-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Synchronicities
- Thread starter DoctorMantus
- Start date
Citta, to be a little contrary and to go on a side tangent here but, aren't you falling from the same mistake you were before denouncing? I mean, think about it, you could say there is no direct evidence appart from a subjective experience that hyperspace is objectively "real", and it may seem that there is indication that, considering it affects the brain, it is a hallucination, a perturbation of normal metabolism. But you know the well-known analogy of TV where there is a positive relationship between mechanism of TV and image, but this doesnt mean TV is the source of images, maybe we do tune to something else that isnt just our perturbed brain (at least in part). In the same way, while it may seem to be "unnecessarily multiplying hypothesis" instead of keeping to the most likely, even the most likely model that sticks to known facts is also a hypothesis that may be wrong however unlikely it seems, just like our planet going around the sun was a shock to find out. We have no ways yet to deeply make conclusions about consciousness beyond very simple crude relationships.
The same with synchronicities, they may be just coincidences, but at least sometimes they may not be just coincidences, and believing they are always coincidences is just a bad as believing they are never coincidences, its a belief. Its important to entertain hypothesis, even if far unlikely, and at least question: If so, then what? And then see if there's anything we can make use of it, always of course knowing how to also keep a foot on safe ground and knowing how to get out of thinking that hypothesis, while we dont know for sure.
The same with synchronicities, they may be just coincidences, but at least sometimes they may not be just coincidences, and believing they are always coincidences is just a bad as believing they are never coincidences, its a belief. Its important to entertain hypothesis, even if far unlikely, and at least question: If so, then what? And then see if there's anything we can make use of it, always of course knowing how to also keep a foot on safe ground and knowing how to get out of thinking that hypothesis, while we dont know for sure.
I concur with Endlessness in this. Synchronicity is a phenomenon that, in the current state of things, cannot be safely labeled as always a mere coincidence. Understanding "coincidence" as reading the phenomenon like something that did not bear any meaning, it only made possible for the subject to create one.
Certainly, lots of apparent synchronicities can be too far-fetched. We might distort our perception, or overlook many of our experiences, in order to establish a clear link between events that another point of view might not see clear at all. And that's what we call apophenia, like Citta said.
But there is also synchronicities that do happen without previous expectations or needs, and in those, apophenia cannot be easily accounted for.
Note that the fact our brain evolved the ability to recognize patterns doesn't imply that the only patterns we see are a subjective simplification, or a selection driven by our survival needs. Science knows a lot about finding patterns that are not generated by our brain. Also, the fact some patterns cannot be explained by local causality or space time relations could imply that those patterns are necessarily created by us, as long as all of our reality could be explained by local causality and space time relations. But it's not the case. Just think about quantum nonlocality. Entanglement, for instance, shows that there is instant transmission of information, not as a form of energy that runs through space-time at the speed of light. We cannot rule out that non-locality extends to the macrocosmos as well.
And (sorry, edit to make myself more clear): I think that the existence of non-local, "acausal" links between events is a good definition for synchronicity.
Certainly, lots of apparent synchronicities can be too far-fetched. We might distort our perception, or overlook many of our experiences, in order to establish a clear link between events that another point of view might not see clear at all. And that's what we call apophenia, like Citta said.
But there is also synchronicities that do happen without previous expectations or needs, and in those, apophenia cannot be easily accounted for.
Note that the fact our brain evolved the ability to recognize patterns doesn't imply that the only patterns we see are a subjective simplification, or a selection driven by our survival needs. Science knows a lot about finding patterns that are not generated by our brain. Also, the fact some patterns cannot be explained by local causality or space time relations could imply that those patterns are necessarily created by us, as long as all of our reality could be explained by local causality and space time relations. But it's not the case. Just think about quantum nonlocality. Entanglement, for instance, shows that there is instant transmission of information, not as a form of energy that runs through space-time at the speed of light. We cannot rule out that non-locality extends to the macrocosmos as well.
And (sorry, edit to make myself more clear): I think that the existence of non-local, "acausal" links between events is a good definition for synchronicity.
^ nice one endlessness... and interesting added points Vodsel.
Synchronicity certainly occurs more when you look for it.
This could support the theory that since our brains are obviously set up to recognize patterns... often even imposing them onto chaotic sense data... such observations of synchronicity are projections.
But, it also would be true of anything that was actually there. You notice more Mercedes on the road if you are looking for them. In this case you see more of them when you look... because you weren't noticing them when you weren't looking.
