Bancopuma said:
"To me that suggests an underlying structure to the universe that we can't readily perceive."
For the sake of speculation, could there not be some projection of the underlying cellular structure of the brain or eyes going on here as well, beyond what one can readily perceive. Not saying that explains all of it by any stretch, but I do thing part of the visionary architecture of the experience induced by DMT and other psychedelics is a projection of internal structures.
You pack a loaded question, so I will try to tease it apart the best I can. There are a lot of things that can affect or modulate the visual aspect to the experience, but it should be noted that many of these things are rather superficial, especially when examined alone. External lighting, afterimages, cellular phosphenes, etc...can all leave their mark on hyperspace. The issue becomes when you have the experiences in which contextually significant information is conveyed, or when valid information is conveyed for which you have no former basis for knowing.
For example, let's examine two different scenarios. In the first one we have a DMT experience in which the bright lighting of the external room allows you to see the cellular phosphenes behind your closed eyelids as you would normally be able to see sober, except with the additional dimension of DMT, their afterimages become well ingrained in the visual nature of your experience and the cellular afterimages self-replicate, become more sophisticated and may form the visual basis for the unfolding scene.
Let us contrast that scenario with this next one in which the eyes are closed and you find yourself looking at a vision of what appears to be a single cell. In this visionary scenario, you are first taken for a tour of the inner workings of the cell before your view is pulled outward and you see the cell dividing and gestating and taking you on an epic vision detailing the development of a complex multicellular life-form. In this scenario, it would be inappropriate to conclude that the vision must have resulted from the pattern recognition of cellular patterns considering the detailed, story-oriented, contextually significant vision that played out.
I can think of a ton of examples off the top of my head of visions I've had in which the notion of pattern recognition would seem like a silly explanation. My first Egyptian experience for example was beholding four multidimensional pharaoh sarcophagi folding through each other in a gigantic pyramid of which the details of the bricks were notable. It strikes me as unlikely that hyperspace geometry would simply converge and the neural process of pattern recognition would fill in the blanks and smooth out the picture to show these pharaoh sarcophagi which looked like the King Tut sarcophagus down to the color and detail, moving about in the contextually significant place of a gigantic pyramid (even though granted no Pharaoh has ever been found in a pyramid).
I could make a list of experiences and go on and on, but it is in the ancient cultural experiences in particular where you have all the elements of that certain culture that all come together in a meaningful way that should seem to deny the possibility of pattern recognition playing a significant part in the process. When you have a cultural being inside the appropriate cultural temple with the complimentary cultural artifacts in a way where everything converges to convey a coherent message, I tend to think that the cellular structuring of the visual system doesn't come too much into play. If we're talking about an Egyptian temple, and it's all turquoise, but virtually nothing else in hyperspace is turquoise, that should signify it as being employed meaningfully and not as the result of the projection of internal structures which may therefore "liberate" a lot of the rest of the content of the vision from the conception of pattern recognition. When we see a "face in the clouds," it's often just that - if you see Michael Jordan's face in the clouds, it's never accompanied by a basketball, a net and a referee.
I don't want anyone to get me wrong because I am all for pattern recognition in a certain light. I think that DMT is phenomenal at enhancing pattern recognition, and patterns do play a humongous role in the process...it's just that it has its time and place...and that's usually somewhere near the surface of the experience.
I think it's funny that you guys bring up Pythagoras because it seems to me that the concept of right angles completely underlies and pervades hyperspace, primarily forming the basis for the entire "multidimensional mode" of geometry. It was demonstrated to me rather explicitly on several experiences how the combination of right angles along with the concept of a foreground, background, and latent background all contribute to the multidimensionality of the experience along with creating certain quite effective visual illusions. In some ways, it can be like a grand puppet show.
Also something in the title that of this topic that no one has really touched on is this concept of "god geometries" or the geometry of the godhead. When I start to see even small hints of such geometry, I know what's waiting behind the corner. Both Hindu as well as Egyptian geometry can come into play at the core of the godhead, but the geometry can be presented in so many different modes as to obscure the cultural element. The slightest shift in "dimensional angle" by altering my perspective via which plane I am viewing the godhead from can cause the most drastic of shifts in what the geometry appears to create. It contains within it so many countless forms that are dependent on the point of the observer's observation. To say it is one of these things or another would be inaccurate, as it seems obvious that it is all (or none...or some) of these things at once. This seems to be a result of its holographic nature.
Let me give an example that is perhaps easier to latch onto. Many people are familiar with the 2D holographic cards of consensual reality in which there can appear to be a moving picture. At my house, I have this holographic card of Mickey Mantle up at the plate, swinging his bat at an incoming ball. Now if you were to remain completely still, and the card were completely still then it would appear to be a single, static image. If however, you decide to change your perspective by either moving your own body or tilting the card, you would notice the motion. The important part is realizing that it's not like the pixels or physical matter of the card is rearranging itself for you, but that it is all of the images at once. If we take two people and have them viewing the card from different angles, we would expect them to say that Mickey Mantle is in two distinctly different positions. The same principle seems to apply to holograms in the upper dimensions, and this notion comes into play when observing multidimensional geometries in general - even those rendered by a computer. So for example, if you were to take a look at a tesseract, penteract, 120-cell, E8, etc... on YouTube, you would note what seems to be certain facets folding through each other etc...there appears to be all this motion going on (much of which is very reminiscent for the hyperspace traveler) and yet from the mathematician's explanation, the geometry itself, the tesseract for example, isn't actually moving at all. It's simply your perspective that's being shifted around the dimensions that's creating the illusion of motion. You could even note the same concept with a solid 3D object like a cube where you could create the illusion of spinning a cube simply by rotating your perspective around it through three dimensional space while the cube itself actually remains completely motionless. This is in part, some of the kinds of things I allude to when I mention "the illusions of the grand puppet show".
