I agree that those are the dictionary definitions, and that they are correct definitions. I am also saying that these positions are particular applications of more general heuristics. After all, if the dictionary contained all information about every word it contain, it would be more of a super-encyclopedia than a mere dictionary!

When I say that the heuristic associated with atheism is essentially the approach of science, I stand by that. I am not saying that all scientists are atheists, or that "science" says there is no god. What I AM saying is that the same approach that science uses to determine the "reality" of a thing, i.e., "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," is exactly the same approach that an individual takes when he/she takes on an atheistic stance. I will also say that while I am an atheist, like any good "scientifically-minded" person, I would certainly change my view in the light of demonstrable evidence to the contrary. As an atheist, however, I sincerely doubt that such evidence will ever come to light.

Regarding my statement that there is some sort of ultimate "foundational realm of existence:" We live in a house, on a street, in a city, in a state, in a country, on a continent, on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy, in a universe, in a multiverse. (Or something like that. The exact details don't need to be argued over.) After the multiverse...does there need to be anything beyond an infinite number of universes? If I added a SECOND multiverse to the first, it would simply be one infinity plus another...resulting in infinity. In a sense, this foundational realm of existence is the existentially infinite "set of all universes." There can be nothing beyond this. This set, or more properly speaking, perhaps, its primary members (those universes which are not themselves contained in other universes), is the foundational realm of existence.

Regarding the "absence of evidence issue:" You mentioned I was "bordering on logical fallacy" when I stated "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." I did NOT state that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I chose my words carefully and deliberately. Of course "as it seems to be" also presupposes "as it seems to be to ME," because we are ALL subjective beings.

While each of us necessarily has a subjective nature, however, we all also have the capacity for objectivity, although many unfortunately cripple themselves intellectually by denying or rejecting that capacity. They misunderstand or misinterpret the role of objectivity, often mistakenly thinking that objectivity requires the rejection of one’s subjective experience, or that our subjective nature precludes objectivity. The reality, however, is that objectivity can co-exist with subjectivity.

Objectivity is a special mode of thinking which one can and absolutely should adopt, within the framework of one’s inherently subjective experience of reality; objectivity does not replace subjectivity, but “overlays” and augments it. This becomes clear once one understands that the very essence of objectivity is self-honesty. To be completely objective is to be completely honest with oneself. It is only by putting forth the disciplined effort required to honestly integrate all of the information available to oneself that one’s thoughts will be in harmony with reality. This entails honestly accepting the facts of reality whether one likes or dislikes those facts, and honestly evaluating the reasons why one feels the way one does about such facts. It entails believing in things because they are epistemologically justified, i.e., “proven,” rather than because they are psychologically appealing, i.e., “feel good.”

Other animals don’t really have the capacity to lie to themselves that humans have. It is absurd to imagine, e.g., a cat or dog lying to itself. This is not because they are somehow “morally superior” to humans, but simply because they don’t have the conceptual abilities required to deal with concepts in the ways that humans can, and it is just these conceptual consciousness which are at the heart of what we refer to as “free will.” Not having such free will, or the conceptual abilities which are at its foundation, other animals do not have the option of self-deception but must deal with reality as it is presented to them, according to the nature of the individual animal; however, self-deception and self-honesty are a matter of choice for humans.

Reality was not invented by humans, but humans are required to deal with reality in order to survive. Self-honesty or objectivity as a mode of thinking was not invented by humans, but was discovered or identified by humans as the means for most effectively integrating and surviving within reality. This is analogous to the way that humans discover or identify rather than invent universal mathematical truths. The techniques of objective thinking are metaphysically defined by the nature of reality. Objective thinking works because of the fundamental nature of reality

"If we could "stand back and look at" the universe or multiverse as a whole thing, outside of time, so to speak, we would see an infinitely large and eternal structure."

Again, how do you know this?...where is the verifiable evidence for that claim?

Did you just say infinity is the foundational realm of existence? Did you also say there can be nothing beyond infinity? (Here are an infinite number of possibilities. There can be no more than these?)

Is infinity quantifiable? Is it conceivable? Can we even conceive of that which potentially exists within an infinite realm? We must be pretty smart.

I highly recommend reading Sam Harris (dubbed one of the 4 horsemen of the unapocalypse) - Waking up, a guide to spirituality without religion. He (amidst controversy within atheist circles) addresses the need to take consciousness into account when taking the hard science / atheist route.

This has been a fun exchange between Jaime and Zon. I get the feeling that if they met at school as children they would have been enemies, gotten into a fight, then become the best of friends.