I have had tons of synchronicities in my life, and like endlessness... I often wondered what the use or value of them was. What I came to, is that noticing synchronicity was usually a sign that my awareness was tuned... and that I was flowing with the Tao (for lack of another term). It was a confirmation that I was functioning at a high level, and that I could trust my instincts. It was like a psychic look in the mirror, by which I could ascertain my current state. This might seem out there to some of you, but it tended to work out for me.
If I didn't notice them, it didn't mean that I was in a bad way, or had sunk to a lower level... it just meant that I wasn't paying attention as much as I could. When my attention was increased, the synchronicity increased proportionally.
I will not speculate as to why this happens or what it all means. I have my theories, but I don't feel like going there at the moment.
All that I will say now is that if you listen to music on random in the background while you have a conversation, you would expect that periodically, someone would say a word in conjunction with the same word being said in a song. You could even count on the fact that occasionally, themes or exact subject matter would coincide. But even if you could split your attention enough to hear every word of the songs playing or could imagine the subconscious hears them all anyway... there would be some reasonable limit to the number of such coincidences. In any one sitting, you might have an unusually high number of these events, but if on many repeated occasions you observed that when you payed attention, these coincidences occurred in frequencies that would be statistically astronomical, you would have to leave the door open that something more profound was going on.
With the kind of synchronicity that endlessness spoke of (the Atlantis thing), it is hard not to wonder if someone isn't trying to give you a message. When things like that happen to me, I usually go ahead and pay even more attention to that subject that came up. Perhaps instead of shrugging off the coincidence, I would go home and google the subject... or be on the look out for things I might have been overlooking in that area. Perhaps the Atlantis stuff would lead you to read about the ruins off the coast of Bimini, and then when a friend calls you asking you if you want to come scuba diving with him in Bimini, it might be interesting to follow this white rabbit even further by actually going.
Who knows...
Anyway, this is always a fun subject.
Synchronicity certainly occurs more when you look for it.
This could support the theory that since our brains are obviously set up to recognize patterns... often even imposing them onto chaotic sense data... such observations of synchronicity are projections.
But, it also would be true of anything that was actually there. You notice more Mercedes on the road if you are looking for them. In this case you see more of them when you look... because you weren't noticing them when you weren't looking.
I have had tons of synchronicities in my life, and like endlessness... I often wondered what the use or value of them was. What I came to, is that noticing synchronicity was usually a sign that my awareness was tuned... and that I was flowing with the Tao (for lack of another term). It was a confirmation that I was functioning at a high level, and that I could trust my instincts. It was like a psychic look in the mirror, by which I could ascertain my current state. This might seem out there to some of you, but it tended to work out for me.
If I didn't notice them, it didn't mean that I was in a bad way, or had sunk to a lower level... it just meant that I wasn't paying attention as much as I could. When my attention was increased, the synchronicity increased proportionally.
I will not speculate as to why this happens or what it all means. I have my theories, but I don't feel like going there at the moment.
All that I will say now is that if you listen to music on random in the background while you have a conversation, you would expect that periodically, someone would say a word in conjunction with the same word being said in a song. You could even count on the fact that occasionally, themes or exact subject matter would coincide. But even if you could split your attention enough to hear every word of the songs playing or could imagine the subconscious hears them all anyway... there would be some reasonable limit to the number of such coincidences. In any one sitting, you might have an unusually high number of these events, but if on many repeated occasions you observed that when you payed attention, these coincidences occurred in frequencies that would be statistically astronomical, you would have to leave the door open that something more profound was going on.
With the kind of synchronicity that endlessness spoke of (the Atlantis thing), it is hard not to wonder if someone isn't trying to give you a message. When things like that happen to me, I usually go ahead and pay even more attention to that subject that came up. Perhaps instead of shrugging off the coincidence, I would go home and google the subject... or be on the look out for things I might have been overlooking in that area. Perhaps the Atlantis stuff would lead you to read about the ruins off the coast of Bimini, and then when a friend calls you asking you if you want to come scuba diving with him in Bimini, it might be interesting to follow this white rabbit even further by actually going.
Who knows...
Anyway, this is always a fun subject.
DoctorMantus
Hyperspace Architect/Doctor
It seems as if a lot are using the words Synchronicity and Coincidence. I Guess with two words it depends which side of the fence you are. In my view i do not believe in coincidences, but thats just my belief.
I could relate to the some here who mentioned of having multiple synchronicity's all at once.
In my belief, Synchronicity, the connection just seems so real, it sure seems more real to support the idea, than believing the idea coincidence, the idea that oh it is just a coincidence that happened, it means nothing? i don't think we should be that quick to throw it away.
