Is it just a chemistry or is there more to it ?

[Global]

You know the interesting thing about the scientific method is that it's used to verify and validate so many things, but the scientific method can't verify itself.

 

[tele]

You know the interesting thing about the scientific method is that it's used to verify and validate so many things, but the scientific method can't verify itself.

I agree

 

[Citta]

You know the interesting thing about the scientific method is that it's used to verify and validate so many things, but the scientific method can't verify itself.

This I talked about, but so what?
The axioms of mathematics can't be proven either, but does it make a difference when they create a good system that works?

 

[gibran2]

This is not unlikely in itself, but the problem is that if we are somehow connected to these other realms, we are causually linked to them. This means we should be able to demonstrate this relationship through the scientific method pretty easily, as science study and demonstrate causal relationships.

I agree with your first sentence, but strongly disagree with the second. If we are connected to other “physical” realms, then there is a physical “interface” that permits or contributes to this connection. The problem with your second statement is when you say “pretty easily”. Just because there is a causal relationship doesn’t mean that we can demonstrate or explain the relationship “pretty easily”. There are countless examples of this: The causal relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer is one. We know there is a causal relationship, but how exactly cigarette smoking causes cancer is, as far as I know, still mostly unknown.

Whatever the link between our physical realm and other realms, if such a link or interface even exists, is not something that can be “pretty easily” demonstrated just because we are able to show causation.

We can have three basic axioms, or propositions of faith:

* There is an external world that exists independently of our minds.
* There are quantifiable natural laws that describe how things happen in this world, and we can attempt to understand them.
* These natural laws won’t change when we’re not looking; the universe isn’t totally chaotic.

So far this faith is very well founded, and accepting these, or at least working out of these, have led us to have an exponential growth of knowledge and understanding.

Again, there are subtle differences you’re failing to see:

Axiom 1: There is an external world that exists independently of our minds.
I agree that this is a reasonable axiom for a materialist to make.

Axiom 2: There are quantifiable natural laws that describe how things happen in this world, and we can attempt to understand them.
This is not an axiom. We can demonstrate experimentally that there are physical laws: physical laws are simply ways of expressing our observations.

Axiom 3: These natural laws won’t change when we’re not looking; the universe isn’t totally chaotic.
The first part of your sentence is an appropriate axiom, but the second part doesn’t follow from the first.

You say “this faith is very well founded, and accepting these, or at least working out of these, have led us to have an exponential growth of knowledge and understanding”. The first axiom is irrelevant to the growth of knowledge and understanding.

Whether you believe in an external world that exists independently of mind or believe that you’re a “brain in a vat” or a computer simulation, etc. is irrelevant to scientific investigation. The physical laws we deduce from observation and experiment are independent of our beliefs about the “true” nature of reality.

Your second axiom is not an axiom at all, and your third axiom is also irrelevant to scientific discovery. Science is concerned with observation and measurement, and not with what’s happening when we can’t observe or measure.

So given that your two axioms (#1 and #3) have no impact on scientific discovery and understanding, why do you choose to believe them?

And again, the "brain in a vat" argument is not an argument at all, because we in principle can't know anything about what could or could not lie outside of all that is for us. DMT does not lie outside of all that is for us, because we take the drug and have these experiences. It falls within our reality somehow, either as real events relative to all that is for us, or as hallucinations. I have argued again and again that your "you can't prove consensus reality ultimately is real because of metaphysical consideration x, y and z" is actually not an argument at all in this discussion, but a whole different one with a different meaning.

The “brain in a vat” discourse was never intended to be an argument in favor of the reality of hyperspace or anything else. It was expressed to point out that we don’t know the “true” nature of reality.

 

[Citta]

I agree with your first sentence, but strongly disagree with the second. If we are connected to other “physical” realms, then there is a physical “interface” that permits or contributes to this connection. The problem with your second statement is when you say “pretty easily”. Just because there is a causal relationship doesn’t mean that we can demonstrate or explain the relationship “pretty easily”. There are countless examples of this: The causal relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer is one. We know there is a causal relationship, but how exactly cigarette smoking causes cancer is, as far as I know, still mostly unknown.

