Atheism and DMT

[lobo]

We are consciousness

What a generic one-size-fits-all one liner...

we are consciousness, so....

??

It´s hard for me to explain because i can´t expres me well in english... but i think like jamie... all is conciosness... as same as god.

 

[The Neural]

Not spiritual before, no change later. In fact, as others stated, the experiences reinforced my disbelief, and threw me in the direction of exploring our extremely elaborated cortical system, the overbearing power of suggestion, and the immense placebo effect.

 

[hixidom]

Spirituality requires a good bit of cognitive dissonance. Obviously anyone who is on this forum operates their body as though reality is physical, even if they believe otherwise.

My sense of spirituality starts here:
- A scientific experiment starts with our knowing/verifying that our measurement equipment is reliable. The only way to study the accuracy of perception is with perception. Therefore perception can never be proven reliable.

Not to mention that spirituality does imply theism. I define a "spiritual experience" as an experience of revelation on the nature of reality. I think that everyone here knows what that feels like, and I wish that we (and society in general) could collectively appreciate/celebrate that without needing to assert our subjective interpretations on others. We should just all agree that reality is awesome.

 

[Global]

We should just all agree that reality is awesome.

We should raise our glasses [of ayahuasca] to that! :thumb_up:

 

[cyb]

We should raise our glasses [of ayahuasca] to that! :thumb_up:

Group purge anyone?

 

[gibran2]

I'd say that dmt has reinforced my belief as an atheist, rather than the opposite.

If not anything else, isn't it telling that feelings of the divine, travels to otherworldly dimensions etc etc are triggered by something so materialistic as a pile of off-white powder?

If something so materialistic as a pile of off-white powder can alter your perceptions and subjective experience so profoundly that you enter into a realm that appears to be every bit as real as, or more real than, the realm of everyday experience, how can you be so sure that everyday reality is “real”?

The materialistic point of view with respect to the psychedelic experience is somewhat self-contradicting: On the one hand materialists say that one’s subjective experience is not sufficient to prove that an experience is objectively real, yet relying entirely on subjective experience, they claim that the experience of everyday life is "real".

One of the important lessons that I’ve learned from DMT is that it’s quite possible there is no such thing as objective reality. And even if there is, there’s no way to prove it, scientifically or otherwise.

Ultimately, it’s how my experiences affect me that’s most important. Whether or not they’re real (whatever “real” means) is less important.

 

[100thApe]

I used to be a firm atheist, but I have understood with time that my atheism was more of a reaction to all the other isms and "truths" out there. Lately, my thoughts are circling the unresolved mechanics of quantum physics, and I try to stay close to critical thinking and scientific methods though still knowing that we, in this physical context, know very little about anything - leaving my expectations fairly open.

.. really I turn to science in the sense that psychological/neurological/biological frameworks outline the transduction process, being the phenomenon that occurs when external stimuli is transported to the nervous system - by sensors (all senses) in the body converting physical signals from the environment into encoded neural signals, which are interpreted by the brain. Further we all perceive this projection of reality in real time in four dimensions, due to the accumulation of converted and processed sensory information (allegedly). The works of this phenomena are far from understood really, but one can imagine the bearing impact of neurotransmitters, hormones, molecules etc in the process of giving ourselves this experience of real time reality. ..One could argue that our specific senses pick out their own preferred "slice of the stimuli cake" in the space surrounding us, creating ONE version of the possible interpretations of the same "reality".

So if I can, at least, accept the notion that our perception of reality is produced by selecting information in the environment in an algorithmic way based upon the neurological/chemical environment in the brain and CNS - I can also be open to the fact that the experiences one can have by altering the chemical preciseness of the brain - are simply a product of different "slices of the same stimuli cake" we all live in. ..And in other words also real, and not real at the same time. As in quantum. But with this "conclusion" comes the fact that altered states actually could be as real, and not real, as this reality we share. I am ofc only thinking out loud

 

[Infundibulum]

I'd say that dmt has reinforced my belief as an atheist, rather than the opposite.

If not anything else, isn't it telling that feelings of the divine, travels to otherworldly dimensions etc etc are triggered by something so materialistic as a pile of off-white powder?

If something so materialistic as a pile of off-white powder can alter your perceptions and subjective experience so profoundly that you enter into a realm that appears to be every bit as real as, or more real than, the redalm of everyday experience, how can you be so sure that everyday reality is “real”?

I see everyday reality as the baseline - of all the different states you can reach with or without drugs, our point of reference is this world. We gotta eat, sleep and work to make meets end and I am thus bound to put more weight on this world than any one else (realer or otherwise)

Ultimately, it’s how my experiences affect me that’s most important. Whether or not they’re real (whatever “real” means) is less important.

I couldn't agree more with that.

 

[The Neural]

The works of this phenomena are far from understood really, but one can imagine the bearing impact of neurotransmitters, hormones, molecules etc in the process of giving ourselves this experience of real time reality. ..One could argue that our specific senses pick out their own preferred "slice of the stimuli cake" in the space surrounding us, creating ONE version of the possible interpretations of the same "reality".