Could we not say that one who experiences these syncs is more in tune and connected with nature, because some may say that it is not nature and being intune, it's just not being aware and being caught up in the Material world missing the sync happening all around.
Terence Mckenna had spoken a little around the idea, that i know of at least, One thing i remember him saying was that nature loves courage, and if you have the courage to go for something, nature will respond.
Another thing i had remember reading from him, was he was talking about syncs or something like that, and he was explaining how one day he was looking at this tree, and it had this arm that hung over the edge of the cliff, and he says something about how he was thinking about that branch, and how unnecessary it was, and before he knew it the branch broke right off and fell to the ground.
That has to be some strong synchronicity, and maybe when it happens, maybe it is not what happened that we are suppose to be paying attention to, but pay more attention to the connection, and the powers that keep this planet going and that when it happens to remember and know that it can happen.
I could relate to the some here who mentioned of having multiple synchronicity's all at once.
In my belief, Synchronicity, the connection just seems so real, it sure seems more real to support the idea, than believing the idea coincidence, the idea that oh it is just a coincidence that happened, it means nothing? i don't think we should be that quick to throw it away.
Could we not say that one who experiences these syncs is more in tune and connected with nature, because some may say that it is not nature and being intune, it's just not being aware and being caught up in the Material world missing the sync happening all around.
Terence Mckenna had spoken a little around the idea, that i know of at least, One thing i remember him saying was that nature loves courage, and if you have the courage to go for something, nature will respond.
Another thing i had remember reading from him, was he was talking about syncs or something like that, and he was explaining how one day he was looking at this tree, and it had this arm that hung over the edge of the cliff, and he says something about how he was thinking about that branch, and how unnecessary it was, and before he knew it the branch broke right off and fell to the ground.
That has to be some strong synchronicity, and maybe when it happens, maybe it is not what happened that we are suppose to be paying attention to, but pay more attention to the connection, and the powers that keep this planet going and that when it happens to remember and know that it can happen.
I was just trying to decide if what happened earlier was a synchronicity or a coincidence - My family has offered to bring me home for the holiday, so I've been jet setting all day. On my last flight I was chatting with the person next to me and mentioned I was heading to Guatemala and the predicament that I find myself in and she told me she's just spent the last summer abroad in Guatemala. We had a nice chat about it and I tried to pry her for useful information, but I just couldn't get much out of her. She mentioned that she had traveled the country helping recent mothers with their infants and such. She told me it was a lovely place and that things move much slower there, but that was about the extent of our conversation.
After spending the day peeking in on this thread, I've been wondering what if any importance there may have been in meeting her. I feel we usually don't get to see the bigger picture, but that in my opinion there definitely seems to be a flow. While looking at the in flight magazine I came across a small add for a few of the places I was going to be traveling through and it just seemed to fuel the fire of my passion.
If things go well, I will spend three weeks in my hometown visiting family and friends, which was supposed to only be a week. It's funny how in my life I seem to get exactly what I ask for - which can be a constant reminder to be careful what you wish for. Before I started my trip, I told my friend that there are only three things I really need: food/water, shelter, and smokes. So far all of these needs have been met and then some - which is pretty amaxing considering I left with pretty much what I could carry and a fairly small amount of money.
After spending the day peeking in on this thread, I've been wondering what if any importance there may have been in meeting her. I feel we usually don't get to see the bigger picture, but that in my opinion there definitely seems to be a flow. While looking at the in flight magazine I came across a small add for a few of the places I was going to be traveling through and it just seemed to fuel the fire of my passion.
If things go well, I will spend three weeks in my hometown visiting family and friends, which was supposed to only be a week. It's funny how in my life I seem to get exactly what I ask for - which can be a constant reminder to be careful what you wish for. Before I started my trip, I told my friend that there are only three things I really need: food/water, shelter, and smokes. So far all of these needs have been met and then some - which is pretty amaxing considering I left with pretty much what I could carry and a fairly small amount of money.
