A team from Imperial College London plans to put the 'machine elves' myths to rest

[EntreNous]

I'll dance.

I didn't misread the quote, I paraphrased it. If you want to call that misreading that's your right surely.

Let me be clear, I can go either way on the subject. I really have no position on the objective reality of "entities", however, as a lifelong atheist I have generally never believed in flying spaghetti monsters of any kind.

Now to the strawman. I stand by my statement regarding bias. I'm not talking about scientific conjecture, I'm talking about logic and the need to exhaust it prior to stating a presumptive position. The idea that entities inhabit DMT space, whatever that is, is certainly not McKenna's alone, by the way. Clearly this "assumption", theory, whatever you want to call it, is prevalent enough for someone to decide to fund the study.

Calling one possible result "arguably bullshit" before full investigation is specious at best and I feel it is a fair indicator of bias.

Take away the study and consider how YOU evaluate your reality. Do you dismiss things you don't fully understand as arguably bullshit? Of course you do, most of us do. The difference is, you are not being paid by taxpayers to provide (or attempt to provide) a definitive study of the relevant factors.

Nothing in the definitions of the scientific method I ever read specified that an esoteric concept was exempt to rigorous evaluation using the scientific method. The fact that this study is even happening tends to confirm my position

Gonna have to hand that strawman right back.

Peace, bro! Nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

By your logic, anyone can postulate nonsense as potentially valid "theory," but there's fault in pointing out to them that there's a probability that their postulation is nonsense. That makes no sense to me. Mckenna's assertions were based on his subjective experiences, and we know just how fallible human sensory organs can be!

The likelihood that anyone's postulation is correct (especially about hyperspace), especially without anything beyond their subjective experience(s) (singular or collective) on which to lay their postulation is close to zero.

See:
The Improbability of Hyperspace
The Improbability of Hyperspace part II

Also, where did you get the idea taxpayers are funding this research? It's likely private (my bet is majority Beckley, with maybe some Heffter and MAPS dollars as well).


Again, whether or not the researchers have opinions (and state them) doesn't make their research biased...nor is it a meaningful question (the subjective is inherently biased). You can't actually comment on the research bias until you've read the methodology.

 

[EntreNous]

Nonsense. Like Galileo, right? Come on. His postulations were beyond nonsense, they were blasphemy.

I admit I assumed it was publically funded because 99.9% of research is. My assertion that SOMEONE thought enough of the nonsense postulation to fund the study stands.

If you are honestly trying to tell me that methodologies prevent biased results and reporting then there's not much point continuing this discussion.

Climate change debate would not exist if not for bias on the part of the researchers and reporting parties, regardless of methodology. Why is this different?

Looks like we should just agree to disagree.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Nonsense. Like Galileo, right? Come on. His postulations were beyond nonsense, they were blasphemy.

Galileo had observations about the physical realm about him, no? Data and evidence he could share? Things beyond, "this was my experience"...unless I'm mistaken, of course.

My assertion that SOMEONE thought enough of the nonsense postulation to fund the study stands.

Except, the primary goal of the study is to "map brain activity during the experience." They simply hope that this mapping will give them further insights. As I said before, even if they show whatever networks in the brain are lighting up, they're likely going to be limited beyond significant further commentary and/or faced with a series of "larger" questions, as with Dr. Araujo's study, which was shared here a while back.

Climate change debate would not exist if not for bias on the part of the researchers and reporting parties, regardless of methodology. Why is this different?

I'm not aware of any scientific debate about climate change. Can you link peer-reviewed sources?

 

[EntreNous]

First point: As far as the accepted "truth" of his day Galileo's postulations were no more than black magic. As were Einstein's, by all but a very few.
No apparently subjective theory stands a chance unless there can be objective observations made about it. These can only be found by these types of studies. My only real objection was the "apparent B.S." statement that, sorry, clearly implies bias.

Second point: Completely agree.

Third point: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#2c6b67274c7c

and

Survey finds 97% climate science papers agree warming is man-made | Dana Nuccitelli

Dana Nuccitelli: Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it

www.theguardian.com

Two diametrically opposed, "peer reviewed" studies on global warming opinions and research.

 

[nonononono]

Third point: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#2c6b67274c7c

and

Survey finds 97% climate science papers agree warming is man-made | Dana Nuccitelli

Dana Nuccitelli: Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it

www.theguardian.com

Two diametrically opposed, "peer reviewed" studies on global warming opinions and research.

An important note, these two studies are asking different questions and getting different answers because of it:
1) "Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies."
2) "Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the scientist self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming."

The first is asking opinions of scientists if humans are causing a "global warming crisis", the second is looking at conclusions of papers on whether global warming is caused by human activity. I am all for discussion and debate, but conflating things like this just confuses the issues.

