they already had the Ganesha image in their memories, so it was easy to associate the visual patterns with the pre-existing image in their minds.

I am not saying that this is ACTUALLY the explanation for the "Ganesha phenomenon," but I do think it makes much more sense than actually believing that people are ACTUALLY encountering a very human-like creature with four arm and an elephant's head. It says more about our common neurological structure and functioning, than about some mysterious "entity" which people "encounter" during altered states of consciousness.

Also, please note that even in dreams there are many very typical and common experiences and encounters which people have, and that the most straightforward and seemingly reality-based explanation for these commonalities is also our common neurological structure and functioning.

So what kind of experimentation have you done with dmt or oral dmt/ayahuasca? Just curious since it helps understand people's individual perspectives during these sorts of conversations

I think i got what you said the first time around. You are saying that there is a finite set of scientific principals that can explain how things work and i"m with you one hundred percent that it can all be worked out. I just do not think that there will be an end to the theories and workings out. Copernicus-heliocentrism, Newton-gravity, Einstein-relativity, Planck"s constant, string theory ad infinitum ad infinitum.



I don"t want to go down the "if you haven"t tried DMT you know nothing" route as i respect anyone who is willing to try and make sense of the experience, but have you tried DMT? I am not saying that these entities are real but in my experience these manifestations are anything but vague resemblances.
I have looked at things that resemble other things while on LSD and mushrooms and my suggestible mind has helped to make the transition into a hallucination but on DMT it"s a wholly different ballgame. You interact with seemingly autonomous beings.

If you are planning to write a scientific blog and you haven"t tried it i agree with Universecannon that maybe you should have a go (or re explore). As long as you can stay scientifically objective because this stuff can give one"s grasp of critical thinking a complete arse kicking.

@hug46: Here's why I think there will be an end to the "theories and workings out" of scientific principles:

If there were no underlying logic to the world and the things which comprise the world, then they simply could not exist. A thing cannot exist and be logically inconsistent with its own existence; every entity which exists must be logically consistent with its own existence. The fact that a thing exists at all may be viewed as proof positive that it is existentially logical, consistent, and non-contradictory. For example, some object cannot be both all black and all white at the same time...it could be gray, or even striped or checkered in black and white, but not simultaneously totally black and totally white. This can be called the "Axiom of Existential Logic" and it can be expressed in many ways, e.g., “Existence is logical,” “Reality is non-contradictory,” etc.

Because existence and all the things it contains are logically consistent, there must exist a logically consistent description for all things. (This is metaphysical factor for why science actually works.) If this description were infinite then this would be the same as saying that there are an infinite number of different "laws" which govern the behavior of things; this is essentially the same as saying there are no "laws" at all, and therefore no logical consistency. The only exception to this would be in the case where each of these infinite "laws" has a smaller and smaller effect, in which case the effects would eventually become so small as to have no detectable effect at all, which would be the same as not existing at all, from a scientific standpoint. Thus it is that there MUST be, at least in principle, some ultimate, final and complete set of scientific laws; this is exactly what scientists are talking about when they speak of a "theory of everything."

I will also say that yes, I have tried these substances, both orally and smoked, a fairly large number of times. The oral experiences required Syrian rue. I have also experimented with other similar substances, again, a fairly large number of times. I am convinced that what is experienced is entirely a product of one's own brain/mind, and not a result of any sort of information "coming in" from some other "realm," and also not a result of one's mind/soul/whatever temporarily going to some actual other "realm." I firmly believe that "knowledge is power," and that knowing and understanding that these experiences are a product of one's own mind are a source of power, as opposed to believing they are something else. For me, knowing that my own brain/mind is the author (with a bit of chemical help) of these experiences is visceral proof of the enormous power of the mind, and of the mind's enormous potential.

