Exactly as you said D&D. Some of the things we experience in that state, are somewhat common. These are the things that may be promising to look into. Then we can formulate theories on their function, origin and manifestation parameters. And again, as you said, we may decide that none fits the phenomenon, and find ourselves leaving it as a mystery.


Being a human is the trippiest state of all...

I find global has a very clear understanding of hyperspace. I always enjoy reading his stuff. Seems to be able to connect things together better than I can.

Yes, especially after a large breakthrough, this experience is just as crazy as hyperspace if not even more so.

..my point was in part to do with how theories are formed..in particular the OP of the 'theory thread'..

it is one thing to research sex by, for instance, reading anatomy books and watching porn..
it is another to actually try it..
the difference, i suggest, between the OP and many nexians is that they have not directly researched the topic..
analogy..basing a history essay on secondary rather than primary sources..
this is not to cut the OP theory down, but to indicate that there is a degree of separation from the subject..

my other point (more briefly stated) is that a protocol, such as a debating protocol, avoids notions and perceptions of 'arrogance' or superiority..

my general assumption of the OP (of the 'my theory' thread)'s theory is that there is really not enough data to come to a persuasive argument..in my opinion
..certainly we don't have enough physiological data (MRI etc.) ..in short i felt that the theory lacked depth, which is in no way an attack, or even refutation of the theory..

if one launches a Theory, and puts it to the public, one must naturally expect disagreement..
the 'but you haven't tried it..' refutation need not be perceived as, nor delivered, as a stance of superiority..
it in effect asks for more direct research..
particularly as the OP's analogy (dreams) are barely understood on a physiological level..

the rules of the nexus bar abuse, insult etc..and so they should!
but i find it amusing that a text-scape of avatars can take debate so personally..

.
.
.

This.

Please, guys, stay on topic instead of starting down this road again.

Yes, unfortunately feelings get hurt and that deters one from focusing on the original idea. Then everything shifts and were all trying to maneuver a rocking boat that is slowly sinking. We kind of already have a protocol, but it isnt always followed unfortunately. We are just human after all.

And the topic at hand is? In the original post Anrchy mentions semantics and how we communicate our written words, as far as i can understand.



The reason i bought the other post up was because i was pointing out how people were potentially getting the fineries of eachother"s posts wrong. The OP in the other post APPEARED to get arsey because the initial answers appeared to be condescending. Because we as a species are susceptible to misinterpreting eachothers little nuances.

So in a way my post is totally relevant to the topic, as it is a working example of how you can be misunderstood.
Which can be down to the poor writing and bad syntax, skimming by the reader, non integration after reading, cultuaral and social differences. Or, more likely, all of the preceding points.
Not only that but i am also demonstrating an example of fixation by just replying to posts directed at me and, in turn, veering away from the current direction of this thread.

You should all be grateful for my input. You will hear no more from me tonight! I am flouncing off to bed to sulk and to try and work out why no-one understands me.

^..very grateful hug46 that you're staying on top, and are coherent..

Someone"s gotta keep it together Nen. Might aswell be me

How about instead of continuing the discussion on the OP in the other thread, who cannot respond since he is a new member, we discuss the larger issues of communication, semantics, and proper methods of posting our theories?

To me this seems much more productive than discussing a particular case where the person being discussed cannot himself respond.

And PS - I am very grateful as well, hug46, but it does not seem fair (or appropriate) to discuss a particular poster who cannot defend himself. The community, and future posters, will be better served by discussing the larger issues of communication.

Point taken. Sulk over.

One thing you can do however, is to change the wording you are using so that it doesnt necessarily become directed towards a certain topic, thread, or member. Speak metaphorically or create examples. I think using the other thread can become hazardous to this one, unless you do so in a way that isnt apparent.

This also works well when actually replying to a thread that, if you reply directly could be taken wrong, or you do not wish to direct an assault towards that idea. Which is something I find is common. Once someone points something out that others agree we all kind of dog pile on it. Even once the OP recedes his statement, we seem to keep going on about how its incorrect and start analyzing it too deeply.

Does anyone ever get the thought that sometimes people reply with out reading very closely to see if what they are replying to has already been addressed?

Exactly my point, thank you.

If I make a statement like "anrchy never smoked DMT and therefore his statements are invalid and naive" then anrchy will most likely feel personally attacked, offended, and thus become defensive. This is usually the point where threads begin the downward spiral and why I wanted to start fresh with this new thread (I suggested The Neural create it but anrchy was one step ahead and did it himself).

However, if instead I make a statement like "DMT requires personal experience to understand and comprehend the fact that there seems to be more to the experience than just neuronal misfiring" then I've removed the personal attack on anrchy and instead focused on the larger concept that it is difficult to understand DMT with academic research alone.

a1pha, I love you man. You suggested Neural create a thread like this? That's crazy. Were all connected! I didn't even see that post or something.

I would like to take it upon myself to try and help steer threads back on track. The more people that do this the better. Just trying to figure out the best methods of doing so. I could PM people but I think everyone would get annoyed and besides it would be based on my own subjective viewpoint.

