Does mindset affect the DMT experience or just the interpretation of it?

[clearlyone]

sorry... deleting duplicate post.

 

[clearlyone]

Most people assume that everyday experience is real. When discussing reality in a practical rather than metaphysical sense, I agree. So what is it about our everyday experiences that lead us to believe they are real?

I think this is a much more interesting question than questions concerning whether or not the realms visited via psychedelic experiences are real.

So, what is it about everyday subjective experience that leads you to believe it is real?

I like your thinking gibran2. Consensus Reality. What makes everyday experience seem real is that we have more memory of it (it seems more consistent - has the largest backlog of 'events') and that their is an interesting phenomena of others that corroborate these events and conditions. The result is a mind conditioned to believe everyday is reality and that which falls outside an illusion, hallucination or vision.

There is no point in trying to find out the truth!

Except maybe to prove to yourself it cannot be found. The searcher begins to see the fallacy of believing everyday life is the definitive reality - opening the way for freedom from it. Not that you leave here or are less subject to circumstances, but that you continually experience it without believing it is everything or that you are bound by it.

 

[clouds]

While I think clouds is doing the best job in trying to articulate what I am getting at, I am going to have to be the one that points out an inconsistency of his.

"hallucination is a perception in the absence of a stimulus"
Then he says datura and other alkaloids in affiliation with hallucination. Obviously datura is a stimulus.

Perhaps his schizophrenic analog would fit best into his definition. However, there seem to be a lot of people who use the term hallucination in conjunction, with say, LSD.

I am probably getting a bit picky here on focusing on his definition rather than his main point. But it is better to have a solid base to work with.

You are right. But, technically speaking, there cannot really be an absence of a stimulus in that context. Not even in schizophrenia. Schizophrenics are having a *sigh* neurotransmitter stimulus (Dopamine and Serotonin) [mostly dopamine]. That means that, both Datura hallucinations and schizophrenic hallucinations are caused by abnormal neural chemistry. That is called "etiology", not "stimulus". Be that the alteration of regular acetylcholine function (Datura) or dopaminergic receptors (Schizophrenia).

What the definition of "stimulus" in hallucination (in the context of comparison with illusions and visions) is trying to point out is that there is not a distortion of a shape, but rather a creation of an imaginary shape. On the other hand, the illusion is the distortion of a shape.

Just wanted to make clear the differentiation between etiology and stimulus in a hallucination. Datura is not a stimulus.

On the other hand, if John has fever and thinks a tree is a person, he is having a fever-induced illusion.

The etiology? The fever.
The stimulus? The tree.
The distortion? The shape.
The illusion? The person.

 

[open'nheart]

While I think clouds is doing the best job in trying to articulate what I am getting at, I am going to have to be the one that points out an inconsistency of his.

"hallucination is a perception in the absence of a stimulus"
Then he says datura and other alkaloids in affiliation with hallucination. Obviously datura is a stimulus.

Perhaps his schizophrenic analog would fit best into his definition. However, there seem to be a lot of people who use the term hallucination in conjunction, with say, LSD.

I am probably getting a bit picky here on focusing on his definition rather than his main point. But it is better to have a solid base to work with.

You are right. But, technically speaking, there cannot really be an absence of a stimulus in that context. Not even in schizophrenia. Schizophrenics are having a *sigh* neurotransmitter stimulus (Dopamine and Serotonin) [mostly dopamine]. That means that, both Datura hallucinations and schizophrenic hallucinations are caused by abnormal neural chemistry. That is called "etiology", not "stimulus". Be that the alteration of regular acetylcholine function (Datura) or dopaminergic receptors (Schizophrenia).

What the definition of "stimulus" in hallucination (in the context of comparison with illusions and visions) is trying to point out is that there is not a distortion of a shape, but rather a creation of an imaginary shape. On the other hand, the illusion is the distortion of a shape.