@EVERYONE:
I wish you the very Happiest of New Years...I hope this year will bring each of you more happiness and enlightenment than any year before it, and even more in every year that follows!

I have introduced myself here particularly because I have seen much interpretation of the DMT experience (and psychedelic experiences in general) expressed in what I would call "mystical" or "non-scientific" terms, while I have a rather different point of view that I would call "non-mystical," or "scientific" or perhaps "reality-based." I am simply looking to see if there are others who are currently experimenting with these this that share my view, that perhaps we may develop this "scientific" perspective together, in a spirit of cooperation.

I do believe that the psychedelic experience may well have extraordinary and profound benefits, but I also believe that these benefits are greatly increased (and any risks or harms greatly decreased) when these substances are used with a "reality-based" understanding. The fact that one can have very powerful and profound experiences of "unity," "egolessness," and the like, is of great interest to me both as a Buddhist, and also simply as a knowledge-seeking person. I have come to see that some may view it as something akin to "heresy" to attempt to pierce the "veil of mystery" behind the mechanism of these profound experiences so that they can be harnessed for the greatest and most universal benefit possible.

I am not here to attack anyone...but I open myself to any polite "attacks," if that may ultimately lead to a greater mutual understanding.

@Sphorange:


I think I essentially agree with you.

Let us say that humans often exhibit a propensity for "mystical thinking." Now, flat out logically contradictory beliefs held by different "mystics" cannot be simultaneously true. So while "mystical thinking," of itself, cannot be considered a valid epistemological approach, the very fact that humans do have a propensity for "mystical thinking," the causes and effects of "mystical thinking," and so forth, can be studied from a scientific viewpoint. Even the various types of beliefs which are derived from mystical thinking can be cataloged.

Much knowledge and perhaps even wisdom could be gained from this process.

@jamie:


To understand this fully requires knowledge of higher-dimensional mathematics. But I will try to make this as simple as I possibly can.

You have probably heard of the concept of "space-time." This concept was introduced by Einstein in his Theory of Relativity, to convey the idea that time is not truly separate from space, in the way that we normally experience things, but that time may be more properly understood as a special "fourth dimension," in addition to our "normal" three dimensions of "width," "depth," and "height."

To understand what that means, imagine a square tabletop. Choose and side of the table. One can draw lines on the table, parallel with that side; these lines represent "width." One can also draw OTHER lines on the table, at right angles (or "orthogonally" to the first set of lines; these represent "depth." It is not possible, at this point, to draw lines ON THE TABLE orthogonal to the "width" and "depth" lines, but it is possible to "draw" imaginary lines straight up from the table, towards the ceiling, and these imaginary lines would represent "height."

Now, it is not possible at all to draw lines orthogonal to the "width," "depth," and "height" lines, as long as we are restricted to three dimensions...and our minds are only capable of visualizing things in three dimensions, due to our evolutionary development and all our personal experiences having taking place within only three spatial dimensions. Reality, physics and mathematics, however, are not limited by the human capacity for visualization. It is mathematically possible to deal with four-dimensional (and even infinite-dimensional) structures, and in fact Einstein's concept of "space-time" does state that time is actually a fourth dimension, orthogonal to our normal three spacial dimensions.

(I REALLY don't want to over-complicate an already complicated topic, but physicists have proposed very rigorous models of our universe which require even more dimensions...and it seems, so far, that these are the very best models we have. I will ignore these "extra dimensions," however, for the rest of what I have to say, because I am trying to keep this as simple and accessible as possible.)

Now, If you think about it, since time is properly viewed as a "fourth-dimension," this means that all things that exist in our universe can be measured in terms of their width, depth, height, and also their "time," or "duration." To illustrate, let's say I was able to magically bring a small sugar-cube into existence, but only for one second. So...there's no cube at all and then POP! The cube is here and then POP! One second later it is gone from existence.

If I asked you to measure the cube while it existed (and if you were really fast with your ruler!) you could say "It is one inch wide, one inch deep, and one inch high." (Pretty big for a sugar cube!) And you would be right...but only in three dimensions. If I ALSO asked you to measure its duration, the proper answer would be "One second." (Actually, if this was to be expressed as a distance it would be "one light second," but I don't want to over-complicate this.) So, the true four-dimensional "measurement" would be: "one inch, by one inch, by one inch, by one second."

This can be extended to all things which exist, in as many dimensions as they exist. The universe itself...and the multiverse...can all be measured (with an infinitely long ruler!) in all the dimensions in which they exist.

And I know this is mind-blowing...but the multiverse can be imagined as this amazing, infinite, eternal, multi-dimensional fractal structure.

