Poll: Are hyperspace and its entities real or not?

[AcidShard]

I think it's real. But I also think that our thoughts, issues, insecurities, fears can all take form there from our own minds.
I think that the archetypes that show up are just putting on a form that they know we will recognize.
Like the term "hyperspace" means - anything that's theoretically possible.
I have had my arms moved like a puppet by an entity, there are too many stories like this to be coincidence.

Plus I want to believe.

 

[Complexity]

People are so alienated from their own soul that when they finally meet their soul they think it is from another star system.

I know that usually TMK was referring to hyperspace as a real place, but I think this quote support the other perspective.

I must admit that personally I haven't witnessed hyperspace through DMT, so far I've only reached some visionary state, with my location still perceivable (even if really really little in a few occasion).
But what I think is: if the actually effects DMT produces in me can be labeled as visions + loss of current location awareness, is it really so wrong to assume that higher doses would enhance such effects?

We must admit then there's a pretty different mechanism surrounding the phenomenon of sight and that of DMT-induced vision. The first one relies on the collision of the eye with photons, registering their frequency. It's pretty raw and sort of simple.
The latter relies on the molecular bonding with various brain receptors, and it involves therefore a higher degree of complexity.

Also, I think it's pretty more outstanding to believe we have an outstanding universe inside our heads, rather than going to another place.
I'm not a strong supporter of determinism/materialism, though I think often such views contains very good points, and I think the mind could actually be something very peculiar.

 

[Praxis.]

My intuition tells me that hyperspace is a composite of the incomprehensibly vast number of inputs that our mind receives in order to make up our consciousness, combined in novel ways to produce an experience completely alien to our everyday frame of reference.

That's not to say it's any less profound or mind-blowing, but my gut tells me that I'm not communing with any kind of "other" - just parts of myself I haven't explored yet.

 

[InAwe]

Extremely hard to say!

All I know is that when I'm there, it FEELS like I'm communicating with something that is separate from me.

I would love it if science would dedicate time and resources to investigating this phenomenon. Similar to Dr Strassman, but with more volunteers and over more time, etc. Likely, we wouldn't get concrete answers, but it sure would be interesting. In a way I suppose we (the nexus) are all part of this science project.

The more I learn about quantum mechanics, the more I believe that anything is possible. The limits of our understanding is staggering. And awe inspiring.

 

[Sandgrease]

Arent the second and thrid option essentially the same? If its in my head, its a hallucination.

I personally believe closed eyed hallucinations of all kinds are the product of the human nervous system.

 

[Asher7]

Joe Rogan put the cherry on top of this debate, in my mind. He said to the effect of, regardless of whether ot not it is "real", it happened. Whether it's just our neurons firing off, or if it actually is an encounter with another conscious being, it happened. The experience is real either way. So essentially take the experience for what it is.

Learn your lessons, change your ways, and if by some chance you become a better person than you were beforehand, what's it matter if its "you can put this in a beaker" real or "this all happened in my head" real.

Regardless it's here for a purpose. Don't put it in a cage and "judge it" or try to weigh it....just let it happen.

That's one outlook science will never have, and forever fail in the long run because of.

 

[Glossolalia]

The second option means that, although you don't believe that hyperspace is an external dimension, you still believe that it can show/teach you something meaningfull whereas the third option means you believe it's a full hallicunation, and therefore a fake and meaningless manifestation in the mind.

You disregard the possibility that a "full hallucination" is meaningless and therefore cannot teach you something.

Not to be pedantic, but isn't *everything* a hallucination in some sense of the word? We are creatures evolved to perceive the world in a certain way. There is nothing "red" about an apple; apples reflect a certainly frequency of light. The "red" part comes from specially evolved cones in our eyeballs, and moreover, our brains. That the color should have a certain quality and experience to it is not a product of physics, it's purely a product of our brains, which is to say, a hallucination.

 

[hug46]

Not to be pedantic, but isn't *everything* a hallucination in some sense of the word? We are creatures evolved to perceive the world in a certain way. There is nothing "red" about an apple; apples reflect a certainly frequency of light. The "red" part comes from specially evolved cones in our eyeballs, and moreover, our brains. That the color should have a certain quality and experience to it is not a product of physics, it's purely a product of our brains, which is to say, a hallucination.

Are you sure that you arn't getting confused between hallucination (where someone sees, hears, smells, tastes or feels things that don't exist outside their mind) and how we subjectively perceive "reality". If our perception is a product of the brain, surely the brain, in turn, is a product of physics...