Hey Jees. Initially not sure what to make of all that.

But having given it a second read I gotta say it made me laugh and smile, so I guess I have to admit I really enjoyed how you expressed what was on your mind. It's through our choice of words and our actions that others can come closer to knowing who we actually are.

Thanks for the

You must be cheesed right off off with having had so many birthdays!

"troubling" LOL! My children trouble me! I can't believe I am troubling you!

My children also humour me.

And both statements are equally meaningless without any evidence. This is the issue you seem to fail to grasp. No position is valid/credible without evidence. You're certainly entitled to your opinions, but when you start masquerading your opinions as "research" you start to create a myriad of problems. You're also maintaining that your position is unprovable...you literally say



But this is not a valid argument, it's a fallacy. In fact, your entire position here rests on a logical fallacy; that of unfalsifiability (or untestability). That's rather telling, imo.

No one here, other than you, appears to making absolute assertions. You are the one claiming "spiritual beings actually exist."




You appear to be conflating "agreeing with your conclusions" with "entertaining the notion of spiritual entities." It is a fundamentally different position to "entertain the notion of spiritual entities" (which many people who have called you out, myself included, likely do) than to declare the independent/objective existence of these entities. It's an important distinction and one that you would do well to understand.



And, as has already been pointed out by numerous people, your approach didn't actually provide a solid framework or methodology for analyzing "what was behind the experiences." This is a critique you have ignored from numerous people as you continue to tout your "research."


Except that you are. Your signature is a prime example of this:



Your popping in to share your academia.edu writings, and then disappear into the ether, refusing to engage with folks who have commented, is further evidence of your self promotion. You made several new threads after you had received a litany of critiques on your prior writings, the only apparent purpose being to promote your new writings while ignoring the comments on your prior threads. This happened so much that endlessness called you out on it.

Also, you explicitly state that you are working to promote yourself and find followers in one of your interviews:



You seem amused by the fact that I find this troubling, but troubling is the best descriptor, imo. I find it troubling (and problematic) when someone starts running around looking for psychedelic acolytes. This is true whether they're a traveler kid looking to scam their way to the next festival or a leading psychedelic researcher trying to drum up people to buy their newest book. The behavior is, frankly, unacceptable, imo.

Combine shameless self-promotion with fallacious reasoning, poor research methodologies, an unwillingness to engage meaningfully with relevant critique, and a desire for acolytes and yes, to me, the best way to describe that behavior is troubling.

I'm gonna say thanks for that! It's always heartening to hear a positive!

Ultimately, SETI have nothing to do with my views, but to me - based on my assertion that the DMT experience in its fullness is a very powerful interaction with a spiritual entity - it seems such a waste of money looking for off-planet life when the occult dimension that DMT allows us to explore has not even been recognised by our sciences.

But otherwise, thanks for the positives in your response. Not too many of those about these days!

I'm not even interested in all that other stuff. What I want to know is whether you are willing to donate your lungs to science when you pass?

I have to respect the energy you are putting into your replies.


But I don’t think that I do fail to grasp it. I am only giving my opinion and my interpretation. I am clear on that. That’s all any of us can do, unless someone devises something that determine the issue, one way or the other. However, I do believe that in time a general consensus will begin to develop on what the DMT experience actually is. In that respect, based on my experiences, I am making my own little contribution. You are also at liberty to make your contribution.
Yes, I am claiming that "spiritual beings actually exist" based on the findings of my own research. Why does that trouble you?

Maybe you’d like to share what conclusions you have drawn from your experiences with DMT? Or give your opinion as to whether or not spiritual beings do or do not exist.


My research was investigative. I began without having any idea of what I was dealing with and without any intention to write a book. But I had the conviction and the intention to come to an understanding of what was behind the DMT experience - to my own satisfaction, and I am happy that I have done that. Not sure how one could formulate a solid framework or methodology for analyzing DMT experiences. Maybe you can do that and publish your results.


My God man! If you wrote a book would you not want to claim responsibility for that creativity?


I am here now! The delay was unavoidable for me. Sometimes we have other matters that arise and demand our time.


Well yes! Troubling is quite an emotive word, and I was surprised you could be so upset with someone writing honestly and opening about his investigative research into the DMT experience. Like I say, my children trouble me. You wanna give me a kicking? You kick away until your heart’s content. I can only hope it makes you feel better by bedtime.

Why does it trouble me? Because you have offered a series of fluff "articles" that you, yourself, have stated lack theses...all the while asserting that you have engaged in research. However, your methodology is seriously flawed (aside from generating entirely personally-relevant, subjective data) and yet you dismiss these critiques as irrelevant.

Again, to reiterate, because you clearly don't grasp it, your fundamental assertion is a logical fallacy. That alone should be a major signal to you that something is wrong with what you are claiming to demonstrate.