Whatever the link between our physical realm and other realms, if such a link or interface even exists, is not something that can be “pretty easily” demonstrated just because we are able to show causation.

I agree, that was hastily said, my bad. I know this, but somehow managed to still write the contrary. Anyway, I guess the point was made clear.

Again, there are subtle differences you’re failing to see:

Axiom 1: There is an external world that exists independently of our minds.
I agree that this is a reasonable axiom for a materialist to make.

Axiom 2: There are quantifiable natural laws that describe how things happen in this world, and we can attempt to understand them.
This is not an axiom. We can demonstrate experimentally that there are physical laws: physical laws are simply ways of expressing our observations.

Axiom 3: These natural laws won’t change when we’re not looking; the universe isn’t totally chaotic.
The first part of your sentence is an appropriate axiom, but the second part doesn’t follow from the first.

I said axioms OR propositions of faith, well aware that they don't all really classify as axioms. I want to edit the post and leave out the axiom thing, but I'll let it stand so others can see your valid and correct critique.

You say “this faith is very well founded, and accepting these, or at least working out of these, have led us to have an exponential growth of knowledge and understanding”. The first axiom is irrelevant to the growth of knowledge and understanding. Whether you believe in an external world that exists independently of mind or believe that you’re a “brain in a vat” or a computer simulation, etc. is irrelevant to scientific investigation. The physical laws we deduce from observation and experiment are independent of our beliefs about the “true” nature of reality.

Your second axiom is not an axiom at all, and your third axiom is also irrelevant to scientific discovery. Science is concerned with observation and measurement, and not with what’s happening when we can’t observe or measure.

So given that your two axioms (#1 and #3) have no impact on scientific discovery and understanding, why do you choose to believe them?

Why do you say that the first axiom or proposition of faith is irrelevant? This belief guides many a scientist. They pursue their belief of an observation independent universe, wanting to uncover universal truths that are valid outside the human condition. I agree that one can do scientific work and believe everything is inside a simulation or whatever, but I don't think this is the basic belief that have guided us towards scientific progress, nor is it the basic materialistic/naturalistic philosophy that the scientific method grew out of. The last one also falls in under this I think.

I choose to believe in them because for me they make sense. They give a good explanatory model of the universe without the need for solipsism, brains in vats, simulations or any conscious observers, whereas the primacy of consciousness for example runs into some serious problems (which we have discussed in the "Neuroscience and the self" thread) that probably can't be explained. Occam's razor...

The “brain in a vat” discourse was never intended to be an argument in favor of the reality of hyperspace or anything else. It was expressed to point out that we don’t know the “true” nature of reality.

Fine, then we are in agreement.

 

[gibran2]

Why do you say that the first axiom or proposition of faith is irrelevant? This belief guides many a scientist. They pursue their belief of an observation independent universe, wanting to uncover universal truths that are valid outside the human condition. I agree that one can do scientific work and believe everything is inside a simulation or whatever, but I don't think this is the basic belief that have guided us towards scientific progress, nor is it the basic materialistic/naturalistic philosophy that the scientific method grew out of. The last one also falls in under this I think.

I choose to believe in them because for me they make sense. They give a good explanatory model of the universe, whereas the primacy of consciousness for example runs into some serious problems (which we have discussed in the "Neuroscience and the self" thread) that probably can't be explained. Occam's razor...

The first axiom or proposition of faith is irrelevant because scientists can conduct science employing the Scientific Method regardless of whether or not they believe this.

If there is an external world that exists independently of mind, then science is revealing something about that external world.

If the world is the dream of an advanced alien being, then science is revealing something about an alien’s dream.

If reality is a computer simulation, then science is revealing something about the algorithms of the simulation.

Etc.


And I’m not sure how the existence of an independent universe is the simplest explanation. To me, the simplest explanation is that the universe doesn’t even exist – consciousness is all there is.

Isn’t that simpler? Your belief requires both consciousness and an independent universe. That’s more complicated.

Also, I can be certain that consciousness exists.

 

[joedirt]

And I’m not sure how the existence of an independent universe is the simplest explanation. To me, the simplest explanation is that the universe doesn’t even exist – consciousness is all there is.