 

[roninsina]

Third point: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#2c6b67274c7c

and

Survey finds 97% climate science papers agree warming is man-made | Dana Nuccitelli

Dana Nuccitelli: Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it

www.theguardian.com

Two diametrically opposed, "peer reviewed" studies on global warming opinions and research.

That's not a peer reviewed paper in Forbes, it's a an op ed that grossly misinterpreted the data set. The authors of the actual study even state as such in the comments section of the online version of the story.


Aside from that, I'm interested to see what the Imperial college folks come up with.

.....and welcome to the Nexus EntreNous! We can always use more old dudes:thumb_up:

 

[dreamer042]

Not sure how or why this turned into a global warming debate? There are PLENTY of other places to hash that out, perhaps this isn't the most appropriate one?

Anyhow, I can attest that though Dr. Carhart-Harris tends to entertain some pretty far out ideas, he is a meticulous and rigorous researcher, as evidenced by his previous body of work.

This is the lovely thing about properly performed research, all the data and collection methods are clearly laid out in black and white. The experiments are repeatable, and the conclusions the researchers make can be questioned and contested. In fact, critical thinking dictates asking questions about researcher bias, funding bias, and whether the conclusions drawn are actually supported by the collected evidence.

Until the research is performed and conclusions are published, we can't realistically say one way or the other whether researcher (or funder) bias has effected the conclusions. Given his track record however, I expect Robin will again be very thorough in his data collection and be very clear in separating the actual evidence from his personal speculations as consistently as he has in the past.

 

[Psilosopher?]

Both this study and the John Hopkins religious leaders/psilocybin study are kind of flawed, the John Hopkins one being more flawed in this regard.

Power of suggestion. One of the first times i smoked DMT, i was listening to Tibetan monks chanting. I turned into the Buddha. Another time, listened to the didgeridoo, i turned into the Rainbow Serpent. Another time, was listening to Icaros. Turned into a jaguar.

Set, setting and intention are the only factors that determine the psychedelic experience. However, i do appreciate Dr Carhart Harris looking at "entities" with some skepticism. That is the point of science. You seek to disprove claims and formulate new ideas and hypotheses based on empirical evidence. However, this is such a delicate subject, that its hard to ascertain what counts as empirical evidence in psychedelic science. Which is why i kinda understand the outrage. "Don't ruin the magic" sorta thing. I just wish Dr Carhart Harris would say if he has personal experience. I think that fact is quite important. How can one study something as finicky as psychedelics without ingesting it themselves?

 

[Jees]

Btw this thread title:

A team from Imperial College London plans to put the 'machine elves' myths to rest

was the whole setup really a plan to put entities as a myth to rest it? No.
Even when a potential myth was to debunk after all, the plan was to monitor effects.

Article:
Carhart-Harris is part of a team of researchers at Imperial College London on a mission to trap the machine elves.

Trapping is not like saying its BS. It can go either way. The trapping is like making measurements, nothing else.

 

[dragonrider]

By saying that the existence of machine-elves is arguably, bullshit, he is just saying that it is only reasonable to assume that machine-elves do not realy exist, but are a figment of the imagination.

That is not any more biased than to say the opposite. And it IS not unreasonable.

Denying that it is a reasonable assumption, is much more unreasonable.
Because it means that you would have to deny that the brain could sometimes be playing tricks on you. That there is a relation between brain-activity and counsciousnes, that DMT has peculiar effects on the brain that could cause people to have peculiar experiences and even could cause them to believe that the contents of their DMT-induced experiences are actually existing, outside of the brain.

But that all of this COULD very well be the case is undisputable.

 

[dragonrider]

Again, i don't think that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive at all.
But even from a spiritual point of view, whenever spirituality and materialism contradict eachother, you'd have to prefer the material point of view.

Why is this so?

Well, ever heard of Descartes? "I think therefore i am"?
So maybe all of this is a dream, a simulation of some sort. Maybe some evil demon has conjured-up a fake reality before our eyes, to fool us and blind us from the truth.
But even then, at least the counscious experience of this reality must exist. I must exist.
There can be no doubt about at least that.

So how could the existance of god or machine-elves ever be more certain than the very existance of this experience? An experience that tends to be quite consistant in itself. So i mean, even if all of this is just some kind of dream, at least within the context of that dream, brain-activity could help explain spiritual experiences. Including the fact that spiritual experience can feel more real or important the the material world.

And maybe it IS more real.
But to say that it is more real from an earthly point of view, is also bullshit.

Because that would mean that you are more certain of the existance of god or machine-elves, than of the fact that you are certain about the existance of god or machine-elves. That your belief in god or machine-elves is greater, than your believe in the fact that you belief in god or machine-elves.

