I know you're trying hard to explain it away. I know these things simply cause alterations to the CNS and I know how they affect serotonin neurotransmitters, etc. I know all of that. I see what you're trying to say. You don't see my point though. It's not getting through.

When DMT is smoked it causes the visual cortex to get cut off from data entering into the brain from the eyes basically. It does something very similar to how dreams are created in the brain. We can look at the interactions of these compounds in the blood, see how they affect the neurotransmitters, etc., and measure doses, pulse rates, brain waves, etc., but we can't prove what the user sees is not real. We can't prove it's imagined. It looks as though it is, but it can't be proven. That's where you just don't get it.

I'm taking time out on this and seeing where this thread goes.

First off stop the attacks. It is childishness. Again you have changed your argument so many times it is ridiculous. Why do you do this? It is so frustrating.


I guess it comes down to what do you define real as? and what you consider proof? Please define these terms.

Here is my take:

What constitutes real? Many times in a dream I am aware I am dreaming. I know that my experiences have no consequences and I can not be hurt as there are no long term effects. If we assume that things must occur in the physical world to be real than yes you can prove they are not real. I already went over this I guess it just isn't getting through too you! We know that things must exist in the physical world to be called real. (That is the definition I am going by if you want to make up your own definition feel free although please stick to it and define it). Thus we can prove if the thing one is seeing while tripping is real or just generated by the alteration in neural activity caused by the DRUGS that were ingested. You can prove that the experience only exists in the realm of subjective experience, that it has no external correlate in the physical world. This can be proved through science by taking measurements and observations of different experimental designs and making notes of relationships.

Also it has been shown that DMT does NOT act to alter the visual cortex or the retina but it acts on higher level cortical circuits such as the association areas. Dorsal and ventral stream. Nor does it necessarily "cut off" information from the thalamus and ultimately the retina. Very high doses would be needed for this to occur and it would not be so much a cutting off as a drowning out. The circuits which create dreaming experiences also very likely are involved in creating waking experience.

We know that the brain creates the mind. If we can stimulate the mind selectively and create experiences we can prove that that region of the brain and that experience are related. This has been done. Also non-invasive techniques exist EEG, PET, FMRI, MRI also we can do this work in monkeys and teach them to respond. Then if we remove that area of the brain (lesion) and stimulate it and the experiences do not occur we can show that they are again related and dependent on one another. This is why people who are blind from birth do not have visual hallucinations as the regions needed to process sensory information are needed for the experiences. There are no external correlates to the culturally influenced set influenced visual effects.

Furthermore if these experiences are real than the only way to see them is through the sense organs (you agree?). How come people who are blind later in life will still have visuals if taking a hallucinogen? Direct magical perception of a real world? No they lack functional brain regions needed for the perceptions to be generated and if it were direct experience then they should be capable of having them right?

Furthermore two people very rarely have the same experience. We can conclude that they are experiencing internally generated perceptions. They are not seeing things in the environment which are normally filtered out. Direct electrical stimulation of the brain can create similar hallucinations.

I do see what you are saying but I disagree I think that it can be proven. Of course it can this is so obviously intuitive. Just as dreams are known not to be real. It is a fact that they are not real. What do you want as proof.

The fact that no novel information can be obtained in dreams or hyperspace?
The fact that they are both culturally influenced?
The fact that two people rarely have consistent experiences?
They fact that they are not consistent even with one person?
The fact they can occur in people without sense organs?
The fact they can not occur in people w/o functioning cortical regions?
They fact that they only occur subjectively and can not be confirmed by others?
The fact that your actions in such states have no consequences?
The fact that the changes you make are not stored?
The fact that the laws of physics are not obeyed?
The fact that we can not use equipment to study the properties of these experiences?
The fact that they occur independently of the activity of the sense organs?
The fact that they can be replicated by electrical stimulation and direct chemical administration? (microinjections)

What do you define as proof?

The idea of color/visual perception (conception) or lack of with people that are blind from birth is quite fascinating. I've been trying to find some in depth articles/studies about this.