If you had shown up here and said, hey folks, I've smoked DMT 600 times and I believe in spiritual entities, no one would have batted an eye. You may have even gotten quite a bit of discussion on exactly that topic. However, that's not what you did. What you did was show up and start making nonscientific claims and assertions about your "research" and the objective validity of entities (to just name two of the major points people took issue with).

People, correctly, attempted to critique these assertions and you've shown yourself to be remarkably uninterested in hearing their critiques, which is rather telling. In fact, your response to dreamer042 evidences that you not only misunderstood the context/purpose of Strassman's original research, but also makes it appear as though this is not about you sharing meaningful research, but rather proselytizing about your personally significant experiences. How else could this statement, where you strongly imply you are disinterested in employing the scientific method, be interpreted?





I haven't drawn any hard and fast conclusions about DMT and the experiences it facilitates. I don't have any conclusions about entities, precisely because I realize how much is out there that I don't know. I believe the probability that my little meat machine computer brain could actually comprehend any Truth from these experiences is close to zero, and frankly I'm not interested in questions of is X or Y "real"...largely because I don't think it's a pragmatic question. For further articulation on this see:

The Improbability of Hyperspace
The Improbability of Hyperspace II
A pragmatic approach: What is "real", and when is it actually useful to ask this?

The closest things I could make to conclusions regarding DMT and other psychedelics is that they can be catalysts for people to affect personal and social change, especially when deployed through coherent sociopolitical and structural analysis. They can function as ontological and epistemological bombs, forcing users to construct fundamentally new pictures of their experiential reality. They have tremendous therapeutic, medical, and recreational potential. As to the experiential theorizing, I maintain that the Truth is likely stranger than we can imagine. Personally, I'd rather have the experience and let it be what it is, whatever that may be, rather than trying to shoehorn it into inherently limited conceptual constructs like "spiritual entities" or the kabbalah, or whatever the flavor of the week happens to be.


It's one thing to want to "claim your creativity"...it's another to strongly tie that to your identity. There are a number of very accomplished researchers here. Few, if any, tie their "credentials" to their signature like you have, and I assure you that none of them have links to their FB profile in their signature.

I've authored a number of works, some with my real name, some under pseudonyms, some anonymously. I announce when I have published something new and then I let them be (unless someone like yourself requests a sample of "what I've done"). I don't go waving it around in everyone's face because I'm not interested in that. I hope my works have some impact and that they find their way into the minds of folks who are interested in them. I created those works because I believed they needed creating and that they would resonate with folks. That's enough, for me.



Again, the fact that you view this as a personal attack or "kicking" evidences how little you view this as being about you sharing your research and how much this is about you creating some sort of DMT persona for yourself. If this was truly about any of the things you've claimed it to be (such as advancing a new research paradigm, conducting research into DMT, contributing to a broader community of underground resesarch efforts, etc.) you would take the methodological critiques as well about the feedback regarding your style of writing/articles that have been offered and figure out how to work with them to advance the applicability of your "research."

Instead, you seem to view these things as a personal affront to the identity you've worked so hard to create. I'm not here to kick you. I've offered substantive critiques on the writings and presentation you decided to share with the forum. When you submit your work to an audience, you should anticipate that there will be feedback, and the manner in which you engage with that feedback can be quite revealing. I feel like I've learned quite a bit about your intentions and motivations from your responses to me, as well as your interactions with others on this forum and elsewhere on the web.

It certainly can be heartening to read positive feedback, yes, but it's incredibly important to confront the downsides of your approach and "research," and to start applying correct methodologies that will not only improve your "research" but also help others on the Nexus(and abroad) understand where you're actually coming from, and where to go from here. Notice how you ignored my criticism from before? You cannot honestly begin any serious scientific research without some external, challenging forces that expose the flaws within your "research" through a variety of essential factors and questions. That's how science works! Your perceived understanding must be met and undertaken with fresh minded-peer reviewed study. After which, can modulate everyone's logic to a fair consensus. Right?



To state that SETI has nothing to do with your subjective views and then to go on stating,



Subjective assertions mean nothing if others aren't allowed to scientifically critique you. Undoubtedly, you express a certain 'knowing' that spiritual beings exist in the universe, and go on to inform the world of your subjective and asserted reality. Sure, it's interesting and invaluable to share ideas/experiences but I don't agree with your assertions. At the end of the day, you don't know much of anything outside your own experiences. This can be easily misconstrued. Although, this can be easily enhanced with proper feedback and development of your "work." The book you have written would seem like a waste of money without some serious scientific methods included within that book.

Also, science has already recognized DMT. Welcome to the DMT Nexus University.

Thank you for your well thought out post Cognitive Heart.



