Prove me wrong - Terrence McKenna.

[upwaysidedown]

I know that we all have very different experiences, and any attempt to look at these objectively seems to fail. But, we cannot deny that some of us have messages given to us that we "hear", receive through apparent telepathic communication or otherwise.

Rationally there is little evidence that these come from "outside" as you would have to prove that the thought could not have originated from your own mind. Although the feeling is often extremely compelling.

I have, however experienced more than one incident that imply (to me) that the mind is not a closed system, and that input can occur my means other than conventional physical senses. Firstly I have received a message that turned out to be in Indonesian, a language of which I have pretty much no knowledge. This however could be argued to be something I "subconsciously" absorbed.

The second event was more compelling, and involved my wife picking up on a message I sent to her whilst she was in a DMT breakthrough. She had eyes closed, and I had entered a meditative state in which I started to observe a representation of her breakthrough - I thought I was just imagining it and interacted with her in my imagination, she was being confused as to who she was and I grabbed her and said "Remember who you are" and tried to get her attention.

When she emerged, she exclaimed that a strange outside voice called exactly that at her, and that other voices were annoyed with this outside voice (saying that it had messed up the lesson they were trying to teach).

Sorting what is you, what is others, and what is non-physical entities is probably largely pointless, because if we are so connected - is there really any difference?

How is another mind any less you than your mind is anyway, except that you have marginally more control over your own mind, or at least you imagine that you do. Or worse, you think that that specific mind IS you.

 

[steppa]

Mind isn't confined to the brain, even if mostly, in a sober state of mind. With psychedelics... Mind is somewhat released from those limitations.

That's just a claim. One I don't believe, tbh.

 

[Valmar]

That's just a claim. One I don't believe, tbh.

So, how would you explain the phenomena of telepathy, clairvoyance, and other psychic abilities, OBEs, NDEs, and other spiritual experiences, and the like? I'm curious.

 

[steppa]

So, how would you explain the phenomena of telepathy, clairvoyance

I wouldn't because my opinion on this is that there is none. Or do we have _any_ scientific evidence, where stuff like that could be reliably reproduced, that I'm not aware of?

and other psychic abilities,

Which?

OBEs, NDEs, and other spiritual experiences, and the like? I'm curious.

Simply put....neurotransmitter and brain-connection stuff like this:

A illustrated comparison of the connections between a normal brain, on the left, and of a brain under the effects of psilocybin, on the right. (Petri et al./Proceedings of the Royal Society Interface)

To put this into context of this thread...

My personal believe is, that the voice McKenna talked about was a kind of fancy "synesthesia". And that's all.

 

[dragonrider]

So, how would you explain the phenomena of telepathy, clairvoyance

I wouldn't because there is none. Or do we have _any_ scientific evidence, where stuff like that could be reliably reproduced, that I'm not aware of?

and other psychic abilities,

Which?

OBEs, NDEs, and other spiritual experiences, and the like? I'm curious.

Simply put....neurotransmitter and brain-connection stuff like this:

A illustrated comparison of the connections between a normal brain, on the left, and of a brain under the effects of psilocybin, on the right. (Petri et al./Proceedings of the Royal Society Interface)

To put this into context of this thread...

My personal believe is, that the voice McKenna talked about was a kind of fancy "synesthesia". And that's all.

And you're forgetting one thing: we humans have a very highly evolved and very advanced social intuition. Many cases of telepathy are either a form of subcounsious body language processing, or a form of strategic coördination. Like when you're supposed to meet a friend in say london, but you haven't agreed on where yet. Nelson at Trafalgar square would be a more logical place than say, 52b cromwell road. Depends ofcourse on who you're meeting and what you know about eachother. But that's a form of strategically coördinating, and humans are very good at it. Works not just for places but also for memes, ideas, songs, poems, etc.

 

[dragonrider]

I meant, "could be" ofcourse. Instead of "are".

 

[steppa]

And you're forgetting one thing: we humans have a very highly evolved and very advanced social intuition.

Why do you think I'm forgetting that? The opposite is the case.

Many cases of telepathy are either a form of subcounsious body language processing, or a form of strategic coordination.

That's exactly my thinking. So no telepathy but subcounsious body language processing, or a form of strategic coordination. It might look like telepathy but is an entirely different thing.

 

[Valmar]

no telepathy but subcounsious body language processing, or a form of strategic coordination. It might look like telepathy but is an entirely different thing.