I don't know what to say to that. If you're getting frustrated, maybe you should take a nap. I'm out of this discussion for a while. I said about as much as I needed to say. I'll let the rest of you guys battle this one out.

It seems that "Co-exists with our reality, we just tap in and out" is what most people think which I guess is why you feel you are being attacked. I'm sorry you feel like that.

I did not start this discussion to get unpleasant remarks thrown at (i even considered it offensive, but others dont seem to see what im talking about) Particularly "I'm not sure if I should break out laughing or what." that part. I thought that users of this forum had a bit more respect for each other in the way they type. Apparently i was thinking too positively (one of my worse qualities) like i always do and got shot down. It seems as if you were taking your anger out at me, but who am i to say.

Im not going to sit an dwell on this. It was a bit shocking though for voicing my thought and getting shot down.

Dont get me wrong, i greatly respect you 69ron and your contribution the world/and website. But i think that was a bit harsh, and i have done nothing to be talked to that way. I will think twice from now on before starting a heated discussion. I didnt want to be the person always asking questions and wanted to start something intellectual, but if im going to get hurt from doing that, then i might as well not in hostile places

Anyways, all im saying is be impeccable with your word

I do not feel like I am being attacked. It makes little difference what people think on an internet survey. I do not know who voted, I do not now there educational background (not saying this to be mean) however these surveys mean very little unless they are familiar with the scientific literature or philosophical. Have 100 neuroscientist PHDs vote and see what it says. Never the less they are interesting to see but honestly I did not even look at the score until you said that. I was more interested in the discussion.

The thing is no one was battling until you came along. You refuse to acknowledge people arguments and then you just change your argument as you go along. This is frustrating and it is not the first time it has happened. Furthermore you resulted to attacks on my character again. I was not offended obviously but many people would have been. You really need to consider this as a respected member. Additionally it just makes you look bad. What kind of example have you set. I admit I may have been out of line a little but only after you provoked me. This is not how we talk to each other on this forum. I am not sure if you were having a bad day or what but this isn't the place for it.

Nime: This forum was a good one and generated some good discussion. Sometimes the best discussions are the most heated as it shows they are emotional. Do not let it get to you some people just get angry at people who have opposing views from them. Others resort to name calling instead of constructive arguments. It is sad to see this, but there is little we can do about it.

Memo. There are at least two interesting studies from the sixties looking into this.

Here is the one :
Effects of a Hallucinogenic Agent in Totally Blind Subjects
ALEX E. KRILL, M.D.; HUBERT J. ALPERT, A.B.; ADRIAN M. OSTFELD, M.D.
Arch Ophthalmol. 1963;69(2):180-185.

I think you can find it one erowid.

The gist was that in subjects who where blinded later in life and had spontaneous visual experiences occasionally in their life, did in fact have visual hallucinations upon LSD ingestion. Wheres the three subjects who were born blind did not have any visual effects. Some of the subjects who went blind later in life but lacked spontaneous visual illusions (in dreams or waking) did not perceive hallucinations.

It would be great to see a more recent study using DMT and a larger subject group. More specific imaging could be performed in these future studies as well to see what type of brain activity may be necessary for visuals to occur.

It certainly would. It just seems unfathomable that anyone, born blind or not, wouldn't have a visual experience on a high enough dose of DMT.

Just to play devil's advocate here (and I'm no scientist, so I think I'll stay out of this debate): If there were such a study and the results ran contrary to your expectations, do you think this would change your fundamental beliefs about the nature of the experience?

Thanks Bufoman, i wont let it get to me.
I have a few other thoughts/threads of this sort that will cause heated discussion. Ill be sure to post them when the times is right.
I really enjoy reading all of your guys' posts, very interesting stuff.

