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

Endogenous DMT

Migrated topic.
Interesting......... I agree that DMT is not paramount to my existence, and I wouldn't say that I am built around it... But what to make of information gained through a mystical state of consciousness? Why is it that accurate information about things completely unknown can be obtained without any help from normal perception while in an altered state? Would that suggest there is a sea of information accessible through altered states (I'm not just talking about DMT)? If that were true, then DMT is merely a tool, just like meditation, or any other "technology" you might use to enter an altered state. As for why it is in our bodies, I have no idea. But I do think the mystical experience is one that shouldn't be over looked and it is clear to me that there is an unlimited amount of self-improvement/awareness/growth that can be obtained from an integrative altered state. Obviously though, there is potential for abuse and misinterpretation.

Perhaps the real question is: Can our thoughts alone influence physical reality? It would seem that they can.
 
But what to make of information gained through a mystical state of consciousness? Why is it that accurate information about things completely unknown can be obtained without any help from normal perception while in an altered state?
Click to expand...

I think this is an interesting question. I certainly think psychedelics have a kind of potential for intelligence and enhanced problem solving effects. But whether or not the information is all inside us anyway or comes from outside is another interesting question. I tend to believe its all within us anyway. Psychedelics just help us access it in the way they do.

Concerning our thoughts influencing physical reality. I think this is possible but there are limits. For example if you are stressed all the time you think about things that bother you and your body reacts with physical symptoms. The extent of these limits I do not know.
 
No problem. It is incredible how these alien, sci-fi myths have become entangeled in the culture. It seems the culture is split between those who believe science and those who believe science fiction. It seems that the scienctific implications of the truth is so much more fascinating but it does require some comprehension of the scientific vernacular and thus intimidates some people as you have stated. This combined with the fascinating theories of Strassman causes many to adopt these sci fi beleifs. We have so much we can learn through DMT, how it acts and what it does to create these altered states of experience? Also the processes it is involved in endogenously may be intricately related to the generation of normal waking experience and perception. Other endogenous hallucinogenic compounds exist too, including 5-MeO-DMT, Bufotenine, alpha-psycotogen, and possible an endogenous kappa antagonist. There are likely other compounds too, that may be present in such minute levels that they have yet to have been detected.

Many complex processes are likely involved in the generation of perception and experience, however these endogenous hallucinogens are likely involved (see Wallach 2009).
Look up endogenous Hallucinogens on google and it will come up on erowid.

These compounds thus create our reality. This is incredible. Of course if we ingest endogenous DMT it will create an alternate reality. This is its job, however this reality seems strange and novel because the release and activity of DMT is no longer controlled and regulated. Thus it is not correlated with information from the sensory organs about the external world.

People have the right to believe what ever they want, but one should be his/her own devil's advocate, and analysis everything you think. Ask your self: Why do I believe this? What reason's do I have? Where did I pick up this idea? It is very easy to believe things for no good reason at all, other than you want to or it would be cool, or someone else said it for no reason. It is important to the advancement of our understanding of the world to be critical of your own ideas just as much as we are with others. People have given their lives for the most blatantly wrong ideology. This just emphasizes the power of beliefs, the ego and the mind.
 
bufoman said:
Quantum Mechanic obeys very specific laws.
Click to expand...

which ones?
where's the finite math used to describe these laws?
I must've been sleeping, otherwise there is still no precise mathematical descriptors to determine limits for this area of theoretical physics (which is exactly what QM is)
it's nothing but elaborate derivations of Schrodinger equations. it's all probabilistic, hence theory, and you know it.
we can get into a debate about semantics, but quantum physics is really just theory... nothing written in stone, with plenty of probability bullshit math. it's not thermodynamics.
granted, physicists have come up with decent way of describing what's happening on the subatomic level, but there's still no way of knowing for certain, so how can there be laws in QM if there's no unifying theory?
 
benzyme said:
bufoman said:
Quantum Mechanic obeys very specific laws.
Click to expand...

which ones?
where's the finite math used to describe these laws?
I must've been sleeping, otherwise there is still no precise mathematical descriptors to determine limits for this area of theoretical physics (which is exactly what QM is)
it's nothing but elaborate derivations of Schrodinger equations. it's all probabilistic, hence theory, and you know it.
we can get into a debate about semantics, but quantum physics is really just theory... nothing written in stone, with plenty of probability bullshit math. it's not thermodynamics.
granted, physicists have come up with decent way of describing what's happening on the subatomic level, but there's still no way of knowing for certain, so how can there be laws in QM if there's no unifying theory?
Click to expand...

sooooo... are you denouncing quantum mechanics all together?
Or simply stating that we don't know for sure?
Or are you saying that only a neurotic person would base any of their beliefs on it?

Not trying to be an ass. Just curious where you're going with this.
 
QM obeys very specific laws the laws of probability. You have obviously misunderstood what probability means. It is still a series of rules, it still follows a set of equations. Just because something obeys probability does not mean it is a theory. This is a serious misunderstanding, statistics are facts. If that is how nature behaves then it is a fact and thus a law. QM has tons of finite mathematical equations to explain it are you joking? It is not a theory but a set of observations and equations that can be used to explain matter on the sub atomic level. You are obviously not too familiar with Quantum Mechanics or probability. these are tools to explain the behavior of nature. They are not theories at all. QM has almost nothing to do with theory . in fact there are theories which attempt to explain the QM observations, But QM itself is the actual observations.
Look up:
Shrodenger equation, Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Pauli exclusion principle, quantum electrodynamics... The equations (mathematics of QM) goes on and on. These explain observations made about the behavior of matter at the particle level, these particles (waves) follow the laws of probability. This is what they do, this is what we observe, it has nothing to do with theory.