They aren't the same. They may be confused, however. I've read enough trip reports and even heard from some friends about their psilocybin experience, which they did together and said they actually communicated with each other via thought only, to believe that it is real. I haven't personally telepathically communicated with another human being, though.

Where is the proof that telepathy is nothing more than subconscious body language processing? Based on what research? Or is it an assumption?

(I hope we're not hijacking this thread... if so, can it be split off, please?)

 

[upwaysidedown]

I wouldn't because my opinion on this is that there is none. Or do we have _any_ scientific evidence, where stuff like that could be reliably reproduced, that I'm not aware of?

You are unlikely to find any, although many have produced studies which claim varying levels of success. Mostly they are refuted, generally because those carrying them out have poor scientific method, and of course because their claim is very counter to scientific philosophies of our time.

Such events happen though, and I am educated in science through more than one degree.

As an analogy to us understanding the inner self, we are like babies newly born, and one suggests that arms and legs can be controlled by your mind. The rest of the babies think this is ridiculous, they see that they just move around randomly and occasionally react to the environment. Sometimes the babies have strange moments where their arms grab something they wanted, but the rest put it down to a random event.

So, you have to ask. Does no scientific evidence of something mean it does not exist? No, it means it is of no use to science and may or may not exist.

These things we speak of are explorations of the inner self. Science really has not delved anywhere near that - we are pretty much in the dark ages. Closest thing we have scientifically is psychology which in my view is only just a science and is like medicine when we used to use leeches.

We understand very little of how the brain relates to our complex experiences. We don't know where memory is stored (only areas that are activated in its retrieval), we know that we can prod bits and get certain results based on where we prod. This proves that the brain can affect the mind and our experience.

We can show that our experiences are also reflected in activation of areas of the brain. This proves that the brain reflects some parts of the nature of our mind.

The assumption that the brain IS our mind is an assumption, and unscientific as you cannot prove it. You can only prove that it affects our mind, and ability to control our body, express language etc.

I am not saying it isn't, but you have to be careful about negating concepts just because they are not scientifically proven.

I don't think anyone here is making any scientific claims. But some make the mistake of declaring that science knows everything about the brain. It was assumed until very recently that the immune system had no connection to the brain.

I also don't expect you to come to believe things, such as the mind not being a closed system, without any evidence. And my own stories, anecdotes and those of others are just words - you should definitely not believe in such things unless you have experiences which point in that direction.

I even feel sometimes rationally wrong in believing in such things myself, but it causes no harm to my model of the world and contradicts no known science. I cannot think of a way of scientifically proving it in a reliable fashion as it would require two people to enter mental states that are difficult to achieve, and then, it seems, no more reliably provide the same environment to work with than being able to reliably have the same DMT breakthrough.

Closest I have seen is the work of Rupert Sheldrake, who does take some of his concepts way too far to be accepted back into the scientific community. But his models based on morphic resonance do explain a large number of anomalies such as rats getting better at solving mazes generally as a species, even when separated genetically (not being ancestors) and by distance, and without contact. He has even run some studies on limited funding, which do appear to show positive results - but his opponents argue against some elements of his method and data interpretation (but he is definitely not an amateur).

 

[steppa]

Thank you for your well written answer upwaysidedown.

With respect...this

Such events happen though, and I am educated in science through more than one degree.

sounds like: "I have a degree, so please believe me."

So, you have to ask. Does no scientific evidence of something mean it does not exist

That's a rethoric trick. I think it's called "straw man fallacy". Not sure on the name and english isn't my native language so I could have mixed stuff up here.

What I want to say is, that with this technique it would be acceptable to say:

"Just because we have no evidence for Santa Clause, it doesn't mean that he doesn't exist."

This is inverting the burden of proof. That may only be my opion, but when someone claims that there is telepathy or Santa Clause if you will, it's ON HIM to prove it.

Another expample for your technique would be the dragon in my garage. But I guess you already know that one.

As long as we can't proof or disproof a thing...personally I'll go with occam's razor. Because the probability for Santa Clause existing is very low.

I am not saying it isn't, but you have to be careful about negating concepts just because they are not scientifically proven.

Hehe

I am not saying it isn't, but you have to be careful about _believing_ in concepts that are not scientifically proven.

I even feel sometimes rationally wrong in believing in such things myself,

That's a good thing.