The moment your spiritual beliefs are forcing you to dismiss the findings of science, you risk becoming some kind of 'machine-elf taliban'.

If the bible says that the earth is 8000 years old, and science says it's much older, science is right. And not the bible. And many, very, very religious people do accept that, because they are reasonable people.

I think any religious person should be able reconcile the two points of view.
Maybe 8000 years ago, god created a planet that is millions of years old, for instance.
For a god who supercedes the material world, such a thing should be totally doable.

 

[Eaglepath]

Calling a theory, any theory, bullsh!t prior to completing a thorough study of that theory is absolutely a sign of bias. I'm sure the scientist in question has done great work but he clearly is demonstrating bias to conform with the prevailing OPINION.

I'm not aware that Strassman actually made any quantitative or qualitative claims regarding anything but physiological responses. As I understand it, that is why he quit the study. It was not designed for any data sets other than physiological parameters.

(please correct me if I am wrong, I'm not an accredited scientist in any field)

To everything written earlier, this is exactly what I mean. And to see how people defend a researcher with this kind of "schoolboy" biased attitude... wow..

But anyway, an important study and in the end "we do not have power over nature, it´s the other way around" so anything that comes out with that package of "fundamental illusion of free will" will be of some importance probably...
This discussion is of importance to probably.. who is writing this right now?

 

[Eaglepath]

For example, when using social research subjects, it is far easier to become attached to a certain viewpoint, jeopardizing impartiality.



"With interviewer bias, the interviewer may subconsciously give subtle clues in with body language, or tone of voice, that subtly influence the subject into giving answers skewed towards the interviewer’s own opinions, prejudices and values."

 

[Eaglepath]

Btw this thread title:

A team from Imperial College London plans to put the 'machine elves' myths to rest

was the whole setup really a plan to put entities as a myth to rest it? No.
Even when a potential myth was to debunk after all, the plan was to monitor effects.

Article:
Carhart-Harris is part of a team of researchers at Imperial College London on a mission to trap the machine elves.

Trapping is not like saying its BS. It can go either way. The trapping is like making measurements, nothing else.

You have just an other article my friend.

 

[Eaglepath]

By saying that the existence of machine-elves is arguably, bullshit, he is just saying that it is only reasonable to assume that machine-elves do not realy exist, but are a figment of the imagination.

That is not any more biased than to say the opposite. And it IS not unreasonable.

Denying that it is a reasonable assumption, is much more unreasonable.
Because it means that you would have to deny that the brain could sometimes be playing tricks on you. That there is a relation between brain-activity and counsciousnes, that DMT has peculiar effects on the brain that could cause people to have peculiar experiences and even could cause them to believe that the contents of their DMT-induced experiences are actually existing, outside of the brain.

But that all of this COULD very well be the case is undisputable.

You feel comfortable with a person, having this attitude in media regarding this amazing molecule, that helps a lot of people with REAL problem all world over? Before he is going to do experiments which probably will lead to further media relations... Where the Dr probably either will explode of bias, or maybe if he take a big hit himself we can be calm...
To even be so narrow minded and sort out just Mckennas visions due to some "fame" of this particular DMT visions is also just... hrm.. "BS" and proves an extreme "Schoolboy" attitude...
Why not choose tigers and snakes from Amazonas...? Or Dragons from east? Or the Dr could enlighten himself a bit and just open himself for the possibility that it´s projections from the un-conscious and that the Machine Elf´s is just an outfit that is not the holy grail instead the whole concept of the experience and what the fundamental keystone could be...?
There we start to equalize the pre-biased settings in his brain and opens up a more conscious window of scanning oppurtunity...

 

[Eaglepath]

The Dr could have studied Mckenna a little bit more before using him as a "mediabooster"..

Then the statement instead would be something like:

McKenna which is not a scientist thought that the experience with DMT was a projection of the un-conscious delivering meeting with cultural archetypes similar as dreaming but more direct.
Due to Mckenna being from Ireland an interesting relation can be made from the cultural influence of elves.. Similar with Shamans and animals from the rainforest when working with Ayahuasca..

But you know arguably the are all bullshit! And we are going to bring this myth to rest!

 

[○]

Ahhh, I'll say my opinion :d

So, FMRI to corner/help explain specific aspects of this experience? So ...studying oxygenated bloodflow and the areas of activity within the brain? Ok...so what? How in the world is this going to do anything in explaining any part of this experience? I mean ...are we talking about the same experience here [haha I've often wondered this]? I mean, are these entities and contents of these experiences sleeping somewhere all curled up within specific brain regions just waiting to be discovered? Haha... I somehow doubt this.