There is a book called "The Road to Reality," by Roger Penrose, which attempts to teach the mathematics needed to understand modern physics to the layman. It can be a VERY challenging read, but very valuable for REALLY getting a feel for modern physics.

(By the way, the same Roger Penrose, along with Stuart Hameroff, have developed a theory of consciousness called "Orchestrated Objective Reduction," or "Orch-OR," which posits quantum collapse as the physical mechanism behind consciousness, in a fairly detailed and plausible way. This is just a hypothesis at this time, but it is one of the best models out there for how "mind" can arise from "matter."

Just one of the "mind-blowing" consequences of the mathematics of Orch-OR are that there was a moment just a split second after the big bang when the entire universe itself became momentarily "aware;" this has been called the "Big Wow," theory, as in the universe itself, thinking, almost at instant of its creation, "WOW!"

Science, when taken to its logical conclusions, leads to a much richer view of the universe than most people realize. And because it is so absolutely rooted in reality and mathematics, it can lead one to ultimate understandings of reality which -- by their very nature -- much more accurate and reliable than anything mere mystical speculation can provide.)

@112233:



LOL! I think that even as children we would have just talked it out...but maybe after a little name-calling.

@The Hermit, regarding infinity:

Actually...and somewhat amazingly, yes infinity can be quantified in its own way.

There can be for example, positive and negative infinities, and even positive and negative "imaginary" infinites. (Where "imaginary" refers to the mathematically real, and hence somewhat misnamed "imaginary number" which is defined as the square root of negative one.)

Even more interestingly, there can be "orders of infinity," or "cardinalitis" such that some infinities are "greater" than others. For example the "lowest" order of infinity, is the one most people think of when they the do think of infinity. This is the infinity one gets when one refers to something like "the set of all whole numbers." This is called a "countable" infinity because there is a systematic way to go about counting them, if one could count infinitely long.

A higher, "uncountable" infinity is the set of all real numbers...that is the entire set of whole numbers AND all the little fractional numbers in between. The reason that this is an "uncountable" infinity is that between ANY to non-equal numbers (even if they are REALLY close together) there are still an INFINITE amount of real numbers. There's not even a systematic way to begin to count the members of this set in any meaningful way.

If you'd like to learn more about this fascinating topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Gave you a Thumbs Up for promotion, Zon, you're an interesting person. (I'm just a peon, it'll take a mod's up vote to reel you in, but every little bit helps)

@zon
Happy new year too and thankyou for the reply

I'm actually really looking forward to reading more about your perspective on this whole thing, the leyperson-compression algorithm running in your mind is wonderfully efficient.

I have a few meandering thoughts that popped up whilst reading your last post, of which I will attempt to communicate (I'm reading Berkeley at the moment so I apologise if what I'm about to say is more heavily influenced by his philosophy).

Let's suppose that Berkeley was right and matter(the universe) cannot exist without an observant/conscious mind to realise it and subsequently name it/categorise it.
This would square (I think) well with what you described as orchestrated object reduction theory, which what I understood (correct me if I'm wrong) is that consciousness existed within matter at the quantum level since time infinitum as we understand it today.
This is what Berkeley described as (in the 1700s) the source/spirit, separate from the individual minds of man but wholly inclusive of a collective consciousness of the universe.

Now following that line of thought, it was natural of me to think of the human mind as an extrusion of sorts, springing forth from the greater sphere/topology of the over mind, into space and more importantly time. Because the abstract notion of relativity is a man-made observation, our interpretation of a phenomena we experience in regular space/time.

To end with my final query.
Is space/time(4th dimension) a unique phenomena of human consciousness?
Can the consciousness that "exists" within matter at the quantum level ever experience time directly? (Orch-OR)

@112233: Thanks for the Thumbs Up!

@Sphorange: I am assuming you are speaking of Bishop Berkeley. He actually proposed something quite different from what Orch-OR describes. His view was that only two types of things really exist: spirits and ideas, and that what we perceive as material things actually only exist within the minds (ideas) of perceivers (spirits). This idea has been called "immaterialsim" or "subjective idealism." This was Berkeley's attempt to resolve the "mind-body" problem.

The Orchestraded Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) proposed by Roger Penrose, however, is quite different from this. In Penrose's view (and in the general view of modern science) material things do exist whether or not they are being perceived. (In other words, the food in your refrigerator, for example, still exists when the door is closed.) What Penrose asserts is that moments of consciousness or "choice", i.e., "mind," arises from "quantum collapse." When quantum collapse takes place within specific structures of our brains this give rise to our consciousness of ourselves and the information in our brains.