I cannot think of a way of scientifically proving it in a reliable fashion as it would require two people to enter mental states that are difficult to achieve,

This implies that it (the mental state enabling us to do telepathy) can be achieved. How so?

But his models based on morphic resonance do explain a large number of anomalies

I read about that too and find it very interesting.

 

[Valmar]

We all have our biases...

 

[steppa]

We all have our biases...

We also have rationality.

 

[upwaysidedown]

Such events happen though, and I am educated in science through more than one degree.

sounds like: "I have a degree, so please believe me."

Not at all, in fact I ended by pointing out that you should only believe what you experience. I stated it to point out that I do understand scientific method.

So, you have to ask. Does no scientific evidence of something mean it does not exist

That's a rethoric trick. I think it's called "straw man fallacy". Not sure on the name and english isn't my native language so I could have mixed stuff up here.

What I want to say is, that with this technique it would be acceptable to say:

"Just because we have no evidence for Santa Clause, it doesn't mean that he doesn't exist."

This is inverting the burden of proof. That may only be my opion, but when someone claims that there is telepathy or Santa Clause if you will, it's ON HIM to prove it.

Again no, I'm not arguing that it means it does exist. I am only explaining that this does not rule it out - which it doesn't. There is no fallacy in my statement, nor an attempt to assert something.

Your example is poor though, as either (a) Someone called Santa Clause does exits (which is likely), or (b) The assertion is that there is a Santa Clause who delivers presents to all children on Christmas day.

Well (b) can be proved scientifically true or false by an experiment to see if presents appear for some children from an unknown source, or indeed from a bearded guy on a sled.

Its all about definitions.

unpredictable and uncontrollable events really are a tough area for science though. Until the 60s ball lightning was considered a myth. We still know very little.

As long as we can't proof or disproof a thing...personally I'll go with occam's razor. Because the probability for Santa Clause existing is very low.

There is no other sane way to approach science, but there is a difference between the narrow range of our scientific understanding and the whole of reality. I cannot discount everything not in a scientific textbook.

Thing is you cannot prove that you are conscious. I experience that I am, but similarly I cannot prove it to you. Science therefore says that you are not conscious, you are just a set of reactions to stimulus with no other significance than that.

This implies that it (the mental state enabling us to do telepathy) can be achieved. How so?

I have done it by accident as I mentioned above in a previous post. Also I have had lifelong experiences of such, as a child I could demonstrate it with significant accuracy and did so as a fun playground game - now it happens only very occasionally. You know when it happens but you can't make it happen. I cannot convince you of this experience, particularly because convincing requires evidence, and evidence would require being able to reproduce something that I am unable to do at will. Fundamentally such instances are not able to be examined scientifically, its not science. That's the point, its life experience - I'm not looking to convince the world, write a paper, or exploit it to engineer some clever machine that uses it.

So do not mistake me for trying to convince you of something you have not experienced, but equally my point being - because it does not form part of current science does not mean I should discount it, particularly when it forms part of my life experience.

 

[EssCee]

On a side note I plan on trying this experiment with 12 or so types of mushrooms. So far everything is Golden Teacher. It just seemed so dern appropriate.
I am not mixing types.. even if I go alcohol it will be by species.

 

[EssCee]

I know that we all have very different experiences, and any attempt to look at these objectively seems to fail. But, we cannot deny that some of us have messages given to us that we "hear", receive through apparent telepathic communication or otherwise.

Rationally there is little evidence that these come from "outside" as you would have to prove that the thought could not have originated from your own mind. Although the feeling is often extremely compelling.

I have, however experienced more than one incident that imply (to me) that the mind is not a closed system, and that input can occur my means other than conventional physical senses. Firstly I have received a message that turned out to be in Indonesian, a language of which I have pretty much no knowledge. This however could be argued to be something I "subconsciously" absorbed.

The second event was more compelling, and involved my wife picking up on a message I sent to her whilst she was in a DMT breakthrough. She had eyes closed, and I had entered a meditative state in which I started to observe a representation of her breakthrough - I thought I was just imagining it and interacted with her in my imagination, she was being confused as to who she was and I grabbed her and said "Remember who you are" and tried to get her attention.

When she emerged, she exclaimed that a strange outside voice called exactly that at her, and that other voices were annoyed with this outside voice (saying that it had messed up the lesson they were trying to teach).