Just wanted to make clear the differentiation between etiology and stimulus in a hallucination. Datura is not a stimulus.

On the other hand, if John has fever and thinks a tree is a person, he is having a fever-induced illusion.

The etiology? The fever.
The stimulus? The tree.
The distortion? The shape.
The illusion? The person.

the term hallucination carries a tone that implies "not real". imaginary carries a tone that implies it is gernerated internally. which would make ones mind the stimulus.

edit to add::x language!

 

[clouds]

the term hallucination carries a tone that implies "not real". imaginary carries a tone that implies it is gernerated internally. which would make ones mind the stimulus.

Again, in an illusion, stimulus are: sounds, objects, flavors, smells... that are distorted by the person.
In a hallucination there are no stimulus, and yet the person can hear, see, taste and smell things.

What happens in the brain (neurotransmitters, drugs, neurophysiology) is not a stimulus. Its etiology.

 

[open'nheart]

edit: my post was based on a misunderstanding. but i think there is somthing to be said about the difference between brain and mind.

 

[kyrolima]

I guess one is happy because one is living, thinking and behaving in a way we are designed for!
Ultimately i would say, feelings are nothing but reflections of our mindset, our state of being.
This state of being has its origins in the nonphysical reality of "thoughts".

 

[clouds]

edit: my post was based on a misunderstanding. but i think there is somthing to be said about the difference between brain and mind.

Oh that is for sure!

Brain = Hardware
To study the brain one must study neuroanatomy and neurophysiology (and neuroscience in general)

Mind = Software
To study the mind one must study psychology and philosophy (and cognitive sciences in general)

To differentiate mind from brain is a basic thing when talking about psychedelics (which involve the mentioned disciplines and even mooore)

 

[corpus callosum]

I ilike this thread ALOT.

To my way of thinking, reality as understood in the common parlance of people who dont perhaps consider these issues to the same depth as us Nexians is based on consensus but this serves as a pardigm for us to function and make sense of things.If you imagine the range of human perceptive experience as following a normal distribution with 'proper' reality occupying a small part of the x axis where the height of the bell shaped curve is greatest, deviation to either side of this beyond a relatively small area is defined as abnormal and hence possibly 'crazy' or to put it more kindly, eccentric.

Looking at things in a slightly different way, we have the issue of color blindness.Most people are not 'color blind' and appear to have retinae/optic tracts/occipital cortices which perceive things in a certain way and those who differ from this are labelled as color-blind.But this is a function of physiology and is accepted as 'real' by virtue of the numbers who perceive it thus.But does that really mean what we non-colorblind people see as red is truly red?

To dissect things a little further, there also is the issue of visual effects of DMT which are unquestionably real in an experiential sense and the thought-processes which run concurrently with this.I think these two are inextricably linked.For example, the alcoholic deprived of his poison for 48-72 hours suffers the DTs which have proper formed hallucinations which are unquestionably real in their experience but cause marked psychological anxiety and suffering.But are these hallucinations truly representative of a 'hidden' reality? Most would agree that this is an extreme disordered physiological state but are the hallucinations they experience a function of this alone?Interesting question....


Last of all, there exisits a range of neurological processes labelled as Lhermittes Peduncular Hallucinosis which are characterised by proper formed hallucinations of people and the like but many sufferers can recognise that what their visual pathways are relaying are not real due to their consciousness being clear ie thought-processes not altered.These conditions can be produced by structural problems in a variety of anatomical locations but have convincing visual effects as their common hallmark.

In spite of all this, the question of whether or not DMT effects are an elaborate classy manifestation of disordered physiology which produces visions and concurrent thought-processes, or something altogether more beguiling, remains.

 

[JamesLove]

"So what is it about our everyday experiences that lead us to believe they are real?

I think this is a much more interesting question than questions concerning whether or not the realms visited via psychedelic experiences are real."

