Well I'm a scientist and a mystic, and I don't have a problem with entheogens. I think there's lots of untapped potential here, but you're absolutely right. Science has to expand it's idea of reality.

m

yes we do want to learn about this type of thing, science is the search for the truth and this experience may unveil a great truth. people are studying these kinds of substances currently on a limited scale but it is changing. it would not have changed and many of the fascinating and truly wonderful discoveries humans have made would have never happened if everyone subscribed to the attitude that we dont need more proof. science is on the verge of figuring out that there may infact really be other dimensions not just through tripping but through real good advanced experimentation and tripping may eventually complement this research when we figure out that we may infact really be seeing these other dimensions when we alter our mind. i would rather continue learning then just rely on faith or my own personal subjective experiences, which are valuable tools but there still is a lot of unanswered questions.



this is a tough conclusion to draw. if someone hears voices and sees a person speaking to them and no one else does, does that make it real? its the same thing with the psychedelic experience. is there a line between delusion and reality? i believe the line blurs with altered states of consciousness whether induced by brain damage or chemical alteration. figuring out whats real and whats not isn't always so simple.



people always think that when I bring up this issue that im dissin all mysticism off as a bunch of new age hippy crap and im not. i agree with the experience but i dont always agree with the explanation because no one no matter how mystical or scientific they think they are understands completely yet what is going on so they make up or put together explanations that attempt to fit our or their world view. there is nothing wrong with trying to come up with explanations. some peoples explanations are in my opinion total wacked out bullshit. some are very clear and well thought out but that doesn't mean they are true. the search for the truth is an endevour both of science and mystics and both can and should work together. we can learn so much if we just keep asking questions.



your right we can't know everything but that doesnt mean we should stop trying to understand things. if everyone just accepted that we cant know everything then no one would try to look deeper and figure out things. this is how our collective knowledge expands by asking questions and peering deeper into things not just saying "we cant understand everything so why try to prove it". that a very sad and limited way of looking at the world and the power of our minds.

realize i am not saying that this is all absolute nonsense other dimensions are hogwash all im saying is we can and should try to learn more before subsribing the complete and utter acceptance of what we think we have experienced.

i look forward to being part of learning more about how the mind works and what drugs/mysticism/science will teach us about our mind and reality. i dont think people realize how much we know and how much more we can figure out. i have a very positive outlook on all this i dont see why people often think im being some kind of negative evil scientist.

it's not that difficult.



[/quote]

Well how 'bout this one. I wrote a "map of consciousness and creation" in this book


http://www.michaelsharp....thebookoflight_ebook.pdf

The Book of Light: The Nature of God, the Structure of Consciousness, and the Universe Within You (vol one). There's an ontological statement in there about the primacy of consciousness, and an explication of the first phases of creation as it emerges from the unfolding of consciousness. You have to kind get past the introduction which is a bit of moral statement. But past that this is a book that looks at creation from the very beginning and follows it through the unfolding of various dimensions, with everything being rooted in consciousness.

i.e., consciousness is the root of all things, as I say in the book.


as for knowing or not knowing, given the horrid state of the planet, I think we all need to
learn right now the highest truths of creation. can't waste any more time

what kind of scientist (discipline) are you?

m

When you say that consciousness is the root of all things, do you mean with that A- that it's the basis of all knowledge (knowledge of all things) and reality or B- that it's the basis of all things themselves.
If so, in what way is your definition of 'consiousness' different then from the way we use the term in our everyday lives?

cool thanks for e book will check it out when have time. ive heard the arguments about consciousness being the root of all things and have a number of questions about this issue.

i think alot of people still think that science is totally stuck in the material world view but thats not entirely true. the material world view is useful for things on the every day scale, how to build a mechanical machine how to study cells and chemistry etc. but things like relativity and quantum mechanis have in a way shattered the conception that energy and matter are seperate and that reality is much more weird then we thought. yes we live in a material world but what underlies the material world is energy and what underlies that may be this universal consciousness super string idea. my question is why does what which underlies everything need to be consciousness? does it need to be a universal intelligence?

about proving the existence of other dimensions thats underway. http://public.web.cern.c...ience/Dimensions-en.html heres some info about the large hadron collider and what they plan to do with it. btw swim works in natural product chemistry backround is not physics but chemistry and biology.

I also don't see that, that wich undelies everything nessecarily has to be something like universal counsciousness.
Counsciousness, on the other hand, has to be somehow a reflection of that in wich it's rooted. That wich underlies everything also underlies counsciousess.
I think counsciousness as such is in it's form not that different from the other things brought forth by nature. It's a variation on the elementary structures present throughout the universe. So from our human perspective, the world looks like it's human, because the things of wich our counsciousness is a variation, apear everywhere and we are mostly unable to think 'outside' ourselves. While we are a variation on a universal theme, it looks like the universe is a variation of us.

On the other hand it can be a question if counsciousness is more then just a shape of things and if maybe the energy itself, molded to this structure is a form of counsciousness in itself. I think this is what michael sharp means, though i am not him, so i might be wrong. If this would be the case this universal counsciousness would be a counsciousness though, with yet no meaning attached to it. It would be something like clay that's not yet shaped into a form of anything, paint not yet present in a painting.

This is a very intruiging view similar to that of philosophers such as spinoza, augustine and thomas from aquino. Given the revolutions in modern particle physics, such views gain an entirely new perspective, a new depth. But despite al of this, the phenomenon of counsciousness remains a mystery to us. The first step towards embracing this view would be establishing if single cell mechanisms or plants have something that could fit the description of the word counsciousness.

Well it's said that there is the 3 dimensions, plus time. The passing of time is relative however, and while on psychadelics the concept of time is changed from when you are sober. To tell you the truth, an astronomy class I took in high school was really what piqued my interests in multi-dimensionality. For example say X and Y represent two people carrying cell phones. If Y were to travel at the speed of light to a distance two light years away and call the cell phone of X what would happen? (Just for the sake of argument, obviously there's no reception in space.) Theoretically Y would still be with X as he broke the light speed barrier. So where is Y at? Is he two light-years away, still with X, or in two places at once? I'm not well versed in relativity or anything like that so this is all conjecture but by that theory, it's possible to exist in two places at once physically. One thing that interests me about psychadelics is when people dismiss everything experienced under the influence as just your brain "playing tricks on you" or that everything you experience is not real. Well what is real anyways? I believe your mind creates your own reality so if you are tripping on something in a sense what you saw was real. It's confusing though since the molecules which cause psychedelic reactions can be pinpointed, so if all it takes is an extra chemical to change your sense of reality then isn't it by pure chance that those chemicals were not in our brains at birth? Excuse my rambling, I'm just letting the words flow out but let me know what you guys think about this.