*Grouphug*

Now that was a proper example of how to avoid risking misunderstandings!

We also need to watch our dispositions towards fields of research. If someone says "DMT may be nothing more than a product of our brains", it may be obnoxious to reply "I believe DMT is much more than just neurons misfiring". That is because the last poster seems to desire to make light of the idea that DMT effects may be just a product of our brains. The first poster did not say "neurons misfiring", nor did he mean that every psychedelic experience is due to "misfiring". The second poster read the first poster's intentions wrongly, and thus creates an aggravated state where the first poster needs to clarify what he meant, but he is now already angry at the second poster who deliberately made light of the situation, and the first poster cannot believe that in a forum where everything is written down instead of vocally discussed, one would not take his statements literally word by word, as the posts are there, still, in clear fonts for everyone to read again and again.

As you could tell, I put myself in this hypothesised sitatuation, and made it slightly personal Still, I have experienced this many times.

I think maybe one of the core issues here is that there are no words to describe our subjective experiences.
However the amount of data we are exposed to is incredibly large and complex, we know that for sure.
Because of that we can not make a thorough analysis however the very fact that the data set is so large means we know for sure nobody knows!
I wonder if there was a group of living creatures on this earth that once evolved with dmt in place of serotonin..but died off as they couldn't compete..just a thought.
I think it would be possible to be permanently in hyperspace eventually we would be able to feel our way to food , shelter and copulation! We would have a truly synergistic existence with plants.
Looking at an acacia in flower photo I had taken I noticed a visual similarity with the onset of the flash.
If you were able to use the tree as a kaliedoscope and rearrange the tree into any combination you wished at any speed you would get a similar effect to my hyperspace entry membrane.

This gives me instigation to bring another issue to our attention. Overclaiming that humans have now gone completely haywire, and through DMT we can reconnect with nature and our own harmonious selves, should not be a mantra to repeat (Dreamtripper, I do not mean you, but your comment reminded me of that approach).

My subjective response to Dreamtripper's impression, is that we as humans, with or without substances, already had a truly synergistic existence with plants to begin with. Perhaps it is our persistence on theories and the idea of human evolution that drove us away from anything that cannot be measured or adequately explained, and maybe that is where the culprit lies. Maybe there has been too much emphasis on adopting what is real only though rigorous science, and actively ignoring everything else.

This opened up a new possible outlook for me. We seem to be continually measuring things and experimenting and working and playing and have been slowly moving away from connecting with this earth. Although there has been a rubber band effect as we saw in the 60's we are seeing this renewed interest grow again. Nature wont let us go.



I've already experienced what this would be like, and i'm not so sure I would enjoy it. I think if a living creature had evolved DMT in place of serotonin rather than being in hyperspace it would simply view this world in a different manner. Although this is just hypothetical on my part, it is an interesting idea.

Maybe I skimmed through the thread too fast, but I'm at the end and I still can't quite tell what this debate is about. I'm going to assume that it is about the ability or inadequacy of theories in explaining the DMT experience...

I personally define "theory" as "a logically consistent model of reality that is supported (and not yet disproved) by experimental evidence". In my opinion, the main problem with theories is that they always require assumptions. In constructing the logical model, one assumes that logic is a means to truth, and in performing an experiment one assumes that their measurement instruments (including the 5 senses) are trustworthy.

I recently read a wiki article on regress argument that I found to be interesting and perhaps relevant:
A statement requires justification/support, but justifying statements also require justification/support and so on, thus forming a chain of justifying statements. There are 3 responses to the regress argument:
1. Foundationalism - Some statements do not require justification to be known to be true, and thus a chain of justifying statements will eventually end at a foundational statement.
2. Coherentism - Chains of justifying statements form a closed loop in which all statements are justified.
3. Infinitism - Chains of justifying statements go on forever

I think that the above 3 responses are the basis for human knowledge in that there is no knowledge that does not fall into one of those categories. For a given statement, we either:
1. consider it to be unquestionable,
2. are ok with using circular logic to justify it, or
3. believe that there is further justification but don't care to inquire any further.

So, that is the sad truth of it: All theories are justified in terms of those 3 pathetic options.

Any personal suggestions to render the approaches non-pathetic?

I don't see this as a problem as theories are just that, "A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something".

It's seems to me that your confusing theories with conclusions. One comes up with a theory, then then if they are a scientist or want to figure it out they then perform experiments. Eventually (possibly) coming to some sort of conclusion that proves said theory correct or not.

Now if a new member were to come to the nexus and propose a theory, the last thing we should do is theorize that they have some sort of scientific background, unless stated, that they are in pursuit of a conclusion, unless stated, or that they believe said theory beyond a reasonable doubt.

If someone has a theory you are at fault if you believe that they have concluded it as true. Its a theory. Not a conclusion. Which defaults to it being an open ended idea subject to modification as more info is presented.

When the word "conclusion" is introduced into a sentence describing the theory then you have to assume that one of the following is correct.

1. the use of the word conclusion was on accident and due to its nature of contradicting the word theory this will confuse others.

2. the conclusion they speak of is not at all a conclusion, just what they have concluded so far in their theory.