I had a funny feeling 48 hours ago b4 I made my 1st post on here it was going to come down to this. Somebody was going to bring out the atomic bomb and drop that one and pretty much kill any sort of attempt to question whether or not DMT is in one's head or if it leads to some sort of external reality.

Of course if you want to "go backwards", it is pretty much impossible to counter that argument. It would also lead to pretty much any discussion about any topic rendered mute.

I also do understand the validity of your point. Because if my "baseline" is in fact a mirage itself, any blocks I build on it will be made of sand. If our reality is BS, then perhaps the DMT vissions/hallucinations/illusions/whatever are in fact the real deal.

Somebody else made a schizophrenic point which I have often thought about as well. What if the schizophrenic people actually had advanced senses? My friend's brother sees aliens from another planet walking among us. What if he really could see this?

I saw something in Discovery (or something like that) a few months ago where some guy could "see" numbers and he could do crazy calculations in his head. Synthesia or something like that it was called. Is he crazy? Obviously not because the dude can PRODUCE when it comes to crunching numbers. It is super rare though, like maybe a dozen people or whatever in the world. I think it could be accident related from what I remember.

Anyway, ultimately, I cannot prove we are not brains in a vat. So if people are going to bring that out, it is going to be difficult to solve to answer the DMT riddle.

 

[corpus callosum]

If post no.50 is in response to post no.49 then I apologise:?

 

[clouds]

If post no.50 is in response to post no.49 then I apologise:?

post no.50 is a response to post no.38

 

[corpus callosum]

Thanks clouds-I feel better already:d

 

[JamesLove]

No, I wasn't refering to you. And I am not mad at the guy who posted it, merely saying it is tough to counter that argument.

The "Bell Curve" poster (I think 49) made a point which I have been thinking of as well.
"Most" people are sane because they are most.

So what about this? You have maybe 1% of the population which has had some sort of close up encounter with a UFO. A lot of people think they are lying or crazy. Ha ha, UFO.
Check out the Tim Ley Phoenix Lights encounter.

Pilots simply do not report UFOs. Many, many, many pilots see UFOs.

I have a friend I have known for over a quarter of a century. The dude is pretty straightforward. I have not caught him lying to me. He says he saw a ghost.

He meets this girl in a bar and goes to her hotel room. After showering he starts putting on his clothes and she goes in the shower. He looks up and there is a transparent ghost (similiar to "Predetor") on a bed of a girl. He keeps on putting on his clothes while watching this. Clear as day. No doubt about it.

The girl gets out of the shower and says "See anything interesting" with a sly evil grin.

How freaky is that?

Anyway, the point is maybe 1% of people have seen ghosts. Probably most people think it is BS. Unless you have seen it.

You can probably put DMT users in that crowd as well with their extraordinary tales. I would suspect most lay people dismiss it to the drugs.

What if the minority is right?

 

[ragabr]

Anyway, ultimately, I cannot prove we are not brains in a vat. So if people are going to bring that out, it is going to be difficult to solve to answer the DMT riddle.

Without undergoing some sort of breakthrough experience, whether Aya, mushrooms, vaporized DMT or salvia, the problems with your ontological assumptions just will not appear to you.

Even after the experience, people often hold on to their previous ontologies, but at least they begin to understand the questionable nature regarding them.

 

[clearlyone]

"So what is it about our everyday experiences that lead us to believe they are real?

I think this is a much more interesting question than questions concerning whether or not the realms visited via psychedelic experiences are real."

Perhaps these are few:

1. Much of the events in everyday are expected, there is a certain continuity
2. Many of the experiences in everyday are similar to others
3. The mind connects more events and experiences together in everyday
4. The mind uses these connections to predict
5. This makes the mind feel safe ... sometimes
6. Mostly this is all we are taught ... belief has become implicitly required by society
7. Others confirm our version of reality ... or a slight variation
8. There is 'more of it' in our memories ... usually

Perhaps the nexus is bringing some of these about for hyperspace:wink:

SWIM would admit that his voyages include story lines and a usual cast of entities are begining to meet some of these requirements.:shock:

 

[gibran2]

"So what is it about our everyday experiences that lead us to believe they are real?