This is the head of the nail as far as I'm concerned.

The only thing any person can claim with any real confidence is that they are aware.

In fact I'd go so far as to postulate that Awareness is The Fundamental Particle if you will. In fact any attempt to disprove that statement will setup a circular argument that actually depends upon awareness.

This isn't to say science isn't the best thing going for exploring..well what ever this is...Hell I'm a scientist for a reason. But without a doubt science has it's limitations and especially so what it comes to matters like this. Will science ever bridge the gap? Maybe. Look how far we've already come. The things we take for granted today would appear as magic to societies only a few hundred years ago. Already theoretical physicist are postulating theories about holographic universes, quantum mechanics has already shown that consciousness is linked to matter, and black holes pretty much prove it's all an illusion. I mean what else would a quantum dot of unimaginable mass that eats matter actually be?

To be very clear, I do have spiritual leanings, but I have them specifically because I am a scientists and the things that science is starting to turn up in the world of astronomy, theoretical physics, chemistry, and neurophysiology are all pointing to a universe that is fundamentally different than what we actually believe it is.

I have argued again and again that your "you can't prove consensus reality ultimately is real because of metaphysical consideration x, y and z" is actually not an argument at all in this discussion, but a whole different one with a different meaning.

Yes it is an argument for this discussion. You are trying to find out why people believe DMT is real...and we are trying to explain to you that we don't believe DMT is any more or less real than anything else.

But, let's get right to the point. Citta, you and other materialists, are absolutely correct. Hyperspace is not real in this physical universe. I can't show you what I've seen. I can't reproduce what I've seen. I can't measure what I've seen. Therefore hyperspace, for now, can not be considered real by science. Period.

There really isn't much point in discussing it if you won't move your stance past the purely materialistic point of view. If you won't at least try to understand the philosophy to see our points then you never will see past your point of view. And no this doesn't really apply the other way around because most of us started from a materialistic point of view before DMT. I think if you at least entertained what we are saying you might realize that we can all be right. BTW I'm not just referring to you specifically. I'm referring to everyone that takes the purely materialistic stance.

And lastly. DMT is not special. There are a variety of way's and means to achieve spiritual states. Lucid dreaming, countless psychedelic, sensory deprivation, meditation.

 

[soulfood]

When you throw out a single word, like “disorientation” without any explanation (you still haven’t explained anything) I see that as an attempt to brush off complex phenomena. Complex phenomena seem simple when you don’t really think about them at all.

Sorry for being vague and assuming.

If you take a bathroom tile with a complex pattern off of the wall and examine it in reality, you can examine the whole tile and get a fixed picture of it in your mind. It will remain stationary through the whole examination process and remain fixed in your mind.

Now, a DMT pattern doesn't remain the same. Before you've examined a "tile" it would have changed, be it subtley or highly noticabley over a short period of time giving you no reference to any original pattern because there never was one. Due to this, your brain was taking readings off of a lot of different arrangements which it processed as one, as that is how you viewed it.

Now put that DMT tile back on the wall in your hyperspace bathroom and now you have a whole bunch of tiles doing a whole bunch of different things which interchangabley morph into eachother. Your brain is not programmed in your normal wake state to make these kind of calculations.

This often makes me ponder how earth would have appeared to a newborn who had not already made established calculations in which to draw a frame-work which enabled his/her brain for more efficent visual processing.

 

[gibran2]

...Now, a DMT pattern doesn't remain the same. Before you've examined a "tile" it would have changed, be it subtley or highly noticabley over a short period of time giving you no reference to any original pattern because there never was one. Due to this, your brain was taking readings off of a lot of different arrangements which it processed as one, as that is how you viewed it.

Now put that DMT tile back on the wall in your hyperspace bathroom and now you have a whole bunch of tiles doing a whole bunch of different things which interchangabley morph into eachother. Your brain is not programmed in your normal wake state to make these kind of calculations.

This certainly happens during DMT experiences, but I’ve also had experiences that were as stable and clear as any in everyday reality. In fact, I’d say the majority of my deep experiences are of that type: visually stable, clear, and well-defined (often with clarity, definition, and stability that exceeds ordinary vision).

