Screw "Entities"

[tony]

I'm curious why people struggle so hard to believe these 'entities' are real and not part of ones' mind. I think people want so badly to believe 'they' are real - and therefore convince themselves they are.

The mind is a powerful thing. We often make real what we want to be real.

we are real though aren't we.. cogito ergo sum. kinda hard to argue with

 

[a1pha]

I'm curious why people struggle so hard to believe these 'entities' are real and not part of ones' mind. I think people want so badly to believe 'they' are real - and therefore convince themselves they are.

The mind is a powerful thing. We often make real what we want to be real.

we are real though aren't we.. cogito ergo sum. kinda hard to argue with

I don't feel existence is necessarily concluded from thinking.


EDIT: Typo - should be is not isn't.

 

[gibran2]

I'm curious why people struggle so hard to believe these 'entities' are real and not part of ones' mind. I think people want so badly to believe 'they' are real - and therefore convince themselves they are.

The mind is a powerful thing. We often make real what we want to be real.

This is your conclusion based (I assume) on your experiences. Some of us have had experiences that have led to other conclusions. It has nothing to do with desire to believe.

And one could easily replace the word “entities” in your statement with “other people” to get this:

“I'm curious why people struggle so hard to believe that other people are real and not part of ones' mind. I think people want so badly to believe others are real - and therefore convince themselves they are.

The mind is a powerful thing. We often make real what we want to be real.”

 

[tony]

I'm curious why people struggle so hard to believe these 'entities' are real and not part of ones' mind. I think people want so badly to believe 'they' are real - and therefore convince themselves they are.

The mind is a powerful thing. We often make real what we want to be real.

we are real though aren't we.. cogito ergo sum. kinda hard to argue with

Kierkegaard would love to argue since existence isn't necessarily concluded from thinking.

it is concluded necessarily from thinking as far as i can see.. for there to be thought there must be something thinking. isn't that a necessity? i could see how it could be argued that assuming "i think therefore my human body exists" would be a non sequitur but for something to think something must exist.. surely?

 

[a1pha]

This is your conclusion based (I assume) on your experiences. Some of us have had experiences that have led to other conclusions. It has nothing to do with desire to believe.

The only conclusions I made in the above post are:

(1a) "I think people want so badly to believe 'they' are real - and therefore convince themselves they are."
(1b) "The mind is a powerful thing. We often make real what we want to be real."

Both are similar wordings of the same conclusion:

(1) People believe entities to be real and therefore they are.

The negative of this is:

(2) People do not believe entities to be real and therefore they are not.

I am basing this conclusion on data more so than experience. I can point toward thread after thread where a new member posts in hopes of meeting some entity and shortly thereafter does in fact meet some entity (always without proof of any kind).

I would love, more than you know, to see some a priori proof of entity contact; however, I have yet to see anything close.

And one could easily replace the word “entities” in your statement with “other people” to get this:

“I'm curious why people struggle so hard to believe that other people are real and not part of ones' mind. I think people want so badly to believe others are real - and therefore convince themselves they are.

The mind is a powerful thing. We often make real what we want to be real.”

I don't believe one can do this so easily. To do so would assume the DMT "entities" are equivalent to "other people" - which I believe to be false. I can verify the person to my left is 'real' by asking the person to my right - and vice versa. I think it's foolish to assume the 'entities' are unique agents unless you have some proof of their existence.

 

[gibran2]

And one could easily replace the word “entities” in your statement with “other people” to get this:

“I'm curious why people struggle so hard to believe that other people are real and not part of ones' mind. I think people want so badly to believe others are real - and therefore convince themselves they are.

The mind is a powerful thing. We often make real what we want to be real.”

I don't believe one can do this so easily. To do so would assume the DMT "entities" are equivalent to "other people" - which I believe to be false. I can verify the person to my left is 'real' by asking the person to my right - and vice versa. I think it's foolish to assume the 'entities' are unique agents unless you have some proof of their existence.

So are you suggesting if, during my next DMT experience, I ask an entity on my left if an entity on my right is real, and vice versa, and if each entity responds in the affirmative, that I will have verified that the entities are real?

What proof do you have that anything in your everyday life is real? You assume that things in your everyday life, such as other people, are real. Is this foolish?