Do I need to keep experimenting in order to be "sure" of my current viewpoint? If I had only a few experiences, then I might say "yes," but this is not the case. I have had many. In addition, although I am not a specialist or expert, I have a very good grasp of general scientific principles, including those concerning neurological matters, and my views seem to be very much in line with these, so further experimentation at this point would be likely to simply confirm that which I already believe rather than contradict it.

I hope I'm not coming off as argumentative or anything like that. I'm just trying to be really precise and reality-based about my views. Please take it in that spirit.

"He had questioned. He had scoffed. But he knew now that those who questioned, those who took it all apart trying to find out what it was and what made it tick...they lost out in the end. The magic would always elude them. The mystery would only deepen. Because if it lost it's secret, it just wouldn't be the mystery anymore. It would rob the experience of it's potency. All you'd have left would be dry dust and the voices of men discussing what it was all about. The quiet, the music, the magic would be gone."

-Charles de Lint

@jamie: The quote you posted seems to glorify ignorance over knowledge, and to further claim that one cannot experience the "magic" of the world unless one remains in ignorance. I must say that such an attitude seems ill-considered at best.

Is it better to look up at the night sky the way the ancients did, imagining the little points of light were relatively close and yet forever out of our reach -- or is it better to know the vast, infinite distances of space, to imagine the possibility of other life, and to have taken our very first baby steps, on the moon, towards whatever or whomever else is out there? If anything, there is more "magic" and real, awesome possibility in the universe as we know it today than there ever was for the ancients.

There are limitless ways of being wrong about reality, as is evidenced by the limitless varieties of religions, superstitions, mysticisms, and the like, but only and exactly ONE way of being right -- and that way is by knowing reality, and using reality itself as one's teacher. This is exactly what science does, although many (perhaps most) people don't realize it, probably because science can often seem so "dry" or "boring;" yet the result is the most profound and subtle understandings of the very fabric of reality itself.

I have not said that the DMT experience is not profound, nor have I said that it cannot be enlightening and even life-altering; it is and can be all of those things. I am merely saying that it should be understood in terms of what it REALLY does in the brain/mind, rather than in terms of wild fantasy. There are many ways of being wrong about the DMT experience, and only and exactly ONE way of being right -- and that way is by knowing the REALITY of the mechanism by which its effects are produced.

The ancients thought the Earth was flat, and that the sun went around the Earth; very reasonably, that was how it subjectively SEEMED to be. Science, however, demonstrated that the Earth is in fact round, and that the Earth actually travels around the sun. In the same way, I see that many are declaring that what subjectively SEEMS to be happening during a DMT experience (out of body experiences, contact with other entities, etc.) is what is actually happening. Science, however, will surely demonstrate that the experience is completely generated within one's own brain/mind...and this is a wonderful, magical thing! This says so much about the power of our minds...the magic is in us! Those incredible, magical, ineffable entities are...us! It is we who give them life, and they are us! The day will come when we will be able to harness whatever power these entities actually possess...because they are us!

To paraphrase de Lint, and to turn his pro-ignorance stance into a pro-knowledge stance:

"He had honestly questioned. He had sought. And he knew now that those who questioned, those who took it all apart trying to find out what it was and what made it tick...they won out in the end. The magic would always be theirs. The magic would only deepen. Because when it revealed its secret, it became not mystery, but knowledge. It added the power of knowledge to the experience. The dry dust of ignorance had been cleared from the voices of men discussing what it was all about. The quiet, the music, the magic was theirs forever."

Welcome to the Nexus!

Atheism is a belief just as theism IMO, based on a hypothesis claimed as a fact (there is no god, or there is a god). The way I see it, agnosticism seems like a more reasonable approach. Things may be way more complex than we can possibly understand, and maybe truth is neither that there is a god nor that there isn't a god.


Regarding the basis or source of the psychedelic experience I'd highly recommend you to read these threads:

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=52582

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=18572

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=11579


Regarding the neuropharmacology ideas you expose, one will always run into the problem of 'correlation =/= causation'. It's all certainly very interesting area to study, personally I'm fascinated by the subject, but I'd be careful with forming conclusions about it.

