This is meant to be a debate thread. It may seem controversial to create such a thread but I am hoping to attempt to clarify my idea and receive a healthy response from members of the nexus on their outlook on this topic. I will only briefly touch on "my theory on DMT' thread in order to properly clarify my view on certain words. This Thread is also allowed to branch off onto other relative topics based on semantics and how they should be viewed differently when used by different people.

So obviously this thread has stemmed from the "My theory on DMT" thread. Which was recently locked due to the ever so common derailing that happens here, in my opinion due to people getting stuck on some people's inability to articulate their idea properly, or in a way we all agree is the proper model. But do we all agree? No otherwise this kind of thing wouldnt happen.

I want to start this thread out about the word THEORY. Now what does this word mean exactly?

the·o·ry
noun, plural the·o·ries.

1.a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

3.Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.


Now section 1 describes it as "tested general propositions that must be generally regarded as correct. This seems to me to be the most accepted use of the word theory. That someone who has scientifically approached an idea and are putting forth accepted reasons for said theory to be correct. I agree with this, in a scientific platform say like The Nexus, this use of the word seems most logical.

But, not everyone that comes onto the forum is a scientist. Nor are they going to always approach an idea in a scientific manner. Sometimes they just use a word incorrectly cause it mean kind of the same thing. This reasoning is the culprit for man locked threads IMO and I think its in our best interest to learn from these situations show we can grow as a community and enable us to move past this rut we seem to keep getting stuck in. I hate seeing a thread get locked when it has potential for teaching everyone something, especially how to communicate properly even when words are not used in their proper context.

For better understanding of my take on this, section 2 of the definition refers to how I feel the DMT theory thread's outlook on who can make a theory and how.

A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural (An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.) and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions (our view on hyperspace) that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

So expand my friends. Let me know what you think. Also how do you view a thread, what causes you to fixate on something other than the main part of the thread? (I am guilty as any for doing this)

..i like your attitude anarchy..

i was going to get stuck into that Theory of DMT thread you mention..
i think that, through statistical analysis, the experiences of DMT 'hyperspace' are well established, and not theoretical..there is variation but the mean or average is similar..

what or where from such phenomena derive remains conjectural, and open to theory..

however, so does the very basis of everyday 'ordinary' experience..
an example theory..a serotonin (5-hydroxy-tryptamine) derived experience within the brain..(with other transmitters thrown in)

on the more technical aspect of your entertaining OP, there are of course testable and untestable theories..in theory..
.

ah ha. Yes i agree that the experiences of hyperspace are well established. The cause of it or what it actually is I believe can be theorized in more ways than is common, and by anyone who has an opinion from any stand point, experienced in one or the other.

Couldnt it be theorized that one that has experience in hyperspace and one that has not, can contribute to different outlooks and theories that are relative for both sides? I mean someone who has DMT experience is biased by default whatever their position in thinking is, and someone who has not used it is also biased.

I believe "what DMT is actually doing" is untestable currently, as we do not really know how to, and therefore it is allowed to theorize from many different view points and not only that but it is important for such a situation. I think hearing what those think that have no idea what its like is an important viewpoint to hear, helps balance things out.

Thoughtful initiative, appropriately instigated as well.

"Let me know what you think:"

I think that a theory should be regarded as originally viewed as per the definitions.

1. That is, one has evidence of an observation, and shares it. This evidence does not need to be tangible, nor does it need to be accurately reported in a scientific study. But it has to be logical to the reader, it needs to be linked with something else already observed.

2. If there is evidence of the contrary to what the theory is proposing, the theorist should listen to the opposing argument, and decide if that argument negates, complements, or establishes the theory. The theorist can also challenge the evidence itself.

3. If the evidence fulfills its purpose, then the theorist should either withdraw, or alter the theory to fit the model proposed (grow).

"How do you view a thread, what causes you to fixate on something other than the main part of the thread? :"

I usually read every post, but that which causes me to fixate on something in particular would be a clash of experience. That is, reading about something that I believe it to be wrong, exaggerated, or misguided, even if my contribution on that claim would not benefit the thread. Lately I am doing my best to refrain from doing this. I simply ignore the personal "exclamation point" over my head.

EDIT:



I think it is imperative that this theory you just described comes to practice.

well i don't really know much , i'll accept that and be happy with it i guess from now on as its only counterproductive to say anything except perhaps peace and love

also its more interesting to read .............much learning happens this way atleast for me ........much to learn

..peace Jin..and love <3

and always speak (type) your truth..

I think that since some drugs are based on just chemical distortions, alcohol, meth, so on. That in itself is an observation. The fact that DMT has fantastical visuals and out of body like experience that is also an observation. But nothing we have observed proves that these are separated nor connected. I see a well needed viewpoint from both sides.