I dont think we definitvley know that the brain creates the mind at all.
I like the analogy that the brain is the CPU so to speak. Reality is the software and the mind is the "user" of the computer.
All information passes through the CPU/Brain, but taking them away doesnt mean the "user" ceases to exist. The mind is much greater than the brain, and by having to work through these biological 5 sense suits we have, it is severley limited. I believe that in times when we can surpass the brain/cpu, i.e meditation, NDE, hallucinogens etc, we experience at least a greter portion on the minds potential.
How many similarities do you read about ASC's by whatever means they are attained. " I was everything and nothing, everywhere and nowhere, I knew absolutley eveything, time didnt exsit etc etc" I believe that these experiences come about when the mind surpasses the brain as it were, or when the brain is in a theta/delta states.

If anyone has read the holographic univerese, if i remember correctly it mentions and experiment where they used lab rats to learn the route of a maze with food at the end. They then removed the parts of the brain thought to be responsible for memory. The rats where still able to find their way through the maze to the food. The conclusions being that the brain is holographic in nature. Either that or memories are stored elsewhere.....prehaps the mind.
I dunno, im just kinda ramblin here, but i just dont buy that the brain creates the mind.

You seem to place a lot of emphasis on things obeying the laws of physics...and as much as i agree that it is important to be able to reproduce results that allow us to explain certian phemonenon, i also think that there is a danger of being blinkered by science. Being overly scientific can actually close your mind somewhat.
Even in this reality, when you study it close enough, the laws of physics begin to break down....quantum strangness.
But at the end of the day, i believe that at out most fundamental level of existence we are pure consciousness. Right now in our current state we are experiencing consciousness in a limited and linear fashion, but beyond this, outside of time and space, the laws of physics dont apply.....and this is what we are gettin glimpses into when we journey on any ASC. Its new software with different rules/laws.

I can understand why these discussions get so heated; I think they are healthy as long as no one takes it personally when their view is challenged by someone who believes differently.

It is a fascinating topic really.

When I was young I was really interested in science. Space travel, particle physics, quantum theory.
I had an experience when I was about 16 when I was basically visited by something - I was pretty much paralysed in my bed and had clear visions of faces trying to communicate with me. It freaked me out completely. My mum, who is a psychotherapist, told me how we do not understand how the mind works very well, with the strong implication that what I saw came from within me. However, I had the strong feeling that what I experienced was most definitely not from within myself, that an external force held me to try and show me something. I was too scared to let it though. Since that time (and I had similar experiences once or twice more, along with other out of body type experiences), I realised that (amongst other things) there are many things scientific enquiry will not be able to explain. And, that our reality is wider than the physical world, that there may be other worlds/dimensions and that different dimensions may intersect at times.

69ron,
I have heard you explain this story before, but you didnt include the details. Have you writtin a trip report about this on here somewhere as i would like to read it. Or was it too much or a personal journey?

Woah thats mental man.
Where they aliens
Have you seen any similar beings since journeying with the scared molecule?

Your right, it is a fascinating topic, and there always seems to be a definite divide between the scientists and the more spiritually orientated (for want of a better phrase). Thing is its probally two side of the same coin at the end of the day.

ha, no not aliens... it was quite biblical actually... the first time it happened I saw morphing faces in great pain like they were calling out to me. It had a red tint to it. It was almost like old paintings of people burning in hell.

then a few months later, again it happened, but this time the face of an old wise man with a long beard (!!!) was trying to tell me something, trying to communicate with me. I tried to stop myself from panicking that time but I couldnt I was still freaked out, and managed to shake myself out of it.
The strange thing was each time, before I got the vision, I felt really nice, like my body was totally relaxed and feeling good. Then I would get a warmth around my head and torso area. And then I would realise I couldnt move and that is when the visions would occur.

I have not seen faces like that in my journeys, no - dmt world is way more abstract in my experience!

Yeah your not wrong mate

Could you elaborate at all on your OBEs.
This was something that fascinated me for a while and i spent alot of time trying to do it, but i always just end up falling asleep.
I did used to get alot of sleep paralysis too. I vividly remember this one tome when i woke upo in paralysis and couldnt open my eyes either. I heard these kids run down the corridor and into my bedroom. They were mischevious and were giggling and saying things like "get him, poke him". Scary. I managed to break the paralysis, sat bolt upright and shouted something, only to find an empty room of course.