In the end, what is important to me is the impact of these substances in my daily life.... Whether I am accessing a free-standing hyperspacial dimension or just changing brain electricity (or any other hypothesis), fact is it is changing my life for the better, so that's what counts the most for me.

I also don't agree with jamie's quote and I think learning how something works certainly does not take magic away from it. The fact anything exists at all is mind baffling and completely magical to me.

Schrodinger's Deity

@endlessness: Regarding the "Theism vs. Agnosticism vs. Atheism" issue, this is very easitly resolved, provided one follows the logic below:

Theism is simply a specific application of a very general and completely unreliable heuristic, which essentially accepts the existence of any arbitrary and unfounded entities, whether they be gods, angels, unicorns, leprachauns, or whatever. In the case of theism, this is the acceptance of a very specific and extremely unlikely entity: an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and yet essentially undetectable being, who personally created all existence.

Agnosticism (regarding god) is simply a specific application of a very general and unreliable heuristic, which essentially gives weight and some level of "existential probability" to any and all arbitrary and unfounded entities. In the case of agnosticism, this is essentially the giving of weight and some level of "existential probability" to a very specific and unlikely entity: again, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and yet essentially undetectable being, who personally created all existence.

Atheism is simply a specific application of a very general and very reliable heuristic, which essentially disregards and dismisses the existence of any arbitrary and unfounded entities, whether they be gods, angels, unicorns, leprachauns, or whatever, until such time as their existence is demonstrated. In the case of atheism, this is essentially giving no weight or any level of "existential probability" at all to a very specific and unlikely entity, until such existence is actually demonstrated: once again, this is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and yet essentially undetectable being, who personally created all existence.

Of the three heuristics described above, the one associated with atheism is essentially the approach of science, the best method humanity has ever discovered for studying and knowing reality. The other two approaches have resulted in countless millennia of ignorance and suffering. The heuristic associated with atheism is hands-down the best approach, while that associated with agnosticism comes in a very distant second. Theism doesn't even finish the race.

Now, on to the issue of the three links you posted.

They seem primarily and generally concerned with "the reality of reality," so to speak, although one of these is more specifically concerned with "the reality of hyperspace," i.e., whether the DMT experience is "external" in that the places and entities really exist independtly of the brain/mind of the subject, or if the experience is completely internally generated by the brain/mind of the subject.

My view on "the reality of hyperspace" is already detailed in my posts above, so I really don't need to go into further depth on that. However, the issue of "the reality of reality" is new, and actually would have bearing on "the reality of hyperspace" so I will start with that.

First of all, in an ultimate sense, there is only one reality. Everything which exists is part of that one reality. There may be mulitple "realms," "universes," or "dimensions" which exist, but all of these by the mere fact of their existence are then, by definition, all part of that one reality...because, reality comprises ALL that which exists. However the following questions (and many other such similar questions as illustrated in the links you provided) may still be asked:

* Is one's universe the one-and-only universe, or is it perhaps one of a (perhaps infinite) number of universes within a greater “multiverse?”

* Is one's world perhaps a “meta-dream” being dreamed by some sort of higher being or even by some sort of higher version of oneself?

* Is one's world actually a simulated or virtual realm being played out within some sort type of sophisticated computer?

* One is directly aware of one's own mind only. Is one's mind the only real conscious mind in the world, with all others being non-conscious dream or virtual characters with no actual minds of their own, or is the world as it appears, such that one's mind is one of many other similar mind?

While these and other such questions may be of philosophical interest, it is important to recognize a few key facts:

Whether the realm in which one finds oneself is the one-and-only universe or one-of-many, or whether or not this realm is some sort of meta-dream or simulation, then the realm of that universe, dream or simulation must exist within a greater realm of some sort; ultimately some sort of “foundational” realm must exist which is not itself contained within some greater realm. This foundational realm is the very “ground of existence,” the very foundation or ultimate substrate of the totality of reality within which all other realms exist. The foundational realm and the things within it must be logically consistent with their own existence or they could not exist: a thing cannot exist and be logically inconsistent with its own existence.