The main problem with said thread was regardless ones view on the semantics of the word theory, he had a poorly put together idea that he happened to use the word theory, and admitted to having no real ground to stand on as to his theory being recognizable. Hours of research rather than years, no prior use of DMT ect.

edit: My point being in the last paragrpah was that often times we as members of this highly sophisticated library/community, should learn to be more flexible with word usage. Especially since quite a few people join the nexus that have no scientific knowledge or ability. Hence, articulation is going to be below the recommended standard here.]

Jin,

Conversation in itself is by default productive. As long as we strive to learn from eachothers ways of communicating it is more than productive. Your input is well regarded here by me. Besides who really knows anything? Were a bunch of monkey's slamming our fingers into a plastic thing with crazy symbols on it trying to figure out how eachothers brains work.

And this is the real challenge my friend

To be able to provide some substantial (logical, not necessarily scientific) evidence of their link. And still, even if one does link them together (or separate them), we will still be left with having completed a couple of puzzle pieces of a puzzle that we do not know its piece count at all. To some, those two pieces could form a complete puzzle, to others, they would claim a few other pieces left to complete them. And of course, to others these two would be as meaningless as trying to figure out the complete piece count.




I strongly agree. I am sharing your view as is. It is however prudent to remind of semantics, but up to a certain extent, if they are indeed found to cause trouble in the understanding of follow-up posts. Not because we assumed that they mean something that we created in our heads (from previous personal experiences or otherwise).

As always, assumption is the cause of all fcuk ups.

ya bro yet there is much i have to learn about peaceful and harmonious communication , its coming out all wrong at times and just feels awful

i need to be more open and understanding ,

also i need to lose some arrogance that seems pretty evident to me personally ,

pretty ashamed of myself i guess

We also need to watch ourselves when we start attacking posters instead of the ideas/theories (I am guilty of this as well). Here in this thread we have something nice to work from other than the OP's lack of experience which results in feeling attacked, thus created a mud-slinging contest.

There were some interesting posts in that other thread but I am glad we now have a constructive starting point.

Socrates: "The knowledge is to be found not in the experiences but in the process of reasoning about them; it is here, seemingly, not in the experiences, that it is possible to grasp being and truth." Theaetetus 186d

I think its also important to view others theories as just that. An idea they have been tossing around in there head with no real goal of coming up with anything substantial or useful. Just for there own understanding of the world we operate in. I think many long time members see it as more of a topic where were trying to figure something out to show the world, which is the main basis of this site IMO. But can be counter productive in properly integrating with other people in a healthy manner.

..it's all a matter of protocol..
with the appropriate protocol people can completely disagree and still get along..

anarchy wrote: ..true, but could the post-DMT bias not suggest something in itself? like, the 'proof is in the pudding' or similar..
certainly i have personally tried to be very skeptical about aspects of DMT..and 20 years later i'm leaning towards the 'incoming information' theory, rather than the 'just like a dream, inside my head' p.o.v.

i noted years ago, as did friends, that if gradually increasing increments of DMT dosage are taken, and external phenomena carefully observed (e.g. a control like graph paper, or an external object) that, prior to a 'dissolving of body sense' threshold, external stimuli are accentuated..i.e. the light becomes brighter..the detail in a picture becomes more visible..individual instruments in a music mix can be made out more easily..
this suggests a mechanism of amplifying incoming stimuli, rather than uncovering hidden aspects of mind/brain..

as the 'threshold' is approached, there seems to be time/space distortion..i.e the graph paper squares curve and become 3D..time slows down but the music doesn't..

above the threshold 'entities' and landscapes appear..eyes open..still carefully observing..
why, at a sudden point, would the mechanism switch to internal?

so, i do think it is about enhancing/changing perception, rather than 'imagination'..
but of course this theory is hard to test if not untestable..


an analogy to those who have vs haven't smoked DMT would be, to me, Sex..

i could well imagine someone, from descriptions, failing to grasp how such a simplistic and messy act could be so fundamentally pleasurable and compelling..even 'spiritual' in the best-case scenarios..
hard to conceive before trying..like it's hard to imagine a rainbow without seeing one..
.

Thats why I go back and re-read my posts. This can be so helpful in understanding yourself and how you sound. Often times i will re read 6 or 7 times before even clicking "post". Or walk away if you think you might be upset or biased in one way or another. Come back to it and read it again.

Its all a learning experience even this place. Since being here I have learned how I sound through words only and have been able to grow in understanding that words can be taken incorrectly. It has helped me in my communication in the real world being here. In such a strong way that i regard it as important as my DMT experiences.