Now, to actually understand the preceding paragraph, one needs to understand the concept of quantum collapse, and a tiny bit of quantum theory. Quantum theory (which sounds really strange, but which is actually extremely well-founded) holds that many physical process can be in more than one state at the same time, until a moment of "quantum collapse" when the process finally "snaps" into a definite state; the "quantum collapse" occurs in a statistical but non-deterministic way, meaning that one cannot predetermine the state that the process will "snap" into. (Again, I know this sounds weird, but it's how it actually works. There is a famous experiment called the "double-slit experiment" which illustrates this surprising behavior:
https://en.wikipedia.org...i/Double-slit_experiment )

Another way of stating this is that a particle (for example) can be in an "indeterminate state," such as having an "indeterminate position," until this indeterminacy "collapses," and it snaps into some particular state or position. The laws of physics don't allow us to actually observe anything in such an indeterminate state: the mere act of observing an indeterminate system is enough to cause the "quantum collapse" whereby the indeterminacy collapses to a single particular state.

Penrose has posited that the indeterminacy of a system can "self-collapse" even in the absence of an observer, and that the greater the indeterminacy the greater the chance of such "self-collapse;" he has termed this phenomena "objective reduction," and hypothesized that every instance of quantum collapse is associated with a moment of consciousness or choice. Most instances of quantum collapse involve quite simple systems, and therefore the associated moment of consciousness or choice is extremely simply in nature, and might thus be more properly considered something like "proto-consciousness." Human brains, however, are the most complex structure known in the universe, and have the ability to integrate immense amounts of information, such as sight, sound, memories, etc., into a rich, meaningful whole. Moments of quantum collapse within specific brain structures, and the associated moments of consciousness, thus reflect this amazingly rich informational tapestry.

The reason for the "Orchestrated" part of Penrose's "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" is that through the process of evolution, i.e., natural selection, living things have come to "orchestrate" this process of quantum collapse (objective reduction) in such a way as to enhance their own survival prospects, so that organisms consciously experience pleasure or pain in such a way that pleasure tends to drive them towards beneficial, pro-survival things, and pain tends to drive them away from harmful, anti-survival things.

I hope that made some sense...I know this is all rather complicated stuff.

I also hope that my answer to your other question, the one about time and the fourth dimension is a bit easier to understand!

First of all, time as a "thing," as an actual dimension of space time, has its own independent existence, not dependent upon human perception. In other words, a clock, for example, would continue to "tick" and "measure the passage of time," so to speak, even if no one ever looked at it to check the time. (As long as it was wound up, or its batteries were good, or was plugged in, or whatever, of course!) So, in that sense, time is real.

As for "sensing" time, that seems to require memory. (Just as sensing light requires something like eyes. Light exists, but blind people cannot see it, while sighted people can.) Most simple quantum processes do not seem to possess anything which could serve as a memory, so each moment of consciousness for them would seem to be a very simple sense of "conscious now-ness." Most biological organisms (including us, of course) have a complex system in place for storing information which can be access at a later time; in other words, "memory." So each of our moments of "conscious now-ness" is associated with the current state of the information in our brains, which includes both our immediate sensory perceptions (what we are seeing, feeling, etc., now) as well as whatever we are remembering at the moment.

It seems that in a way, all that anything can be conscious of is "now," but if "now" includes some sort of representation of the past (a memory) then "now" also comes with a sense of time.

There have been gods and religion in almost every culture in history. It must serve a purpose?
I agree that a lot of religious stories are completely unrealistic but don"t you think that proceeding forward as a species involves accepting the beliefs of others, whether it be god, hard science or the tooth fairy. If a certain belief system works for an individual, why not?

If the universe came about from a singularity of infinite density and everything was created from this, then could not this singularity be called god? And perhaps by believing in science you believe in god? You just haven"t anthropomorphasised it as much as other people.



You just sometimes have to read between the lines with all this religious stuff.

If there is a multiverse of infinite universes, perhaps these other universes work on completely different principles to our own universe. Wouldn"t we have to work out how each universe operates? This theoretically could take for ever, vis a vis we will never completely work out how reality works.

We just don"t know, so i will remain a sceptical agnostic until the evidence states otherwise (or atleast untill someone cleverer than me can convince me that the evidence states otherwise).
As for the subject of seeing entities while on drugs, i agree that they are in my head.

@hug46:

You raised a few issues. I am going to try to address them all.

Regarding agnosticism.