Call me pessimistic, call me dumb haha [maybe I don't understand the basis of an FMRI?], but seriously, how is this going to explain any part of this experience? I don't understand. I mean this is cool work and I respect the drive to understand even the smallest fraction of one of these experiences, but to even be able to explain just one second [regarding the content] of one of these experiences is a monumental task imho [understanding the experience as I'm/Me/You are having it].

So they start correlations between bloodflow/regions of the brain and their respective functions and attempt to try to explain certain things like discarnate intelligences in an infinitely complex space/realm of impossibly rich beauty and jaw dropping complexity along with all the various motifs, levels, lessons, multi-leveled/angled feelings brought about [along with the barrage of endless otherwordly contents that can occur]? C'mon...hahah, this is humorous, and cute.

Trying to explain something like an overwhelmingly intense breakthrough [and any part of] in terms of correlation ...man I can't help but to think they're going to fall terribly terribly short.

Also the whole 'arguably they're bull$#^&'. This phrase could be taken many ways. 'Arguably' ...so it really could go either way [real/not, this/that /etc] seeing as to how it's 'arguable', so that's really not a definitive statement. Just because it's considered 'arguable' doesn't make it definitively 'one way or another'. I take that statement with a grain of salt.

Sorry if this sounds pessimistic haha, not my intention at all. I'm not sh&^*ng on them either, like I said - "I respect their drive to do this", but I can't help but to feel that this study isn't going to make it all that far [at least to what they're hoping for, unless what their hoping for is a tiny breadcrumb] .

-------------------------

With that said I do wish these people the best and hope something comes of it, I really do. What a cool time to be alive to see people attempting to understand these things. Very cool. :thumb_up:

 

[blue.magic]

Doctors are people.
People are biased.
therefore...

Dr. Harris did already a good job - was it him showing that mushrooms induce synesthesia and heightened senses by actually damping default mode network?

A biased opinion does not mean he is biased and wrong across the board.

 

[Eaglepath]

Ahhh, I'll say my opinion :d

So, FMRI to corner/help explain specific aspects of this experience? So ...studying oxygenated bloodflow and the areas of activity within the brain? Ok...so what? How in the world is this going to do anything in explaining any part of this experience? I mean ...are we talking about the same experience here [haha I've often wondered this]? I mean, are these entities and contents of these experience sleeping somewhere all curled up within specific brain regions just waiting to be discovered? Haha... I somehow doubt this.

Call me pessimistic, call me dumb haha [maybe I don't understand the basis of an FMRI?], but seriously, how is this going to explain any part of this experience? I don't understand. I mean this is cool work and I respect the drive to understand even the smallest fraction of one of these experiences, but to even be able to explain just one second [regarding the content] of one of these experiences is a monumental task imho [understanding the experience as I'm/Me/You are having it].

So they start correlations between bloodflow/regions of the brain and their respective functions and attempt to try to explain certain things like discarnate intelligences in an infinitely complex space/realm of impossibly rich beauty and jaw dropping complexity along with all the various motifs, levels, lessons, multi-leveled/angled feelings brought about [along with the barrage of endless otherwordly contents that can occur]? C'mon...hahah, this is humorous, and cute.

Trying to explain something like an overwhelmingly intense breakthrough [and any part of] in terms of correlation ...man I can't help but to think they're going to fall terribly terribly short.

Also the whole 'arguably they're bull$#^&'. This phrase could be taken many ways. 'Arguably' ...so it really could go either way [real/not, this/that /etc] seeing as to how it's 'arguable', so that's really not a definitive statement. Just because it's considered 'arguable' doesn't make it definitively 'one way or another'. I take that statement with a grain of salt.

Sorry if this sounds pessimistic haha, not my intention at all. I'm not sh&^*ng on them either, like I said - "I respect their drive to do this", but I can't help but to feel that this study isn't going to make it all that far [at least to what they're hoping for, unless what they're hoping for is a tiny breadcrumb] .

-------------------------

With that said I do wish these people the best and hope something comes of it, I really do. What a cool time to be alive to see people attempting to understand these things. Very cool. :thumb_up:

Haha love this talk.. It´s exactly my point of view.. and to take the bullshit phrase, I don´t think he realize the magnitude of the research he is getting into.. it´s so much more than Machine-elves.. I just sense a fear similar to this community being aware of an underground market of this substance can lead to serious harm in our society regarding this molecule and the package it flows in.. I think the same sort of caution should be made when combining it with media.. and the Doctor´s statement doesn´t seem as the best start.. but as mentioned earlier... maybe he take a big hit himself..(60mg). And manage to hold it for over 10sec.. Then the media outcome probably is nothing to worry about.. (or it will really be something to worry about haha)