Actually, my OBE were more like sleep paraylsis most of the time, used to get it a LOT when I was in my late teens. Once I saw a blue light below me while 'flying' which I understood to be my body... then I wooshed down back in and I was back. Really weird stuff.. but I never had a full on out of body experience where I could 'see' physical reality.

Science can and eventually will explain everything, but it hasn't yet.

Do scientists know every function and full potential of every part of the brain? No...

Is it possible that a simple molecule like DMT can act as a software driver, allowing us access to unknown sensory organs of the brain?

The brain is so much like a computer. Full of hardware and software. Various chemical reactions make glands, receptors, etc. executable.

There is no "magic" to it. It's just science we haven't understood fully yet.

When traveling in a multidimensional universe, we are bound to encounter things that can't be explained by our limited understanding of things.



Many of your "proofs" are dismissible based on our limited understanding of this reality.
Just because science has a limited understanding of something, it does not mean "something" is not real.

Science cannot ever explain everything!! It can explain a hell of a lot of things. But not everything!
Indeed it can be seen as not 'magic' .. in order to understand this stuff better I think we should look to those who have been using dmt for thousands of years. Lineages of shamans who have developed systems for traversing reality in altered states. Those who have learnt to manipulate that reality and use it to create effects in normal reality. This kind of stuff has been documented a lot. I have personally not experienced this myself. However, I soon hope to go to the amazon to learn more about ayahuasca so perhaps I will get to experience such happenings for myself...

Individuals born blind would absolutely NOT see any significant visuals even on a high dose. This is physically impossible and they require a functioning cortex to do this. The visual cortex requires sensory input to function properly. Electrical stimulation of these individuals would also not cause the hallucinations. Furthermore they would have no idea what any of these visuals were. Additionally perception involves more than raw sensory experience and these perceptions would not be similar at all to those of non-blind subjects.

The holographic view of the brain was shown to be false years later. We understand a lot about the brain. Information is dispersed but not to the degree that all parts contain all the info of the whole. We def do not understand everything it also does not mean that magic is involved. Circuits of the brain control every aspect of our view of reality. Why is it so hard to believe that DMT is involved in creating everyday consciousness? Is this not an incredible thing on its own. How the brain generates the mind. DMT obeys all the laws of a classical neurotransmitter.

The mind is generated by the brain. If you remove the brain the mind (you) disappear. We do know this. We even know what parts of the brain create which aspects of the mind. If you remove specific circuits you remove specific aspects. No one said that the fundamental force of consciousness is generated by the brain however the unique state of consciousness that we refer to as the mind is dependent on the brain.

Dismissible based on limited understanding of this reality? We have a significant understanding of this reality you just are not aware of it. Just because you are not aware of something does not make it not true. Your beliefs are new age propaganda. I had thought we stopped it here along time ago. It doesn't mean the experience is any less meaningful. In fact to me it is even more meaningful as it can get to the very nature of how matter and conscious experience are related. Those questions are not dismissible to any logical person. The is ZERO support for this "hyper space is real man" argument ( actually belief as it is hardly an argument).

You guys have a serious misunderstanding of science. This has nothing to do with the fact that science can not explain everything. If you honestly want to get to the truth you will see the value and limitations of science. However I can tell that most of you have very little understanding of the scientific process but rather have just read too much of the new age psychedelic literature. If you really want the truth I suggest you reevaluate the situation and read the scientific literature. The thing you are believing are complelty made up by people who think they sound cool and want to sell books. Furthermore you did not even make them up some one else did. They have ZERO support and are counter intuitive. This fact has nothing to do with science but a basic understanding of human logic.

Do you realize what you are saying. You are taking a hallucinogenic drug and claiming the hallucinations are real? In spite of tons of logical evidence which suggests otherwise, as well as scientific evidence supporting the role of the higher level cerebral cortex, and the fact that this belief lacks ZERO support aside from it sounds really cool.