I think this is a much more interesting question than questions concerning whether or not the realms visited via psychedelic experiences are real."

I had a funny feeling 48 hours ago b4 I made my 1st post on here it was going to come down to this. Somebody was going to bring out the atomic bomb and drop that one and pretty much kill any sort of attempt to question whether or not DMT is in one's head or if it leads to some sort of external reality.

Of course if you want to "go backwards", it is pretty much impossible to counter that argument. It would also lead to pretty much any discussion about any topic rendered mute.

I also do understand the validity of your point. Because if my "baseline" is in fact a mirage itself, any blocks I build on it will be made of sand. If our reality is BS, then perhaps the DMT vissions/hallucinations/illusions/whatever are in fact the real deal.

Somebody else made a schizophrenic point which I have often thought about as well. What if the schizophrenic people actually had advanced senses? My friend's brother sees aliens from another planet walking among us. What if he really could see this?

I saw something in Discovery (or something like that) a few months ago where some guy could "see" numbers and he could do crazy calculations in his head. Synthesia or something like that it was called. Is he crazy? Obviously not because the dude can PRODUCE when it comes to crunching numbers. It is super rare though, like maybe a dozen people or whatever in the world. I think it could be accident related from what I remember.

Anyway, ultimately, I cannot prove we are not brains in a vat. So if people are going to bring that out, it is going to be difficult to solve to answer the DMT riddle.

That quote is mine. And I didn’t ask the question to suggest that our consensus reality isn’t real, but rather to stimulate thoughts concerning how we decide what is real and what isn’t. I also didn’t ask it to suggest that DMT experiences are real or not.

What criteria do we use to decide which experiences are “real” and which are illusions, visions, hallucinations – whatever you want to call them? Once you start answering this question, you’ll see how flimsy our understanding of “reality” becomes.

Maybe a better question is “How do we decide what is real and what isn’t?”

 

[clearlyone]

gbrand2, I submit a major way we decide what is real and what is not, is what we hear from others. Some might be a bit put off ... thinking 'not me, I think for myself'. But as you say: "Once you start answering this question, you’ll see how flimsy our understanding of “reality” becomes." Indeed, a major influence in all we believe is real is taken on faith from others. Just one chink in the armor of everyday reality.

This is a great discussion. Difficult to have elsewhere.
Gratitude.

 

[clouds]

Even if this world / space is not "real", an illusion is still an illusion, a vision is still a vision and a hallucination is still a hallucination.
These visual phenomena are defined by a series of effects in the perception of a mind. Not by the existential validity of the ambient.

Of course there is the possibility that schizophrenics are seeing real things (or false things) but that's not why they are "hallucinating". They are hallucinating because they perceive things in an absence of stimulus. And illusions are caused because they are distorting things in the presence of one or more stimulus.

Are the things, stimulus, person, pancakes, zombies, spiders, meaning, language, sex, love, brain, mind real? Probably not.
And still, a vision is a vision (real or not real) and the same applies for illusions and hallucinations. gibran2, has a very valid point (and I agree) that one should go back to the mind before going forward to hyperspace IF one wants to try to understand the existential validity of both consensus reality and hyperspace. But I think one should not confuse a process with the existential validity of the process. Of course one can question if the process is real or not real, but it is still a process.

 

[gibran2]

Even if this world / space is not "real", an illusion is still an illusion, a vision is still a vision and a hallucination is still a hallucination.
These visual phenomena are defined by a series of effects in the perception of a mind. Not by the existential validity of the ambient.

Definitions aren’t the point.

The question I asked is independent of such definitions, and that’s why I lumped them all together. The question remains:

“How do we decide what is real and what isn’t?”