• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

anyone know what DMT does in plants?

Migrated topic.
rawmo

rawmo

Rising Star
Hey there,

just wondering if anyone has any idea of what DMT does in plants.

In animals it obviously binds to the serotonin receptors (e.g. 5-HT2a, 2c etc).

but
I haven't found any postulated/research based ideas about the role of DMT in plants.

any refs much appreciated
 
rawmo said:
Hey there,

just wondering if anyone has any idea of what DMT does in plants.

In animals it obviously binds to the serotonin receptors (e.g. 5-HT2a, 2c etc).

but
I haven't found any postulated/research based ideas about the role of DMT in plants.

any refs much appreciated
Click to expand...

Probably doesn't do much. It is very closely related to alot chemicals that are known to play important roles in biology. Could be wrong though.
 
ironic because hyperspace is a very insect-y place in my experience; though more noodle-bakingly wow than ironic. Wow.
 
Doesn't the tryptamines in phalaris grass kill/harm grazing animals? Therefore over time it would have been under selective pressure to have more DMT, to ward off animals.
 
D_Juggz said:
Doesn't the tryptamines in phalaris grass kill/harm grazing animals? Therefore over time it would have been under selective pressure to have more DMT, to ward off animals.
Click to expand...

trouble is with the selective pressure arguments (under the Neo-Darwinian paradigm) that they are highly problematic (i.e. generally impossible to prove) due to the fundamental teleological component...

so yeah,
unfortunately pretty hard to use that as an argument for the appearance / levels of tryptamines...
might be true,
might (probably) not.

Nature is often a bit trickier / plays by different rules
 
Seems pretty clear that these plants produce tryptamines because the line of tryptamine producing ancestors was favored over that of the alternative. This is likely due to a combination of some animals propagating them (unwittingly, or by cultivation) and some animals not tampering with them (pest-repelling properties, for instance). Evolution happens firstly by random genetic mutation and secondly by survivability of traits. I'm fairly certain that evolutionary biology doesn't extend much past that yet, as in, claims of purpose-driven evolution are still unfounded.
 
could be something to do with tryptophan? This is an area of knowledge I would like to fill. Im sure there must be a diagramatic enzyme pathway somewhere for what tryptophan is doing into DMT. There are semi-completed versions for psilocybin and psilocin, i know that. you can get em over at the shroomery.

@amor_fati: although some posit that evolution happens in large leaps and bounds, and not in small increments as previously thought.
 
shoe said:
@Amor_Fati: although some posit that evolution happens in large leaps and bounds, and not in small increments as previously thought.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar, but I can see how a line may go from not producing tryptamines to producing tryptamines within a generation. My previous statements still apply, however.
 
amor_fati said:
shoe said:
@Amor_Fati: although some posit that evolution happens in large leaps and bounds, and not in small increments as previously thought.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar, but I can see how a line may go from not producing tryptamines to producing tryptamines within a generation. My previous statements still apply, however.
Click to expand...

While it is true that biological systems have heaps of redundancy and many alternate chemical pathways and processes, many of which could adapt to produce tryptamines, i agree with
what you just wrote, although it might take more than a few generations.

Anyway, Staying on topic :- Im desperately looking for the metabolic pathway here, but the books I would need are back at my parents' place. (its a fantasic collection)
anyone turned up any info yet?
 
has anyone read Global Brain, by Howard Bloom?

He puts forward a very convincing argument against the prevailing Neo-Darwinist assertion that organisms evolve as a result of random mutation, and that instead these are driven by group needs in a very structured, even apparently 'purposeful' way. I recommend it to the house. (It has a fantastic chapter on perception as well for those of you pondering what exactly it is we see when Inside).

I've been thinking about this thread all day - it's been baking my noodle big time, and making me ask all sorts of crazy questions -

What is the evolutionary advantage to the plants of using energy to build a molecule that fits the human brain like a key in a lock, and tunes us quite precisely into what appears to be an entirely different reality?

Is it just an accident, that plants happened to make a molecule which is also present as a neurotransmitter in Homo Sapiens? And why do we have this stuff in our own brains anyway? What the hell does DMT do in my brain, because I'm not usually in hyeprspace and I wonder if it's just a coincidence that such a perfect match also happens to repel insects.

It makes sense that it has evolved as a defence system, but from what I see when Inside, the little insects I see on the way out (particularly with ayahausca/chalipongi changa) are very clearly the good guys - they fix me up, do repairs and generally seem to be a vital, important and well-intentioned part of the symbiosis (of which the journeyer is a part).

And the symbiotic nature of the experience puzzles me as well. I can see what I get out of it, but I'm not sure what the plant gets out of it: I sometimes have a clear sense of being 'a host' and that 'it' likes having a mind to 'work with'. But In order to do this, the plant or a portion of it, must be destroyed.