Sometimes we don't realize what we are saying and how we effect others with our words. That OP might have regarded us (and i believe he did) as an authority on the subject and thought that this was the best place to recieve answers. We are also well known for how loving and accepting we are. But when that happens we make ourselves look bad. I think that thread was taken wrong, and needless attacks on not so relative topics were destructive in the ideas we usually uphold.

Absolutely. But this point would make sense if it was clear from the OP that what he needed was to "simulate" or understand the "feeling". Then you would be spot on with the analogy.

It is as important to understand what exactly is someone asking. If someone asks if the physiological responses to sex, are similar with those elicited by e.g. morphine, we could still speculate on a proper answer, couldn't we?

It is rather faulty to instantly assume the reasons someone is asking what he is asking. We may have had a lot of those in the past, who straightforwardly assumed an arrogant stance, "loled" and performed other actions in attempts to belittle or appear superior to members and posters. But we must still hold our position to refrain from assuming that they fall in the same category. As we ourselves would not like at all to be in their position, misunderstood, attacked, and completely discouraged. And all that on our very first days in an otherwise "welcoming" community.

The OP didn"t ask any questions in their first post. Just made a statement about their conclusions after doing a few hours of research. Then appeared to get arsey when it was suggested that said theory would be more relevant if they put a bit of practical experience into the mix.
Add James Kent to the party (red rag to a bull to some folk) and a shit storm of hurt egos, fixated misunderstandings and one upmanship ensued. There were some good points being made but the damage was already done.
I, like Jin, am ashamed for the part that i played in that shambles and i just hope that the OP in that other thread doesn"t think us a bunch of pontificating, delusional malcontents.

To sin is human, to forgive is divine. At the end of the day we are only human but there is nothing wrong in having heavenly aspirations.

He made not have asked a question but his statement was so that we would reply with our opinions to the topic at hand. The thread derailed, as you know, when we veered away from that. On the first page OP re-clarified things and then did in fact ask a question. Members then attempted to belittle his OP just because he had an opinion on Icke and kent and did not have DMT experience. Thats when the thread started to go downhill IMO.

The reason I'm bringing that up is because I'm looking at the nature of how we communicate when information is not presented in the format that we would like, which of course is "in the most efficient way possible". I believe we should have a more lenient approach to new members when we disagree with something they said. We have all learned how the more long time members post and dont usually take things in a negative direction due to that understanding we have of each other. So it seems to me that we end up assuming right off the bat when threads from new members are not posted in the format we are accustomed to using.

Semantics are a long time never ending war. There has to be a way to at least lessen this blow to our community. Possibly creating our own list of common words like; reality, theory, so on, that end up heating up debates. If we had more of a guide to go by so that we could have atleast a somewhat common ground to stand on as far as what we agree words will mean, then when they are used in a different context we can point the member towards that list, rather than go on long tangents about what that means to say this.

Well, I will leave a small insight into what I believe... I believe, like many things in this world, the meaning is subjective. To one person it may mean nothing and to another it may mean the world. Like anything, you get what take, and if you take nothing you get nothing. In my own personal experiences with DMT, I would consider it a tool of purification. Purification for the mind, the body and most importantly the soul. The things I have learned, seen and done while in this altered consciousness is beyond words... but, I will say they stick with me on a daily basis... Even though I think at this point it's been over a year if not two since my last experience.

Maybe the DMT experience isn't supposed to be broken down to a theory. Theories define our waking life... You can measure and test the things in this reality with precision... However, pull out a ruler to measure something in hyperspace and you will find that the ruler is measuring in fruit loops or something totally abstract... A lot of things people say they experience I have not experienced, and vice versa... Yet, a lot of the things I would say we can all say we share in common when going there... So, in many ways I believe that the experience itself is tuned to that person.. Like I said, it's subjective. One persons dream is an another persons nightmare!

Did he state that he only did a few hours of research?

First post, second post, does not matter. His question formulated gradually, in a barrage of defensive posts from the rest. Either way, could we please drop that subject, and focus on the topic? Let's not go overkill in this thread as well...

A 1000 years ago we didnt have the methods of observing microscopic bacteria, does that mean we shouldnt have broken it down in order to understand? This procedure is what humans do. We analyze, categorize, and document. So that others in the future have something to go off of when they decide to learn further about, whatever it is.

Other wise every single generation would have to start at zero. In the future it is very possible that through research, much like what we do here, will get us to a point where we can measure things in hyperspace. Eventually having it mapped out and understood so that it can be used, if it is to be used, properly in the way it is designed.

Yes a lot of the experience is subjective but there are also a lot of things in common sometimes. The difference could very well be chalked up to the persons subjective experience painting the picture for you, or you having some sort of actual effect on its existence.

This thread has the possibility of going in so many directions, which was intended. Proceed! But ya we should stray away from creating any arguments about another thread unless it is about understanding how we talk to each other through this medium.