The realm in which one finds oneself is a realm where one can feel pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow, hope or fear; in other words, hedonic value. This is true whether this realm is the foundational realm of existence or not, and it is true whether one's mind is the only truly conscious mind in one's realm or not. Thus it is necessary for one to understand how to best operate in the realm in which one finds oneself and how best to interact with others in that realm (whether these others are only seemingly conscious or actually conscious) if one is to best pursue and attain hedonic value. In other words, in the absence of evidence or reason to suspect otherwise, it is pointless to speculate that reality is not essentially as it seems to be.

Furthermore, the same heuristics associated with theism, agnosticism, and atheism can each be applied to the issue of whether reality is essentially as it seems to be or whether reality is essentially some form of "illusion" (or whatever). The heuristic associated with atheism/science would assert that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, reality be considered to be essentially as it seems, until it is demonstrated to be otherwise.

Are you familiar with Robert Anton Wilson? I would highly recommend his book on e-prime

"The ancients thought the Earth was flat, and that the sun went around the Earth; very reasonably, that was how it subjectively SEEMED to be"

To be fair, most ancient cultures never thought this to be so. Just to clear that up.

My issue with your whole approach, is that you cannot explain anything really, and if you think you can you are full of bs..no offense to you that was meant as a general statement.

I wont make the statement that one cannot know truth..but I will stand against the statement that one can explain such things as absolute truth or reality.

Logic is by it's very nature illogical. Rationality is by it's very nature irrational..linear modalities by their very nature break down into entirely non-linear modalities. That is the paradox...in fact this is the shadow of paradox itself stamped into the world we inhabit. Paradox will always be that object to which mystics and philosophers point to as the incarnation of the numinous in the world of (wo)man. How do you remove it? Can you answer me this? Explain paradox.

You cannot explain the origin of anything..the big bag is not an origin..it is an event somewhere in the middle..the laws of physics crystalizing out of a cooling universe do not dictate absolute meaning or truth in the scope of a cosmic ultraverse who's origin remains a total enigma. Life might be the ultimate wtf of the universe..but existence, origin and any "thing" at all is the ultra wtf of the ultraverse...and you my friend are as absolutly clueless as the rest of us in that respect.

How can you explain truth through a lense of linear rationality when that same linear modality breaks down in the vastness of the ultraverse?

You seem to appear as if you know so much, yet appearances can be cheap and misleading. The ego wears many masks.

Explain anything...please. I am begging you. Explain to me origin...explain existence..

This is not about the scientific method of observation..it is about how far it extends..and if it does not extend to origin(or even more compelling, if the idea of origin is nothing more than human projection of linear perception), then we have some issues to address.

IMO it seems like a very convoluted and biased way of defining those terms according to what fits your beliefs. I'd rather take the dictionary definition:

Agnosticism:
- a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not
- a person who does not believe or is unsure of something"

Atheism:
- a disbelief in the existence of deity
- the doctrine that there is no deity

Theism:
- the belief that God exists or that many gods exist


Or in other words, only agnosticism does not make claims or suppositions. Theism means belief in gods. Atheism is disbelief in god (or belief that god doesnt exist).



I completely disagree, and I think you are really misrepresenting what science is. Science makes no philosophical claims and takes no stance on existential beliefs. Science is simply a method, a systematic study which allows us to notice patterns in our particular reality and make predictions. To say science is atheist is to twist it to fit your agenda.



How do you know? You suppose so, and yet you don't know. I don't trust bipedal primates to tell me what the universe ' must' or 'must not' be.



That is bordering a logical fallacy: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And remember, you are just talking about what reality 'seems to be' to you.

Why?

"ultimately some sort of “foundational” realm must exist which is not itself contained within some greater realm."

That makes absolutely no sense..

..at all.

Not that that matters, making sense as an absolute makes no sense anyway.