Also, it's a molecular extraction, so is it still 'the plant' or are we onto something else here ... is the neurotransmitter DMT part of some kind of quantum consciousness?

Perhaps we provide receptors for the plant's neurotransmitters thereby allowing the plant to be conscious, through it's symbiotic relationship with us ...

This is just speculation, and if it's all bullshit, I'd be glad to have it pointed out to me, because my brain is chewing over this like a nice juicy bone!!

Thanks for the thread, rawmo ...
 
amor_fati said:
I'm fairly certain that evolutionary biology doesn't extend much past that yet, as in, claims of purpose-driven evolution are still unfounded.
Click to expand...
Have you heard about something called dogs?
 
Haha, nice burn, evening glory. But I think amor fati was meaning in the sense of, from the viewpoint of all evolution. Is it ultimately directed? As he said, These claims are unfounded (creationism)
 
amor_fati said:
Seems pretty clear that these plants produce tryptamines because the line of tryptamine producing ancestors was favored over that of the alternative. This is likely due to a combination of some animals propagating them (unwittingly, or by cultivation) and some animals not tampering with them (pest-repelling properties, for instance). Evolution happens firstly by random genetic mutation and secondly by survivability of traits. I'm fairly certain that evolutionary biology doesn't extend much past that yet, as in, claims of purpose-driven evolution are still unfounded.
Click to expand...

Yeah evolution does indeed involve in some cases random genetic mutation and secondarily survivability of traits.
Mendels and Frisher/Wright/Haldane did some good math to show how this can [and does in many cases] work.

However there are fundamental logical problems and major holes (to put it mildly) in the Neo-Darwinian [ND] argument :(
The majority of ND arguments actually confuse the issue due to jumping between mechanistic arguments (basically that the sum of it's parts / a complex machine), and teleological explanations (purpose driven).
this leads to the fundamental problem of an antinomy (contradiction between 2 laws) in relation to explanations of organisms.

the result of this is that the research programs enacted by many biologists and the forms of explanation used tend to be created/used to back up the basic hypothesis that
a] evolution is the pretty much exclusively the result of compounded random genetic mutations
b] those who are likely to survive are those with a beneficial trait.

however,
[and this is so often the case with biology (and makes it as frustrating as much as it makes it super fun)]
Organisms have so many exceptions to this 'rule' and the ND explanatory system is so fundamentally flawed that biology is now having to seriously look at developing a new system where the ND paradigm is revised, modified and may very well just be a smallish subset in relation to the actual understanding of the evolutionary process.

Take for example Newt limb regeneration.
1 - an ancestral newt gets its limb bitten off.
2 - due to a random genetic mutation it partially grows back [i.e. the standard 'ND micromutation' model], so it has 3 and a little bit legs
3 - this apparently puts it at a 'selective advantage' over its 4 legged comrades, and it has more offspring
4 - progressively over millenia this same process happens again and again, each time one of the progeny whos leg is bitten off has a little bit more growth, and although this regenerated limb is still not full size or useable it is at a selective advantage.
5 - this happens repeatedly until one day after many many random mutations in the limb regeneration area and leg bites we have the nests we see today.

the moral of this story [and for ND] is that just because we can select for animals quite successfully to produce new forms, and make up studies, experiments and mathematical models to show how this argument could work it in no way means that nature works this way.
another classic example is stripes of animals, (e.g. tigers)
standardly they have been described as operating under a mathematical system developed by Alan Turing that works beautifully,
however, if you study the embryology you find that the system in nature is quite different.

so in summary, the ND argument of selective traits can be argued not to in fact be an evolutionary argument per se [especially as it doesn't have a developmental component].

I spose as an extra example,
Lots of people claim that the world is just as we see it, rocks, trees, tv, microwave dinners.
but then you experience DMT and find out there is a whole lot more going on and a lot of the standard accepted rules don't really apply and we need a substantial revision of our world view.

If anyone is interested in some of the newer perspectives going on in evolutionary theory (the subject I'm doing my doctorate in) and how much it has changed from the selection of traits, random mutation etc check out stuff by
Lynn Margulis
Brian Goodwin
Antonio Lima-de-Faria
Stuart Kauffman
David Lambert
Stan Salthe
Soren Lovtrup

all highly respected professors in the field of evolutionary theory

cheers : )
 
Evening Glory said:
amor_fati said:
I'm fairly certain that evolutionary biology doesn't extend much past that yet, as in, claims of purpose-driven evolution are still unfounded.
Click to expand...
Have you heard about something called dogs?
Click to expand...

Purpose-driven evolution refers to some sort of subconscious force specifically behind the genetic mutation, insinuating a sort of "intelligent design." I have studied, this isn't just conjecture. Cross-breeding and selective breeding have little to do with genetic mutation, however it does direct what sort of traits are favored, as I said previously regarding the propagation of plant.
 
Back
Top Bottom