I would MUCH rather live in a world of agnostics than a world of dogmatic theists. My primary problem with SOME (but not all) agnostics is that, while claiming uncertainty regarding the existence of god, in practice they do often tend to invoke (or give far too much weight to) mystical explanations and entities: aside from some form of possible god, this also can include all sorts of things such as various versions of an afterlife or reincarnation, sometimes other possible "spiritual" entities such as ghosts, angels, or whatever.

I'm NOT saying that this applies to ALL agnostics in general, or to you in specific. (I don't know you well enough.) In an earlier post in this thread I referred to the heuristics associated with theism, agnosticism, and atheism; it's possible that "algorithm" or "calculation," or simply "thought process," might be a better term. For now I'll stick with the term "heuristic," although this may change after I give this terminology some thought.

In any event, the same heuristics (again, I may come to use a differnet term for this) that are associated with agnosticism regarding the existence of some form of god also allow for one to be "agnostic" with regard to the existence of all sorts of things. (By the way, the term "agnostic" comes from Greek words meaning "without knowledge," and while typically applied specifically to the existence of god, can be and often is applied to anything for which one feels one "cannot know." In science, however, when one has no evidence for a thing, that thing is simply not included in the scientific viewpoint. Now, this does not mean that scientist will necessarily declare that "such and such" doesn't exist, but merely that there will be no reference to "such and such" in their theories. Since science has proved so successful as a means for studying the most subtle aspects of reality (actually, it is the most successful system humans have ever devised) it seems to make the most sense to adopt the "heuristics" of science within one's own thinking. This type of thinking can be much more difficult, in a way, than simply thinking something like "Reality could be this way or that way, or whatever...I can't really know so I will avoid making a firm decision one way or another," because it is MUCH harder for most people to get a really firm grasp upon modern science (and modern physics in particular) and the mathematics by which it is often expressed. It is, however, also ultimately MUCH more rewarding because a really firm adherence to "scientific heuristics" can lead one to such a truly PROFOUND, DEEP, REALITY-BASED understanding of the world.

I hope I can say, without ego, that I have become rather adept at such thinking, and do believe that this is exactly the type of understand that I have, and would love to spread to as many others as possible. I believe that it FAR overdue for the world to abandon mysticism, superstition, and the heuristics upon which they are based, and to begin to embrace, in earnest, a profoundly scientific view and understanding of reality, while also embracing a proper system of ethics and wisdom. This is what is required for the human race to leave ignorance and hate behind, and move forward in the spirit of understanding and love. (Okay, I'm done ranting for a bit!)

Regarding the ubiquity of theism throughout history:

I agree that there have been gods and religions in almost every human culture. There have also been all sorts of superstitions, and all sorts of practices based upon these mystical beliefs, sometimes absolutely atrocious practices, some of which continue to this day. The most benign "purpose" behind all of these mysticism is their ostensive "explanatory" purpose, but the other side of this, the "malignant" side, has been the "controlling" purpose. Here's what I mean:

The human mind seeks explanations for things. This is natural and good. People tend to make up explanations for things, some of which seem to make more sense than others, or to be more psychologically "gripping," or both. So the more seemingly "sensible" and "gripping," that is, the more "compelling," of such explanations tend to spread throughout society. Furthermore, since science is a relatively recent human development, such ideas were free to spread (until relatively recently) in the absence of scientific critical thinking. So much for the "explanatory" purpose.

As of the "controlling" purpose: All societies have SOME form of "power structure." VERY early in human history it became obvious that people can be controlled by their beliefs. Furthermore, for MOST of human history the vast majority of societis employed SOME level of religious control over the population. In some societies this was in the form of a direct theocracy, while in others this was a bit more indirect, but still a strong factor.

In pretty much all theocracies, the powers-that-be ensure that the young are indoctrinated into the state religion before they are old enough to have developed the capicity for the type of critical thinking to resist such indoctrination. (This is why very little children quite happily believe in Santa Claus, for example, but slightly older children start to question his existence.) This indoctrination really could be described as a form of brain-washing, whereby even the act of questioning becomes "sinful" and dangerous. (For example, even questioning the existence of god, or certain other religious teachings or rule, can result in "hell" in the "next world" or even some horrible punishment in this one.)

Science serves the "explanatory" function far better than religion, faith, superstition, or anything else we know of. And a population with a scientific, reality-based view of the world is much harder to control than a superstitious, mystical society.

Regarding the big-bang as "god:"

I have heard people try to identify "god" with all sorts of things: love, enerygy, order, the laws of physics, and so on. I think that what they are really trying to do is to preserve an essentially mystical, untenable concept by associating or equating it with something else which does exist. "God," according to most traditional definitions, is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and all-loving being who created the world/universe. While "god" may be loving, the concept of "god" and the concept of "love" are clearly two different things. The same goes for eneryg, order, the laws of physics and so on...these simply do NOT satisfy, in ANY meaningful way at all, the requirements of the concept of god.