So if I can, at least, accept the notion that our perception of reality is produced by selecting information in the environment in an algorithmic way based upon the neurological/chemical environment in the brain and CNS - I can also be open to the fact that the experiences one can have by altering the chemical preciseness of the brain - are simply a product of different "slices of the same stimuli cake" we all live in. ..And in other words also real, and not real at the same time. As in quantum. But with this "conclusion" comes the fact that altered states actually could be as real, and not real, as this reality we share. I am ofc only thinking out loud

And your thoughts resonate in sheer familiarity with my own.

 

[Orion]

If something so materialistic as a pile of off-white powder can alter your perceptions and subjective experience so profoundly that you enter into a realm that appears to be every bit as real as, or more real than, the realm of everyday experience, how can you be so sure that everyday reality is “real”?

You might not dig it but P.K Dick said: 'Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.'

Personally all I know is that there is no hyperspace for me if I'm not on a drug. Experience tells me so, and it is the same for everyone else. People die and yet reality remains. Or perhaps they are all just someone else's imagination and noone died at all. But it would HAVE to be MY illusion you are all in, because it is absolutely me experiencing it... right?

 

[100thApe]

erase this please

 

[100thApe]

The works of this phenomena are far from understood really, but one can imagine the bearing impact of neurotransmitters, hormones, molecules etc in the process of giving ourselves this experience of real time reality. ..One could argue that our specific senses pick out their own preferred "slice of the stimuli cake" in the space surrounding us, creating ONE version of the possible interpretations of the same "reality".

So if I can, at least, accept the notion that our perception of reality is produced by selecting information in the environment in an algorithmic way based upon the neurological/chemical environment in the brain and CNS - I can also be open to the fact that the experiences one can have by altering the chemical preciseness of the brain - are simply a product of different "slices of the same stimuli cake" we all live in. ..And in other words also real, and not real at the same time. As in quantum. But with this "conclusion" comes the fact that altered states actually could be as real, and not real, as this reality we share. I am ofc only thinking out loud

And your thoughts resonate in sheer familiarity with my own.

As when I read the text below your avatar.

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

You might not dig it but P.K Dick said: 'Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.'

Thank you for that. I found it very enlightening.

 

[gibran2]

If something so materialistic as a pile of off-white powder can alter your perceptions and subjective experience so profoundly that you enter into a realm that appears to be every bit as real as, or more real than, the realm of everyday experience, how can you be so sure that everyday reality is “real”?

You might not dig it but P.K Dick said: 'Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.'

Personally all I know is that there is no hyperspace for me if I'm not on a drug. Experience tells me so, and it is the same for everyone else. People die and yet reality remains. Or perhaps they are all just someone else's imagination and noone died at all. But it would HAVE to be MY illusion you are all in, because it is absolutely me experiencing it... right?

Actually, I like P. K. Dick.

I’m not suggesting that hyperspace is “real”, but rather that materialists belief in an objective reality is indeed a belief, and not a fact, and it can’t ever be more than a belief. There is no way to prove the existence of an objective reality when all you have at your disposal is subjective experience.

We have atheists and/or materialists insisting that believers in some simplistic version of a supreme being provide evidence to support their beliefs, when they themselves cannot provide evidence of any sort to support their belief in the independent existence of a material universe.

It just seems hypocritical to me.

I don’t know what happens when people die, since as far as I can remember, I’ve never died before. But my guess is that from my subjective point of view, reality will not remain when I die.

There are many on this site who claim/believe that we are all one. If that’s the case, then it seems to follow that there is only One experiencer.

 

[Infundibulum]

Gibran, I've gotta say that i always find your thinking very educational, thanks for that!

We have atheists and/or materialists insisting that believers in some simplistic version of a supreme being provide evidence to support their beliefs, when they themselves cannot provide evidence of any sort to support their belief in the independent existence of a material universe.

but if you need a material brain to experience subjectivity, isn't that an objective point of reference? We very well know that if you fiddle with the brain, you can radically change the way you perceive reality. How is the need for a material brain being accommodated in your understanding?

 

[gibran2]

but if you need a material brain to experience subjectivity, isn't that an objective point of reference? We very well know that if you fiddle with the brain, you can radically change the way you perceive reality. How is the need for a material brain being accommodated in your understanding?

Your subjective experiences lead you naturally to the conclusion that you have a material brain (and arms, legs, and all the other assorted parts), but how are these subjective experiences evidence of an independently objective universe?

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Surely the fact that the brain appears to mediate subjective experiences of external phenomena does not offer any commentary as to the objective validity of said phenomena.

Edit: gaaah, gibran beat me to it.

 

[Mystic0]

DMT restored my connection to the divine, to nature itself. It didn't change my beliefs, merely reminded me of what I had forgotten and who I was before the physical culture and society we have formed knocked it out of me.

We are all connected, in ways we cannot fathom or understand. It simply is and always has been, the truth is too beautiful to describe or even try too.

 

[Infundibulum]

but if you need a material brain to experience subjectivity, isn't that an objective point of reference? We very well know that if you fiddle with the brain, you can radically change the way you perceive reality. How is the need for a material brain being accommodated in your understanding?

Your subjective experiences lead you naturally to the conclusion that you have a material brain (and arms, legs, and all the other assorted parts), but how are these subjective experiences evidence of an independently objective universe?

Good question, thanks - that'll require some thinking from my side.

 

[○]

There are many on this site who claim/believe that we are all one. If that’s the case, then it seems to follow that there is only One experiencer.

Indeed..