 

[universecannon]

I probably don't see people experienced with dmt struggling to believe in these entities as often as i see them struggling to try and NOT believe they are real because it can be so convincing and intense but is too hard a notion to swallow. Sure there are always people new to the experience who naively believe all the hype, but that has nothing to do with the overall 'reality' of things encountered hyperspace

I don't know what to believe, and i think many try to keep an open mind..but of course there are shades of grey. I've noticed though that many people who dissolve deep into this 'thing' again and again seem to encounter way more convincingly real experiences of things that appear to be external autonomous beings or places, which is reflected by their sometimes increased reluctance to just brush them off as 'parts of their own mind' - as a lot of other people who haven't gone as deep try to conclude and convince people it is. It may be both. We don't know yet for sure

Another thing i've noticed a lot personally and have heard others talk about is that as the time between your last deep dmt experience increases your explanations or idea of whats going on there tends to get more and more hum drum or mundane..which could be some sign that its either deluding us heavily and we are finally coming closer to some sort of sane explanation..or that the opposite is the case-That the rational mind is just reducing the unspeakable down to something much simpler, compartmentalizing it into some easier-to-live-with explanation

 

[a1pha]

So are you suggesting if, during my next DMT experience, I ask an entity on my left if an entity on my right is real, and vice versa, and if each entity responds in the affirmative, that I will have verified that the entities are real?

What proof do you have that anything in your everyday life is real? You assume that things in your everyday life, such as other people, are real. Is this foolish?

I had a feeling you'd go down that road - and you know as well as I there is no simple answer (or even possibility) of proving (in the strict sense) other people. Or the bills that come in the mail. Or the trash that needs taken out. I must, however, still interact with my clients, pay the bills, and take out the trash.

If these entities are as 'real' or more so than our waking world then I ask next time you meet one not to verify the entity on the right or left be instead give some unanswered mathematical proof or medical advancement.

PS Where in the above posts did I assume anything in my everyday life was real?

 

[gibran2]

If these entities are as 'real' or more so than our waking world then I ask next time you meet one not to verify the entity on the right or left be instead give some unanswered mathematical proof or medical advancement.

PS Where in the above posts did I assume anything in my everyday life was real?

Why would you require a higher standard of proof for entities than you do for human beings? Imagine this exchange between you and a stranger you meet on the street:

you: Hello stranger!
stranger: Hello.

you: I’m not sure if you’re real or not, so I have a little test for you.
stranger: Are you OK?

you: I’m fine, but I need proof you exist. So tell me, what are the prime factors of 52,320,833?
stranger: Huh?

you: Can you tell me how to cure cancer or AIDS?
stranger: Sir, you need help!

you: Well, you didn’t answer my questions, so you obviously aren’t real!
stranger: Lunatic! (walks away)

 

[a1pha]

Okay, lets lower the bar.

Have these entities given ANY knowledge to ANYONE not already part of their being? And, if so, why haven't these conclusions been tested, verified and published - the same standard I'd require of John Doe, MD?

 

[gibran2]

Okay, lets lower the bar.

Have these entities given ANY knowledge to ANYONE not already part of their being? And, if so, why haven't these conclusions been tested, verified and published - the same standard I'd require of John Doe, MD?

If you are alone in a forest, and a deer crosses your path, how would you know – how could you prove - if what you saw was real or not?

 

[a1pha]

Okay, now we're re-hashing the deer in the forest?

So far I'm no more convinced in entities than I was before.

 

[gibran2]

Okay, now we're re-hashing the deer in the forest?

So far I'm no more convinced in entities than I was before.

Re-hashing? I wasn’t aware that this was discussed already.

Regardless, the point is this: There is no test, no scientific process, no experiment, no technique that can prove anything is “real”.

The sort of “proof” you’re asking for would simply show that entities and their “reality” obey the same laws as we do in ours. But since we can’t prove if our everyday reality is in fact “real”, what’s the point of questioning the reality of entities?

To put it another way – if reality as we know it is in fact a dream or an illusion, then what you’re suggesting is that entities are an illusion within an illusion. So what’s the point of that?

 

[a1pha]

The sort of “proof” you’re asking for would simply show that entities and their “reality” obey the same laws as we do in ours. But since we can’t prove if our everyday reality is in fact “real”, what’s the point of questioning the reality of entities?

To put it another way – if reality as we know it is in fact a dream or an illusion, then what you’re suggesting is that entities are an illusion within an illusion. So what’s the point of that?

Illusion within an illusion is a perfect way of putting it. Or, as someone once told me - a picture within a picture within a picture....


Let me be clear - I too have experienced these entities. In fact, I believe them to be real. Cats outta the bag now....


HOWEVER, the point I'm trying to make is that we can't spend all our time speculating whether or not they are real - whatever that means. So far, they don't provide us any benefit other than personal messages masked in some psychedelic dream. This is in stark contrast to my human mentor who provides endless benefit to not only me but those around me.

 

[jamie]

How can you be so sure that anything and everything that manifests as subconscious material does not have origion in some other realm or level of reality? The subject of what is real and what is not real in the context of a dicotemy as it is most often presented is boring at best, and way too simplified to have any real substance I think. Things are never so simple.