Kind regards,

The Traveler

wicked! gonna check it out!

You can smoke DMT 1000 times in one year, it won't make the experience one bit more 'real', it remains subjective.

OK, perhaps among DMT enthusiasts there is some concensus about how the experience can feel very real, or even worldview-shatteringly real... but that's like witnesses in a courtroom: great stories don't make hard science.

Just avoid inappropriate terms (in this context) like occult, research, '600 times' - it only discredits your book imho!

wtf 600 times to know that spiritual beings are real?
it took me one time

All I can say is I love you and I feel you deeply. Thank you.

I agree.

Any claims of legitimacy have been lost with that picture. It's no longer about exploring ideas about consciousness through so-called "scientific methods". It's a cash grab. Same thing as that truth changa thread.

This ruse is very transparent.


There are people here who have smoked more than 600 times, if that is the criteria for "knowing" DMT. There are people here who have dedicated their ENTIRE LIVES to the PURSUIT of knowing (not a mere 3 years), and knowing that they will never know. That is what drives us. The enigma, the mystery. To claim one knows everything about anything, knows nothing.

Love the T-shirt!
I hope the tagline mentioning "The Spirit Molecule" doesn't incite a copyright infringement cease and desist letter from Rick Strassman's publisher!

Just because something can't be ignored, does not automatically mean that it will become defined by what can't ignore it.

It is no contradiction but an indictment of the state of modern western science. Not that we don't all try to enable science and scientists to be capable of uncovering reality, but that the basis of modern western science, sustains something of being at odds with itself. In highschool we get taught that the vacuum principle is corrupt, and scientific experiment can't in fact occur in a vacuum, but still need approach the ideal of a vacuum.

Yet in older notions of what science is, in sciences such as TCM and Ayurveda, for example, the ideal is not that the vacuum need be caused by us, but that Earth is itself, within Earth's atmosphere, the limited system we need. And each variable need be tested one at a time, within the limits of Earth, and in a system of studies designed around the presumption that all knowledge need longitudinal research to corroborate and validate, before being asserted. For example, if there is a plant, and it sustains a medicinal effect, is the effect the same in all persons, and the same in each person all the time, and what are the totality of effects of that plant upon the human psyche, the human senses of pleasure versus pain, and the human ability to work. Clearly if science as we know it is to survive, the concepts of more ancient systems of science more compatible with psychedelics need be accommodated. Psychedelics will often enough lead into science, and science need adjust to survive, if it is to continue to be regarded as a pinnacle of true thought.

Meanwhile, psychedelics also might teach us, (if plants and fungi etc can be the technology and.or the teacher,...a living conduit at least), just as systems of investigation like Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese Medicine have long taught, that we most often make clearer more concise and effective choices, when we are able to rely upon genuine happy emotion as guide. In science what muddies genuine happy guidance, was of course the monetary profit motive, which is the reason a website like dmt-nexus need exist, since conflicts of interest need be avoided in the choices made in experiment design, for example. Yet we all have the fact in common, of wanting to avoid pain, as our only singular species wide goal, and within understanding of the stick, the carrot can be more effective.

My point of view is that accumulative experience of psychedelic consumption, being regarded as a matter of inquiry and application of whatever understanding of scientific method we each may have, is as relevant today as ever before; and that in such relevance, we can hardly afford to ignore the collective knowledge of humanity held by indigenous traditional knowledge systems still maintained today. Such knowledge leads us to understand that psychedelics are often of critical usefulness within initiatory ritual. What initiatory rituals teach, and why those lessons sustain usefulness today, becomes the question modern western scientists have seemed to be too afraid to ask, and yet still need.

It's all nice and good to say you believe in spiritual entities... but do you realize how fucking difficult it is to prove using a scientific method that is mostly geared towards inter-subjective physical experimentation?

The spiritual is far harder to pin down, so any notion of proper research needs to have something solid that can at least prove without a shadow of a doubt that there are non-physical entities roaming around... extremely difficult, considering that spiritual experiences tend to be quite personal and difficult to reproduce just like that.

Best of luck trying to convince the materialist faction of the scientific institutions...

Thank you Snozzleberry and cognitive heart.

You guys saved me a load of time by writing all that. Specifically posts 15 and 24.
It takes forever on a phone, I had a huge page typed out, then lost it.
You expressed it a lot clearer and concisely than I could have, as well.

What a substance - Nothing wrong with your beliefs and opinions, but that is all they are without evidence and proof.
There are things that science cannot yet prove or disprove, and we are entitled to believe what we want, but if you state these things as facts, you are misleading people.
People are paying you for your book, naively assuming you have some secret knowledge about the spirit world.
Capitalizing on that and not providing any real data is wrong, and it's just bad science.