To address specifically the big-bang as god, the argument above applies. Furthermore, if God existed, he/she/it would have been the CAUSE of the big-bang, but phsyicists now see the big-bang as a natural phenomenon which required no external, supernatural cause. Furthermore, as a natural event, there were likely many "big-bangs," because it is likely that this universe is not unique, but is part of an infinity multiverse.

Which brings us to the issue of working out the "laws of other universes in the mulitverse:"

Mathematics seems to be essentially "a priori" to the universe, in the sense that any possible universe must obey mathematical laws. That does not at all mean that the values of various physical constants must be the same from universe to universe, but it does mean that whatever the physical constants or physical laws these universes follow, they must be "internally consistent," i.e., they must be mathematical and logical in nature.

Furthermore (an sort of amazingly) as physicists work out very "high energy phsyics" they find that the various "forces" (gravity, electric charge, strong and weak nuclear) actually are the same at very high energies, but only become differentiated as the universe "cools" after the extremely high temperatures of the big bang. As they approach the "theory of everything" they are actually approaching a theory which will predict the range over which physical constants and laws can vary from universe to universe. The theory of everything will actually cover the multiverse in general, of which our universe (and its particular set of paysical laws and constants) is one specific example.

@hug46:

You seem to be the only one so far who has explicitly agreed that DMT "entities" are "in your head" rather than some form of "external being."

I was wondering if you have any sort of personal hypothesis regarding the process whereby the brain generates these experiences.

Maybe, originally, people saw the laws of pysics as god (why does there have to be one god????) and over the years the concept has been twisted into being some old guy with a beard who loves everything, but will damn any of us to hell if wer"e naughty. And yes i agree that this would imply an agenda by those that believe, or claim to believe, those sorts of things.



I cannot give you a hypothesis on how the brain generates these experiences as i am not a very scientifically astute person but i can tell you why i think that the brain creates them.

Because it makes the most sense to me.

Amost everyone of my trips have been steered by the state of mind that i was in before taking the drug and further influenced on how i decide to react to what happens.
The evil and good entities are a reaction to my emotions. The parts of my brain which make things appear far more profound than they actually may be are tweaked. Not too mention that i think that our brains enter into a state of hyper suggestability where our subconscious thoughts guide the programme with a feeling that the experience is realer than real. Maybe this is a result of the part of the brain that makes us more gullible going into overdrive. Add to all this a readjustment of visual and aural perceptions, in quite an extreme and alien way, it"s no wonder that some people think that it"s some kind of pan dimensional freakshow.

Also it just doesn"t make sense to me whenever anyone goes on about evil entities from other dimensions. Why are they so evil???? Do they have a day off from the constant wrong doings? If anything you gotta feel sorry for an entity with such deeply engrained issues.
Or there are experiences of good entities not being what they seem.....Subconscious doubt. Once it all goes tits up it can be quite difficult to reign it in. Fathom hell or soar angelic.

I see the experience as psychotherapy on pixar soaked steroids and will probably get mind raped by the evil middle class guilt entity for snubbing everyone elses pan dimensionam activities.

Having said that there is a lot of weird stuff that i have seen that i just cannot explain, so i reserve my right to turn to agnosticism on this particular subject should i so decide.

@hug46:

Fair enough on delving into a specific scientific explanation. A lot of study needs to be done in that area.

I quite agree about mood and suggestibility affecting the experience. I remember one time, when I was very new to this (actually I believe it was my second DMT experience, and very very long ago) experiencing very vivid moving geometrical images, and wondering about the "communications from hyperspace" that I had heard about. (Even at that time I didn't believe in the "reality" of hyperspace, but I thought I would at least have some experiences which would show my why others actually believed in this "reality." ) Less that a second later the image shifted and I began seeing something like a round tunnel. On the walls of this tunnel, moving very quickly away from me was a continuous stream of something that looked like letters in a foreign alphabet, sort of alien or egyptian hieroglyphics...as though this was the communication. I have no doubt that it was my mind which produced this image...sort of like when one thinks of something in a dream, and then it immediately appears.

I wonder if DMT sort of puts one in something very akin to the dream state, with the exception that one is still actually awake. I've heard that the brain produces extra DMT during dreaming, but I don't know if this has actually been scientifically verified, or its just a claim that keeps getting repeated over and over.

@zon
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
I'm going to read up as much as I can about orch-OR, being musically minded this is too juicy a theory to pass up
Once again though, your writing is refreshingly lucid. Keep it up.