Sorting what is you, what is others, and what is non-physical entities is probably largely pointless, because if we are so connected - is there really any difference?

How is another mind any less you than your mind is anyway, except that you have marginally more control over your own mind, or at least you imagine that you do. Or worse, you think that that specific mind IS you.

Thank you for that. These are the kinds of things I am trying to delve into. I feel I am rational (though I know I am as easily fooled as everyone).

 

[EssCee]

So, how would you explain the phenomena of telepathy, clairvoyance

I wouldn't because my opinion on this is that there is none. Or do we have _any_ scientific evidence, where stuff like that could be reliably reproduced, that I'm not aware of?

and other psychic abilities,

Which?

OBEs, NDEs, and other spiritual experiences, and the like? I'm curious.

Simply put....neurotransmitter and brain-connection stuff like this:

A illustrated comparison of the connections between a normal brain, on the left, and of a brain under the effects of psilocybin, on the right. (Petri et al./Proceedings of the Royal Society Interface)

To put this into context of this thread...

My personal believe is, that the voice McKenna talked about was a kind of fancy "synesthesia". And that's all.

Steppa, this is the attitude I want and it is an extremely healthy one. I am trying to see what is coincidence. Also I have a set of calculations I have 0 idea how to do. I was told it was easy if you know how to do it and could be done in one's own mind in under a second. Those are what I am trying to have answered. If I can come back with knowledge I do not understand that is a universal law. Then I will dig further, but if they get upset when I ask things I really do not know and only know things I know. That will lead me to believe its all 100% me.

 

[Pandora]

EssCee,

Great trip report(s). I really enjoyed reading that. LOL at needing better bug spray.

If I might share just a couple personal observations: I've done mushrooms a number of times in my life and the only time things became audio were on very high doses or very high doses with DMT smoalked at the peak. Once I lay down and could hear the suffering of our planet. It sounded like a combo of groaning, chainsaws and I don't know what - very unique. The other time things became audio for me with shrooms was a screaming demon attack (that was with DMT), which left me stunned as "I don't believe in demons." :lol:

I think the idea of intentionally trying to induce any specific type of trip is not a great one. Personally, one of the lessons psychedelics has taught is to let go of the idea of controllling everything, sometimes even anything. I am a leaf on the wind. See how I fly!

Also, for me, especially at my age, part of the wonder of psychedelics is the novelty and unpredictability. The joy of exploring all levels of my mind while being able to view and interact a bit with The Other World. I find real life to be disappointingly predictable these days. Psychedelics, for those who can take them (I'm detoxing due to needing to take care of my husband) are an amazing blessing, I feel.

Finally, Terence McKenna was Terence McKenna. You are EssCee. Two different men, born in different times, brought up in different cultures, exposed to different ideas, pursuing different life paths. I'm not surprised your backyard journies failed to give the same results as McKenna's exploits in True Halluciinations.

I really enjoyed reading your OP. Thanks again for sharing.

 

[Legarto Rey]

Psilohuasca (shrooms + oral and or smoked MAOI) can be a powerful teacher. Caution is prudent.

Consciousness as an "emergent" versus "non-local" phenomenon is hardly determined "scientifically". Indeed this is an area that science has little capacity to illuminate. The "hard question": How can something as immaterial as consciousness/awareness, be explained by something as unconscious as matter? We're no closer to a material description of consciousness. The typical materialist/reductionist argument proffers increasing hierarchies of material complexity, past a particular point which, consciousness is(arbitrarily) seen to have emerged. These models are not without merit, they are, however, distinctly devoid of the deep and profound mystery EXPERIENCED by Consciousness itself.

This is a super thread for our beloved Nexian forum. My intent is, as always, to stimulate psychedelic inquiry into our shared EXPERIENCE of "reality". My decades long recurrent return to the entheogenic well, in an attempt to slake a humble thirst for enlightenment/gnosis, continues in awe filled earnest. With age and experience the capacity to meld with the "remembering logos", aided by the sacred catalysts, grows more facile/ergonomic. I wish this to be the case for all the brethren.

My observation has been, that once one learns the particular/personal means for visiting an ego-loss realm(generously facilitated by the Nexus), return there becomes more practical and SAFE. Additionally, the need for TOTAL ego-annihilation becomes less urgent.

P.S., Maybe matter is NOT unconscious!

Peace