I am not saying our observations are flawless, far from it, they are relative and this is the best we can ask for. There are serious flaws in the way we observe nature that are inherent to the system but this is an entirely different topic.
 
Probability makes something theory? This is 100% incorrect. If matter behaves itself based on the laws of probability than this is a fact of nature not a theory. Things can follow the laws of probability this does not make them a theory. Theory and probability have nothing to do with one another. Ask any physicist if QM is a theory? It is as much a theory as the laws of thermodynamics. These are observations of the behavior of matter.
 
Yes do you not understand QM? There is much more to QM then the schrodinger equation or its derivatives :lol: .

Things on the quantum level do no behave as they do at the newtonian scale. The math does explain what is happening, Just because it does not fit the model of what you think should happen based on your newtonian view of reality? It is theory ? The whole point is that matter exists as probability waves. This is not theory it is an observation. One which has been proven. Just because we can not explain the reasons behind the observations does not make them theory, they are indisputable fact. The reason may not even exist. This is how nature behaves at this level with an observer present.

Go ask a physicists if QM is a theory. I am not saying that the field does not contain any theories, as it most certainly does contain many, but the foundation, the set of observations, are not theory. And the fact that probability is involved has nothing to do with theory in the least.
 
Benzyme wrote : it's nothing but elaborate derivations of Schrodinger equations. it's all probabilistic, hence theory, and you know it.
we can get into a debate about semantics, but quantum physics is really just theory... nothing written in stone, with plenty of probability bullshit math. it's not thermodynamics.

Why do you think probability makes something theory. Probability is not BULL SHIT math either.
You are seriously mistaken about what QM is.
 
bufoman said:
Yes do you not understand QM? There is much more to QM then the schrodinger equation or its derivatives :lol: .

Things on the quantum level do no behave as they do at the newtonian scale. The math does explain what is happening, Just because it does not fit the model of what you think should happen based on your newtonian view of reality? It is theory ? The whole point is that matter exists as probability waves. This is not theory it is an observation. One which has been proven. Just because we can not explain the reasons behind the observations does not make them theory, they are indisputable fact. The reason may not even exist. This is how nature behaves at this level with an observer present.

Go ask a physicists if QM is a theory. I am not saying that the field does not contain any theories, as it most certainly does contain many, but the foundation, the set of observations, are not theory. And the fact that probability is involved has nothing to do with theory in the least.
Click to expand...

nothing is proven. especially in QM :lol:
(if you're going to "prove" something, you'd systematically reproduce the same exact event, at a given time interval)

a researcher can observe a particle near the nucleus of an atom one second, call his buddy into the room, and poof...it's a wave. i already acknowledged it's an observation, and you'll never know precisely when you'll observe the same event.

the field of QM is primarily based on theory. why do you think they call it "theoretical physics"?
 
Quantum mechanics describes a scale of reality just as accurately as newtonian physics explains our everyday reality and relativity explains things on very large and fast scales.

Its not just math or theoretical. Not at all. Experimental evidence was key in getting people to believe quantum mechanics was real. Because no one intuitively thought what QM predicts could be possible but it is. Einstein couldn't stand quantum mechanics but he was proven wrong and the theory still stands.

Of course DMT IS reality like any other with aliens and quantum physics laws.
Click to expand...

You need to be more coherent. DMT is a chemical. If you mean the DMT experience is like a reality then ok. But yea whatever just try to be more coherent.
 
(if you're going to "prove" something, you'd systematically reproduce the same exact event, at a given time interval)

I suggest you look into QM a little more. The experiments have been replicated many many times. As burnt said look into Einsteins role as he was the major opposition (even though he was one of the founders(- duality of light). look into the double slit experiments. You are confusing the theories which explain the experiments with the actual observation. The observation s have been replicated thousands of times.

a researcher can observe a particle near the nucleus of an atom one second, call his buddy into the room, and poof...it's a wave. i already acknowledged it's an observation, and you'll never know precisely when you'll observe the same event.

I really hope you do not believe this is what QM is? (see below)

the field of QM is primarily based on theory. why do you think they call it "theoretical physics"?


You are misunderstanding the interpretation of Qm for the observations of QM. Thank you BURNT. It gets frustrating sometimes, it is nice to have someone who understands.

Benzyme I think you are just misunderstanding QM, I am not trying to be mean or imply you are stupid this is not the case, but QM is observation. Theory has evolved to explain these observations but the observations themselves are not theory. Also the wave/particle duality does not behave at all how you suggested. The experiments are very specifically controlled and designed. They are not just interchangeable and random as you imply. The presence or absence of certain variables influences the state adopted. Please reread my posts I feel I have explained it very clearly and I think you should look at what I said in greater detail especially regarding the probability claim you made.

People need to be more open. IT IS OKAY TO BE MISTAKEN. it takes integrity to admit it. If I was wrong I would want to know and would be happy for someone to correct me. I have no ego about these things, we are only human.

Mater of Plants - No offense but you are just throwing around things you do not understand. Again I am not trying to be mean but you obviously have zero comprehension of Neuroscience, consciousness and QM. No one is saying the hamburger has no existence however your experience of the hamburger is not the real thing, it is a subjective experience created by the brain. it exists inside of your brian just as all your experiences of the world. There is an external world where the hamburger does exist. (for all intensive purposes, i am not going to get into this with you b/c it was already covered in the reality thread, there could be a damn book written about the theories in that thread). Also it is very hard to follow what you are talking about. Just using big science words about things you do not understand will not get you very far.
 
Back
Top Bottom