@Sphorange:



I'm not sure if that was a joke or not. If it was...good one! If not, please allow me to point out that "Orchestrated" Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) isn't about music...it is "orchestrated" in the sense of being complexly organized.

Funnily enough that comes under the category of something that i cannot explain. I have seen the weird hieroglyph code all over my body a number of times. I don"t think that i conjured it up. At the time i likened it to the descriptive code that makes up my physical self and that i was a part of a simulation. Having said that it is possible that i had recently seen the James Gates superstring computer code announcement and that my very limited understanding of both physics and the DMT experience conspired to weave a fabrication in my mind. If, by any stretch of the imagination, the simulation things is true it could blow the atheism thing completely out of the water.

Also another thing i find interesting is that people see certain archetypes of deities early on in their experimentations. There is the Ganesh thing. I myself saw the god Anubis early on. I have never seen him since and i have never had much interest in deities before. I wonder why people see these gods at the beginning.

I am not sure about the dreams and DMT thing. None of my dreams have ever been visually like a DMT experience. My dreams are very similar to how my imagination normally works and photorealistic. On a low DMT dose visuals are kinda low quality block like animation and as the doses progress in size it becomes more detailed, fractals come into play, objects take on personalities and come to life and turn into "DMT" entities until a certain saturation point is reached, where everyday perception of time breaks down, i forget who i am (which could be the part of the brain which is responsible for ego getting suppressed) and the whole thing becomes a fully immersive experience.

Speaking of non "sentient" objects taking on personalities, when i was about 18 i once had quite a meaningful relationship with a spoon for the entire trip while on mushrooms. It was my alter ego. I loved that damn spoon, i wonder where it is now.

@hug46:

Regarding the universe as a computer simulation:

I've been away of Professor Gate's findings for a while now, and for years before that have explored the idea that the universe could be some sort of computer simulation. Gate's findings don't actually prove that it is a simulation, but it certainly does make one wonder.

Here's my general take on all of this...Human beings are not gods, according to the usual types of definitions involving omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, being all-loving and eternal. We have what might be called "limited" versions of these "unlimited" qualities: we have limited knowledge, limited power, limited presence, limited capacity for love, and limited duration in time. It is currently possible for us to create relatively simple computer simulations, and over time these simulations will certainly get better and better as the technology improves. It may even be possible to add conscious aspects to these future simulations, so that conscious beings, of a sort, can exist within these simulations.

Does this mean that such simulations were created by "gods?" Not at all...since we are not gods. Likewise, if OUR universe is a simulation, this by no means implies that the creator or creators of OUR universe are gods either. So, atheism would still definitely be preserved as a viable stance.

Now, if our universe is NOT such a simulation, but we find that it has aspects of "computer code" embedded in the physical laws which describe it, this merely means that the universe, or reality in general, has a very fundamental "informational aspect." In other words, just like matter, energy, space, time, and so on, information is a fundamental part of the universe itself. In fact, it may well be that information is even more fundamental than some of these other things.

Here's something interesting: Most (or at least many) people are familiar with the "Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy," which states that matter and energy (which are actually two different forms of the same thing) can be neither created not destroyed, but can only be transformed into different forms. An less well-known law of physics, and yet even more fundamental, is the "Law of Conservation of Information." You can watch a video on YouTube called "Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY . This law features prominently in this lecture.

Since information is so fundamental to reality, it is actually quite natural that this should be reflected in the laws of physics, and is also quite natural that these laws should have some similarily with "computer code" because computers are nothing if not machines for processing information.

Regarding dreams and DMT:

I am not saying that the DMT experience is simply something like a "waking dream." There are obviously certain typical features of the DMT experience, which are not typical of dreams...and there are other features which are. It has aspects which I definitely seem as dream-like, but other aspects which are specific to DMT. It either activates, or inhibits, or even scrambles the processing of one or more parts of the brain, in a way which is specific to DMT. Part of this, but certainly not all, seems to me to mimic certain aspects of the dream state. I think of it as something like when one falls asleep with the TV on. The sound of the TV often has very direct effects in one's dreams. So, if DMT does, in part, mimic the dream state, then its other idiosyncratic effects could easily be being incorporated into the resulting dream-like experience.

Theses are just speculations on my part. I am not claiming to know exactly how it operates in the brain to produce the experiences...I am, however, claiming that ANY experiences are internally generated, rather than the result of coming into contact with some form of external "entities" or "reality." Actually, that was a central point in my original post.