I can see this perspective, but my response it what happens to the other people who are there for *your* synchronicity. To them, it's just a coincidence, because it doesn't have a second-level meaning. I've shared events that I would consider synchronicities, with other people (usually when we're all on mushrooms/acid, to be fully open about it), but most of them are completely personal, even when other people are witness to the coincidence aspect of them.DoctorMantus said:
endlessness said:
Hey endlessness, thanks for your post, I appreciate your view. Let me try to elaborate on mine, as I was articulating myself rather shortly in the last post. First, the TV analogy:
I have often used this analogy up through the years in an attempt to come to terms with the "impossible" experiences I've had with psychedelics, especially DMT. Some here might think that I am "uniniated", but I am certainly not. I'll right away admit that from my daily scientific and materialist point of view that I must maintain in my daily work, I get into trouble explaining the DMT experiences, no doubt (especially since I am not a neuroscientist). The TV analogy is an interesting point of view, but when I entertain this idea, I know I am standing on pretty philosophical grounds so I am careful about stepping into this terrain. I simply can't draw reliable conclusions from it, just muse around with ideas.
I know I said that I believe that during my journeys I am simply hallucinating, but that is not for me personally so reductionist as it might at first seem. These journeys have tremendous value for me, and there is more to it than simple hallucinations for sure. What do I mean by that? The experiences are personal. Something in my psyche opens up to me, I unlock deep places in my mind while traveling. It's like letting the "dreaming man" totally loose, and lots of shit pop up. I can learn things from these experiences, but that's about it for me. While people go further and suggest we actually go someplace crazy that really exists and communicate with entities that really exists, my curtain falls down.
The incredible vivid places that we visit seems you see, on careful analysis, just to be an extraordinary stimulation of the brains visual perception mechanisms. There are good reasons in science to believe this is the case, and it doesn't have to rely on more incredible hypothesis. Tests can han have been done in order to confirm that certain stimulations of the brain can induce certain types of states, so this is something to work with. DMT acts on receptors in the brain, mainly 5-HT2A, where it works out the visual magic (these receptors are connected to the visual system of the brain). Now, just as a computer programmer can tell you that if you mess with the logic that produces the visual screen you are looking at now, so can a nicely fitting molecule mess up the whole circuitry in the brain. From a neuroscientific perspective, the brain goes totally haywire during entheogenic states. Neurons are overly stimulated and buzz like hell, signals travel at wild, and not surprisingly things get pretty nuts in perception. So let me ask you, and all of you; when a single code in a computer programme can drastically alter the way your screen presents the data coming from your video card, when it can blink, warp, twist and fall into infinite fractaline chaos, does this mean the computer screen is representing an alternative reality? Isn't it just representing the same old data with a new factor in it? Why should DMT be different? There is not really any good reason, from a critical perspective, to assume it is.
Furthermore, by stimulating certain areas of the brain, we can reliably reproduce sensations of a presence that is not really there. Something watching you. It can even feel like meeting God (DMT does this to me as well). These areas are normally not active, because they receive no stimuli that makes them do their handywork. So when we come in and make these neurons buzz while they actually shouldn't, is it a surprise that you get strange feelings? So when our brain can do this by proper stimulation, it is not a stretch to believe that DMT is able to as well. By stimulating other areas, we can also reliably reproduce the sensation of flowing out of your body (also something that can happen on DMT). This is because the brains ability to locate the rest of the body is disturbed with such stimulation. This can happen in near death experiences, during sleep paralysis, lucid dreaming, fainting and so on as well. It's just nothing extraordinary about it upon analysis.
So basically, instead of receiving real sensory input, the brain receives a ridiculous flow of "false" signals from both the body and the immidiate environment, and strange things happen when the brain tries to interpretate this data (just as the messed up computer circuits). The hypothesis that these states are simply a result of chemical influences in the brain can be put to the test and disputed quite easily; simply receive information from these entities that you couldn't have received otherwise. So it's something to work with, to do research with. However, when one tries to ask these entities if they could confirm their autonomous existence, only silly answers are provided. They seem to be a result of the machinery of the mind, ie parts of myself. I see this post gets pretty long, so I'll quit here since my point is probably quite clear.
On the synchronicity part, I agree with you. But I still believe that they are for the most part coincidences and overly interpretated by confirmation bias or other cognitive bias. These are good reasons not to take them too seriously and keep your distance. However, I encourage people to experiment with these phenomena =)
PS: And remember, that even though things can be explained through less incredible things, it doesn't strip it from any meaning. When we started to explain thunder by the means of science, isntead of relying on Gods, it doesn't make it any less incredible, does it? Reductionist explanations need not be something bad, in fact it can be very enlightening and magical. In my studies of nature I am totally blasted away every day, plunging into the mystery, trying to explain certain parts of it with what we have. It can in fact be quite spiritual.
