First off let me say I never actually tried DMT but spent hours researching it, and here is my conclusion:

After watching the latest interview with David Icke, I have to disagree that the DMT experience is authentic and not generated by the brain. I think the DMT experience is just one delving into the deepest corners of the mind - the complex pathways of neurons and synapses, hence why insectoids and elves often appear since they are likely archetypes of the sub-conscious. As real as it may seem to the one having this experience, it is all just in the brain. It is basically the same thing as dreaming, the only difference is it is done while being fully awake which generates a more vivid experience, and replaces the surrounding with something completely generated by the mind - and just like a dream you wake up asking, "what the hell just happened?" trying to put all the pieces together before you forget it. Like in dreaming, I bet EEG machines on the brain of someone under the influence of DMT would show lots of activity, so it is not a legitimate otherworldly experience but a product of the brain.

There is a good podcast that you should listen to. Its the Psychedelic Salon on itunes, and the podcast is a 1990 Trialog with Terence Mckenna, Ralph Abraham & Rupert Sheldrake (sp)- Titled Entities. Its a great discussion, worth listing to.

I also recommend this talk. All of the trialogues are worth watching at least once. There's a very good deal of wisdom within all three of these individuals, and watching them have these sincere discussions is a really worthwhile experience.

Thanks for the vid good watch but no offence mate but don't you think you should have some deep experiences with dmt before making your mind up, the old is it real question comes up a lot and I would have said no its not real until I had some experiences now I say yes it is real. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs because it can't really be proven, as Icke says science only really measures whats in visible light and well for me seeing really is believing. Of course think for yourself and question everything but when you come across those loving insectoids that are beyond anything you have ever seen in day to day reality it gives you a whole load of new questions.

I myself have never partaken in DMT either but I have however partaken in other hallucinogens. And can say for certain that each and every experience was chemically induced but 100% authentic.

One thing that I have to ask is do you think ANY experience is authentic or not generated by the brain and if yes what experiences do you think aren't?

Brain chemistry and neurological disorders are quite interesting but can you say distinctly that the hallucinations or delusions that someone with schizophrenia experiences isn't authentic?

I've had a conversation with a particular friend a few times about how he thinks that all emotion and motivation are a result of chemicals in our brains. If this is to be true then can any emotion thus be authentic because I'm experiencing it through my brain? Can a thought ever be authentic because it is being generated from a brain?

I think you have to be a bit more specific about labeling the entirety of an experience as not authentic just because it is chemically induced or because we are perceiving it through a brain. Serotonin affects so much of our lives on a daily basis and it is a chemical.

But it is a drug, so unless smoking it somehow leaves the bodies vitals running whilst you are blasted out of your body temporarily, I don't see how it can be "real". I would have to agree with James Kent that the DMT experience is the product of the brain's gears and machinery. Dreams can seem very real, but we know they are not, just neuron synapses firing.

I suggest you watch these clips by James Kent:

James Kent: I have a problem with notion that brain sees things that other mechanical devices can't



Thanks, will do.

that is all "reality" is, as well.

as you read these words, everything you see, feel, hear, and think are just neuron synapses firing.


that doesn't say much about anything.


as far as the brain seeing things not detected by mechanical devices, as far as i know consciousness cannot be detected by mechanical forces, and that is the VERY first observable phenomena.

and seeing as how this field is completely disregarded by mainstream science as of now, that doesn't mean much. given time and research, i think it is entirely possible that they be detectable.

having familiarized myself with them before, i am thoroughly unimpressed with kent's argument. also, not to be a stickler or anything, but i don't see where this stops being kent's theory, and starts being YOUR theory..

Top neuro-scientists in their fields are not making claims about consciousness anywhere NEAR as bold as kent. and who is this guy? a programmer and a publisher. clearly a source to be regarded above all philosophers and neuro-scientists up until now.

he cracked the case, time to go home (no but seriously, kent needs to watch more ted talks about neuroscience).

Exactly^^

I love when people come up with theories on the experience, especially one's who haven't went deep. Heheh, when that day comes....you'll be in for a surprise.


much love,
tat

And then you will probly realise that you don"t know what the hell is going and all you can do is theorise about your theories.

this is the ONLY lesson i have learned from psychs:

NObody knows what the hell is going on - and everybody (even you and I) is wrong

this guy is wrong too, but he is less wrong than kent, and actually qualified to discuss neuroscience

Does some fancy degree make those neuro-scientists and philosophers more credible than James Kent? I think all that is required to figure this out is logic and reason.... and experience with DMT too, James Kent seems to meet all those criteria.



Better to theorize than to be stuck in the utter confusion that you are in.

All your hopes, dreams, desires, ideas, constructs, dualities, EVERYTHING goes out the window once your there. You then realize the silliness of it all. Like trying to catch air in a bottle. Anything you might ponder while immersed, just dissolves in the face of it.
Once you get quite a few deep journeys under your belt, you'll realize how silly all these theories are.

It's all one big


much love,
tat

Good luck with that brother

no, a vast amount of knowledge, and YEARS of legitimate research make them more credible than kent.

kent has made statements about consciousness and neuroscience that are objectively incorrect.
and philosophers dating back to antiquity are FAR more logical and reasonable than kent.

i would recommend you watch this video.


admitting that we don't know something is not confusion.. it is the first step to discovery.

theorizing about things one doesn't understand is how people conceived asator as being responsible for thunder.

was it better for them to come up with thor? or say "gosh, i don't know what makes that thunder, we should find out"

i'm a big lover of philosophy and logistics but i do not think the plain of those two is enough to uncover things like this at some point some sort of degree is a must when talking about neuroscience

That's the funny part. Even though I admitted in my post that I have no first hand DMT experience, several of you decided to use that against me.

Anyway, my dilemma is basically this, summed up by James Kent:



I'd like to hear your opinion. How does a drug actually enable you to leave your body?

Anyway it is 5am here and I am extremely sleep deprived. Time for me to take a mini DMT trip. zzzzzz

nobody knows.

not you, me, or james kent.



as for using it against you.. i think you misunderstood my point.

I cannot hypothesize about such things either, because I do not know them (nobody does)


neither you nor i know the cause of the thunder, but only you are hypothesizing.

i question whether your "thor" exists.


we cannot conceive of consciousness inside of the body, let alone outside of it.

and yes it does sound like kent needs to update his view of spirituality, being in a non-physical realm would be called a spirit-realm by primitive people. whether that has personal significance depends on the person. there are nexians who do not consider themselves "spiritual". but i think most of them would agree that kent is laughably mistaken.


on a less related note: your 5-ht2 (Serotonin) receptors are inactive during REM (when endogenous DMT levels are elevated), so there is no evidence that you experience any DMT while dreaming.

That is a matter of opinion. Besides i do theorise.... I just theorise on how confused i am.

I am just a bit troubled why there is no clear answer to the DMT question and why many answer with ""depends what your definition of real is maaan"". These threads always lead to arguments about semantics. Does anyone have any logical theory on how a molecule similar to Serotonin can actually take you to other worlds that are very real? If not than the experience can be discarded as a product of the brain's complex neuron pathways. In other words, it's all in your head. When I will be dreaming tonight (or this morning rather ) , in a forest running away from the Sasquatch, as real as it will seem, it's actually not. I'm wondering if the DMT experience is like that.