Being a whore for laughter I will take the joke
I was thinking it might be more analogous to a conductor of a great symphony, the living organisms being the composers. But that's probably just my own confirmation bias.

http://entheogenic.podom...011-09-05T12_51_21-07_00

I think this is relevant here

@Sphorange: I'm curious to hear about your impressions of Orch-OR, once you've read up on it a bit.

@jamie: I dowloaded the podcast and listtened to it today in the car. I found the talk interesting, to be sure, but I also (perhaps not suprisingly) found certain of the speaker's interpretations or understandings to be very flawed. Although I was driving I did (carefully) jot down a few notes, which I will expand upon here. They're not really in any particular order.

First, as for the term "entheogen," I consider this to be a misnomer. To me it seems to be a rather self-serving term by those who are trying to promote the idea that psychedelics are a means for "generating the divine/god within" oneself. I do NOT think that this is what they do at all, although I DO think that when they and their activity within the brain/mind is understood in a scientifi, reality-based way, and are used in a responsible manner in accordance with such an understanding, that they can be a powerful tool for profound personal insights, and even for experiencing a "unitary consciousness." I will also say, however, that what I mean by "unitary consciousness" is very different than that of Dr. Ball, as is my understanding of the mechanism by which these substances operate in the brain/mind.

Much of his talk seemed to rely upon his assertions regarding "energy," and the way that psychedelics modify our production or transfer of energy, specifically that it increased its production or transfer. This is pure pseudo-science, not science at all. While all physical systems, including our brains, operate by means of energy transfers and transformations, the brain is specifically involved with the processing of INFORMATION, not energy. Pschedelics specifically affect particular chemical receptors in the brain, which drastically alters the way the brain processes INFORMATION, not energy.

At one point, Dr. Ball very specifically mentioned that during particularly powerful psychedelic experiences the "ego" is (at least temporarily ) negated by "infinite energy." Now, I understand that his Ph.D. is in religious studies or some related area, and not physics...and honestly, it shows. Infinite energy, confined in any sort of finite space, is impossible. Is it possible, for example, for the brain to produce or transfer more energy than the sun, for instance? (And the sun doesn't produce "infinite" energy at all.) His "energy" premise is just plain ludicrous from any sort of scientific perspective at all.

Also, he seemed to draw some sort of conclusion that the fact that DMT can be isolated and crystalized, and that crystals can be used in lasers to focus energy, that this formed some sort of physical basis for DMT as an "enhancer" of the "energetic functioning" of the brain. Again, completely ludicrous from any sort of scientific standpoint. Both salt and sugar are crystals, and neither of them are even close to psychedelics in effect. Furthermore, when DMT is in the brain, it is NOT in a crystaline form, but in a solution. (Even water itself can be in a crystal form. Does drinking water produce a psychedelic effect?)

He also had quite a bit to say regarding "energy flows" and "symmetry" in the body...again, very pseudo-scientific. Assuming that Dr. Ball was giving his honest interpretation about all of this, the best I can say is that his talk proves that even Ph.D.s can be poorly educated or misinformed. And if he is well-educated and informed enough to know that his talk contained so much simply "bad science," then it must be concluded that his talk was not truly meant to educate at all, but merely to advance some agenda of his own. Perhaps he has come to realize that he can sell more books by pushing mysticism and pseudoscience (because that's what most people respond to) rather than by pushing honest scientific knowledge on the subject.

I will also say I get absolutely no joy at all from "attacking" anyone. I do not seek this out at all. But I am not on the attack here at all; I am merely advocating for complete honesty regarding these fascinating substances and their mechanism within the brain. Dr. Ball, by promoting such nonsense, does a real disservice to all who are looking for honest, reality-based answers. These people DESERVE honest answers...and instead they are getting utter nonsense, from someone whose "credentials" make him seem like a credible authority. This is unacceptable.

If this post should come to his attention, I invite him to seriously rethink his position on these issues. The "powers that be" will NEVER take the "psychedelic movement" seriously when so much of the "propaganda" it produces is full of such non-scientific nonsense. He and his readers/followers would be MUCH BETTER SERVED by a serious, SCIENTIFIC, analysis and interpretation of psychedelics and their neurological/biological mechanisms. I would love to see a world where every adult has the freedom to experiment with these substances as he or she sees fit. This will ONLY come about through HONESTY, however, not through misinformation. It is very possible for him to work just a bit harder, and produce an HONEST body of work, which supports the value of these substances...I hope he realizes this and acts accordingly.

I also realize that I am probably going to be attacked for this post...so be it. I am here because I am interested in an honest exchange of ideas, in the hope that this will be a catalyst for greater understanding all around, for all concerned.