 

[a1pha]

How can you be so sure that anything and everything that manifests as subconscious material does not have origion in some other realm or level of reality? The subject of what is real and what is not real in the context of a dicotemy as it is most often presented is boring at best, and way too simplified to have any real substance I think. Things are never so simple.

Just curious who this is directed at....

 

[jamie]

Imagine if this "reality" is like a flat sheet of paper..now imagine there is a number of these realities or "dimensions" stacked side by side, or one atop of the other like a stack of paper.

Now imagine a being in one of these flat dimensions moving around, or even simply existing..what kind of imprint is that going to produce on the dimension directly below, above or beside it? Furthermore, what then does that say about the nature of the imprint(s)? Is it/they simply a being unto itself?..or an extension of something else inconcievable from their point of view?

The being in the flat dimension created by the imprint of another being in a nearby dimension would have to assume that he/she is defined only by what is directly relevant and readily experienced. Everything that makes them who they are, comes from the source that they concider themselves to be..all conscious/subconscious phenomena is concidered to be nothing more than products of their own mind or internal world with no outside source, and this would include voices in the head, presences etc..of course from the perspective of a higher dimensional being who can view the entire stack of dimensions as a whole the paradigm of the being created by imprint would seem naive..

 

[jamie]

How can you be so sure that anything and everything that manifests as subconscious material does not have origion in some other realm or level of reality? The subject of what is real and what is not real in the context of a dicotemy as it is most often presented is boring at best, and way too simplified to have any real substance I think. Things are never so simple.

Just curious who this is directed at....

Everyone and noone in particular

 

[dreamer042]

I can say from my own experiences that hyperspace expresses itself to me as a fully developed space that is intricate and advanced way beyond anything I have ever imagined. The feeling of the reality of the space when I am in it is unquestionable. The entities I encounter act as if they are autonomous beings. The level of clarity, understanding, and familiarity I experience is too substantial for me have a single doubt about the genuineness of my encounter.

I don't know whether this space and these feelings are hard wired into my biological organism and just the result of my nervous system dealing with a large dose of exogenous neurotransmitters or if there is something much moar mystical happening involving non-biological processes.

In either case, why the experience manifests itself the way it does is the fascinating unanswered (unanswerable?) question that drives me to keep hurling myself into this mystery time and again.

 

[AluminumFoilRobots]

I often feel that people given to the rationalist/reductionist camp often totally discount the feeling of reality. This seems to be a backward logic that reoccurs in several facets of our existence.

The first example of this that I can think of is how eye-witness accounts are considered the lowest form of evidence in a western court, hard evidence is given precedence. I can see how this could be logical, in that setting, but what about when dealing with such insubstantial things as what are perceived to be autonomous entities that can only be visited under the influence of a certain indolic molecule? The method of asking the entities specific questions that you don't know the answer to seems very astute, at first. But when looking at it really logically, it is clear that this is naive and even a bit absurd...

first, assuming they are "higher beings" (a position that I do not necessarily hold, why would they answer our questions? Furthermore, how can it be assumed that they would know such things as square roots or the cures for recently-evolved viruses? I have always assumed that these "beings" or "intelligences" that have encountered are denizens of the realm/dimension that DMT allows access to, and therefore aren't necessarily involved with happenings in our world, like advanced mathematics or immunodeficiency-causing viruses. I have also entertained the idea that the particular entities that we have the consensus name of "tykes" or "machine-elves" could be post-life humans or other dead beings.

And, of course, they could very well be a particular phosphene-activity that the human pattern-laying hardware misinterprets as singular beings.
but if this is so, why on my second excursion into hyperspace did I encounter humanoid beings with an even mixing of mantis and bird-of-prey features who downloaded at a high rate of speed the simple phrase "We love you" on ad infinitum? Why would love be being mixed with my random phosphene activity being mis-translated as a single entity?

Also, since beginning to drink ayahuasca and analogues, I have encountered equally real-seeming entities that were totally disjointed with no discernible "bodies". When really looking at the "background" of my closed-eye-visuals (when I go hard on the tryptamine source), I have realized that it is made up of several "bands" of color/geometric form that are connected to other portions of the scene only in form in motion, not actually touching. These "intelligent walls" have made no attempts at contacting me, nor I them. I only watch, awe-struck, as these disparate bands of color and form actually synchronize with each other! So there are all these seemingly independent areas of particular form that are moving at the same speed, with similar geometric forms, and yet they are separate. These "entities" are even more difficult for me to categorize, either in the "real" or "not real" boxes....



(sorry for all the quotations, but when getting into the meat of WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?! I feel the need to show that I only have a slippery understanding of what happens to me in these states. In other words, it would be farcical to make the statements I am making without copious quotation marks!)