It just goes to show you that we each experience DMT in our own unique way.


{Also, most things in everyday reality – especially natural things – are not stable. Look at a cloud, look away for a few moments, then look at it again. It will have changed. Does this mean the cloud isn’t real? Look at the human body – one moment it’s in one configuration (let’s say standing), the next it’s in an entirely different configuration (sitting). Visually, this is a radical transformation. Does this mean people are illusions?}

 

[soulfood]

{Also, most things in everyday reality – especially natural things – are not stable. Look at a cloud, look away for a few moments, then look at it again. It will have changed. Does this mean the cloud isn’t real? Look at the human body – one moment it’s in one configuration (let’s say standing), the next it’s in an entirely different configuration (sitting). Visually, this is a radical transformation. Does this mean people are illusions?}

All above things obey very strict laws of physics which DMT doesn't. They certainly don't display the kind of dimensional property you're referring to. I'm 95% sure we've seen the same stuff.

I guess I'm not talking about noticable movement and used my tile analogy to try explain what may be going on in the DMT visual experience on a more microscopic level.

 

[gibran2]

All above things obey very strict laws of physics which DMT doesn't. They certainly don't display the kind of dimensional property you're referring to. I'm 95% sure we've seen the same stuff.

I guess I'm not talking about noticable movement and used my tile analogy to try explain what may be going on in the DMT visual experience on a more microscopic level.

Many of the realms I visit seem to obey strict laws of physics. Obviously not the same laws as in consensus reality, but clearly there is order, stability, and an almost mathematical beauty and precision.

 

[soulfood]

Oh well...

I give up

 

[gibran2]

Oh well...

I give up

Enjoy the mystery.

 

[Global]

All above things obey very strict laws of physics which DMT doesn't. They certainly don't display the kind of dimensional property you're referring to. I'm 95% sure we've seen the same stuff.

I guess I'm not talking about noticable movement and used my tile analogy to try explain what may be going on in the DMT visual experience on a more microscopic level.

Many of the realms I visit seem to obey strict laws of physics. Obviously not the same laws as in consensus reality, but clearly there is order, stability, and an almost mathematical beauty and precision.

I have to agree with gibran here. DMT matter does seem to operate under its own laws as abstract and bizarre as they may be at times.

 

[Citta]

The first axiom or proposition of faith is irrelevant because scientists can conduct science employing the Scientific Method regardless of whether or not they believe this.

Yes, sure they can, I agree. Still, this is one of the most fundamental ideas in the philosophy science rests upon, I guess that is why I mentioned it. Science aims to reveal obejctive phenomena, or at least what seems to be pretty objective if you wish. But never mind, I guess we can lay that to rest.

And I’m not sure how the existence of an independent universe is the simplest explanation. To me, the simplest explanation is that the universe doesn’t even exist – consciousness is all there is.

Isn’t that simpler? Your belief requires both consciousness and an independent universe. That’s more complicated.

Also, I can be certain that consciousness exists.

It isn't simpler because the claim is pretty extraordinary, and it runs into difficult problems. What is evolution? Why do we evolve to adapt to an environment, if it is not really there? What does our sense organs get stimulated by? If you toss a coin in the air, it will fall down. Do it again. It falls down. Do it yet again, but close your eyes and decide it will not fall down. Ops, it probably still fell down - why can't consciousness control reality? How do we explain obejctive measurements and events if there is no such thing? What about brain damage, coma, stuff like this? How do you explain the evidence for our universe existing long before we got here, long before any consciousness was here? Where was consciousness in the gaps? These are pretty serious questions.

These, and alike ones, are the problems that make me consider the primacy of consciousness more fantastic, problematic and less likely. The primacy of matter can explain these things. Furthermore, the primacy of matter paradigm doesn't require both consciousness and an independent universe, because as I've said before, all the laws, everything we know so far about the universe, can be formulated very precisely with no need for consciousness affecting things. This would seem weird if consciousness actually created matter, and not vice versa. Furthermore, in the primacy of matter consciousness is an emergent property of matter, thus no dualism.

Yes it is an argument for this discussion. You are trying to find out why people believe DMT is real...and we are trying to explain to you that we don't believe DMT is any more or less real than anything else.

But, let's get right to the point. Citta, you and other materialists, are absolutely correct. Hyperspace is not real in this physical universe. I can't show you what I've seen. I can't reproduce what I've seen. I can't measure what I've seen. Therefore hyperspace, for now, can not be considered real by science. Period.

There really isn't much point in discussing it if you won't move your stance past the purely materialistic point of view. If you won't at least try to understand the philosophy to see our points then you never will see past your point of view. And no this doesn't really apply the other way around because most of us started from a materialistic point of view before DMT. I think if you at least entertained what we are saying you might realize that we can all be right. BTW I'm not just referring to you specifically. I'm referring to everyone that takes the purely materialistic stance.

And lastly. DMT is not special. There are a variety of way's and means to achieve spiritual states. Lucid dreaming, countless psychedelic, sensory deprivation, meditation.

Oh, but I do understand your views more or less, because I've had them myself - believe it or not. I was really into this stuff, taking the stance of gibran2 and similar views. I did so, I think, because it gave me some comfort in my convictions of the reality of my very strong experiences, and almost enforced my further use. It made it feel right and important to use psychedelics, and frankly I got pretty stuck in it. But as I started studying physics, started looking more into science, I began having some doubts to the views I held. I stopped using psychedelics, except for smoking some DMT occasionally with long periods in between. I got some distance from my experiences, and I found myself realizing that I wasn't learning anything about our universe, wasn't really doing anything productive with my beliefs, I was just tripping balls thinking it meant so much more than I now think it does.

So now I am playing the devils advocate here, enjoying the discussions on these matters, but now arguing from the other side of the fence instead.

 

[gibran2]

It isn't simpler because the claim is pretty extraordinary, and it runs into difficult problems. What is evolution? Why do we evolve to adapt to an environment, if it is not really there? What does our sense organs get stimulated by? If you toss a coin in the air, it will fall down. Do it again. It falls down. Do it yet again, but close your eyes and decide it will not fall down. Ops, it probably still fell down - why can't consciousness control reality? How do we explain obejctive measurements and events if there is no such thing? What about brain damage, coma, stuff like this? How do you explain the evidence for our universe existing long before we got here, long before any consciousness was here? Where was consciousness in the gaps? These are pretty serious questions.

These, and alike ones, are the problems that make me consider the primacy of consciousness more fantastic, problematic and less likely. The primacy of matter can explain these things. Furthermore, the primacy of matter paradigm doesn't require both consciousness and an independent universe, because as I've said before, all the laws, everything we know so far about the universe, can be formulated very precisely with no need for consciousness affecting things. This would seem weird if consciousness actually created matter, and not vice versa. Furthermore, in the primacy of matter consciousness is an emergent property of matter, thus no dualism.

The primacy of consciousness paradigm does not deny the existence of the physical world, but rather addresses its source: it claims that the physical world is a creation of Consciousness. Evolution is a consequence of physical laws, and physical laws are a consequence of Consciousness.

You seem to be confusing individual human awareness and consciousness with Consciousness. Human beings are a manifestation of Consciousness, but they are not Consciousness. Our consciousness is a part or a facet of Consciousness. Consciousness has always existed. If we want to think in terms of time (which itself is likely an illusion), then Consciousness has existed before the universe came into being. The universe is itself a manifestation of Consciousness. Unconscious, comatose, and brain-damaged people are all manifestations of Consciousness.

Consciousness does control reality, since Consciousness manifested reality and all of the laws which govern it. Your consciousness doesn’t control reality, but as I’ve already said, your consciousness is a part of the larger Consciousness.

You keep saying that the primacy of matter paradigm doesn’t require consciousness, but it does! Without consciousness, there would be no paradigm! And how do materialists explain consciousness? Why do we have consciousness? It’s certainly not necessary to function. Sophisticated computers don’t have consciousness, and they function quite well without it. Many materialists claim that other animal species don't have it. What does consciousness add? A “philosophical zombie” would be indistinguishable in every way from a person with consciousness, so what purpose does consciousness serve in the materialist paradigm?

Why would it seem weird if consciousness actually created matter? Numerous materialist physicists claim that “nothing” created matter. Which idea is stranger?

The primacy of consciousness paradigm states that matter is an emergent property of consciousness, thus no dualism.

 

[joedirt]

Oh, but I do understand your views more or less, because I've had them myself - believe it or not. I was really into this stuff, taking the stance of gibran2 and similar views. I did so, I think, because it gave me some comfort in my convictions of the reality of my very strong experiences, and almost enforced my further use.

Interesting. I find that I actually use them less and less over time. The more sacred they have become to me the less I tend to use them. I actually haven't done DMT or shrooms in shit almost 2 months now...before that was probably 2 months.

I didn't adopt this theory to justify my use. I didn't need to justify my use. I actually quit using psychedelics for well over a decade before coming back to them as a means of dealing with some internel anger issues I was having.

Give a little more thought to your old ideas. Read into what Gibran is saying. Meditate on it. Can you honestly find any fault with the 'theory' that consciousness is everything? I'm a scientist and I personally can't. It doesn't mean we are right. But from my perspective it is at least as valid of a theory as any of the others floating around today. Besides that. Any argument about consciousness will require consciousness...forming a circular argument.

There is something very magical about our awareness and how it can grow and shrink. I am spiritual because I'm a scientist. After being raised southern baptist I was so put off by the concept of God that I wouldn't even talk to people about it. After 8 years of college and reconnecting with meditation and finding the profundity of the entirety of the universe I started to seriously engage some Hindu philosophy, not the dogma. It's fascinating...and there are bona-fide theories out there that are starting to back up some of these claims. I suppose only time will tell who's right..unless of course time isn't really either...which ironically several theories of physics are starting to embrace.

BTW I love these discussion to. I just love them more when they turn into brain storm sessions or critical thinking sessions that try to push he limites of our understanding. Or when they try to push fourth new ideas that we can collectively hammer on and toss against the wall to see if they stand up to reason and logic.

Peace

 

[Global]

Give a little more thought to your old ideas. Read into what Gibran is saying. Meditate on it. Can you honestly find any fault with the 'theory' that consciousness is everything? I'm a scientist and I personally can't. It doesn't mean we are right. But from my perspective it is at least as valid of a theory as any of the others floating around today.

The thing is that true science and true spirituality aren't at much odds, but when certain issues are removed from the free inquiry element to the scientific method, and more bizarre theories are developed in attempts such as trying to prove that God doesn't exist more than he does creates great amounts of tension. It's only in the last half a century really that material reductionism started taking hold. Many of the scientific/mathematical geniuses at the turn of the century were still in some way religious or spiritual. Both Planck and Einstein were far from strict materialists. Max Planck said, "modern physics impresses us particularly with the truth of the old doctrine which teaches that there are realities existing apart from our sense-perceptions, and that there are problems and conflicts where these realities are of greater value to us than the richest treasures of the world of experience," and as noted in my signature, Einstein said, "science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." They need each other for the full picture, but purists and extremists take on very narrow-minded viewpoints.

 

[imPsimon]

Many of the scientific/mathematical geniuses at the turn of the century were still in some way religious or spiritual. Both Planck and Einstein were far from strict materialists.

That maybe true but Einstein surely doesn't seem to be one of them.

Here's a quote from the same letter as your signature:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this"

Or this from a response letter where a person have read a similar misconception:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

 

[Newfound_wonder]

Apparently human growth hormone (HGH) transcription is regulated by the cAMP pathway through CREB and p300, which may explain Strassman's findings that growth hormone blood levels rose in response to DMT (since 5-ht receptors affect cAMP levels). This page shows that cAMP levels can somehow affect voltage-gated calcium channels, and influx of calcium can lead to BDNF secretion as suggested by this paper. There is a professor in my lab who studies calcium-regulated hormone release and another professor who studies serotonin receptors in general; maybe in the next few years I can build up the courage to ask them about a relation between 5-ht receptor activation and BDNF or HGH release and the possible role of 5-ht signaling in neurogenesis.