Vodsel, good points, specially about how just because we naturally see patterns doesnt mean that 'objective' patterns aren't there at least some of the times 
As for "quantum entanglement", I dont know enough about quantum physics to really use that in an argument, I would just be using some words very superficially if I was to debate that aspect... But nevertheless I think your main point stands, that we dont know enough (yet?) to be able to affirm something with absolute certainty at this point.
Hyperspace Fool, interesting post! I think its a very good point about how one could "chase the rabbit" of a seeming synchronicity and see where it leads, as it might lead to somewhere interesting, as it did many times in my life (though no free diving trip yet! ). But of course, as you are well aware and we talked before, a balance is always necessary. I can see how some people could for example become obsessed and paranoid about one or another theme from some synchronicity they experienced, and could lose track of other things in life and instead of 'seeing where the rabit hole goes', actually be digging their own direction-less hole that they cant get out of. So where do we draw the line? I guess its very contextual, and it depends on each person and how they are in life and what are the other responsibilities that one must fullfil. Thats why I think questioning oneself continually is the way to go... "Am I overdoing this? Are there more important things I should or could be devoting energy to at this moment? Is this search for the meaning or direction of the synchronicity having a negative impact on my or someone else's life ? etc".
By the way HF, I would love it if you shared some of your hypothesis regarding synchronicities, even if they are very far out. I love thinking far out, when we are aware they are hypothesis that might not be true (or might be... but we dont know it, at least yet).
DoctorMantus, I think you are totally free to have your own beliefs when, as you express, you are conscious they are beliefs, and if they dont hurt anybody. Nevertheless, personally I see it as problematic (for myself, if I was to follow that) to fall into a belief that there are no such things as coincidences first of all because as citta and others mentioned, there IS such a well-explained phenomenon as perceptive filtering/apophenia, and it's easily explained by how it has offered some evolutionary advantage to humans (But of course, to say that all synchronicities are simply that is, as mentioned before, purely speculation). But also because it could lead to some paranoid/obsessive thinking. In psychiatric jargon sometimes they talk about 'self-reference delirium' for some psychosis, like when you scratched your ear because you had it itching, and a schizophrenic paranoid delusional person might think you are sending signals to the cops to arrest him/her, or whatever. So in the same lines as ragabr was asking, how does that make it when you are a part of someone else's "synchronicity"? If we take that thought to the extreme, can you see how this would lead to a lot of contradictions?
Citta, thanks for the elaboration! I still find a few issues with your thinking that I think we can discuss a bit... I understand that believing the effects of DMT are hallucinations do not necessarily make the experience meaningless or without value. In fact, even if we could prove somehow that it was "merely" hallucinations, I still think there is great value in it. But thats not really my point, the fact is, that it is still a belief that has no data to support it, and just like I said to doctor mantus, I think its fine if you are conscious its a belief and it hurts nobody, but do know its a belief and not a fact, and not necessarily more likely than any other belief (just like supposing all synchronicities are just 'empty' coincidences)
You say that tests can confirm that certain stimulations can induce certain types of state, again while this is of course interesting, it is no evidence at all of a causal relationship, that is merely a supposition. Maybe you dont personally think that the TV analogy is true, but that is your own personal hypothesis, speculation or belief. Sure, the 5HT2a is directly connected to the experience (for example how ketanserin blocks psychedelic effects by being a 5HT2a antagonist), but this only shows how 5HT2a is the pathway through which the activation that leads to the effects happens, but it does not in any moment tell us that the effects themselves and all the phenomenological experience is created by the brain or by the 5ht2a receptors.
And as for your question of the computer screen, arent you using an analogy that contradicts yourself? You are saying that a new code changes what the screen presents, but the data from what is appearing in the screen is NOT created by the new code or by the video card, the data is being created elsewhere (in the harddisk), and the videocard and new code is merely modulating the image
and I would disagree with you here. From a critical perspective, there is no reason to assume the image is being created by the new code or the video card, just like there is no reason to assume the dmt experience is created by the brain or the dmt molecule, all we know is they are modulated by it, that there is a relationship, but we dont know that its a causal relationship (we neither know that its NOT a causal relationship, but there is no reason to assume either way, from a critical perspective). In the same way, from a critical perspective, I think there is no reason to assume all synchronicities are just coincidences, just like there is no reason to assume that all coincidences are meaningful synchronicities. Both are just speculation.
With that being said, so what is the use, in practical terms, of not assuming either way? What is the difference, why does it matter?
It matters, imo, in the same way that it would have mattered to NOT suppose the sun revolves around the earth, even though in practical terms at the moment, for all people cared at the time, supposing the sun revolved around the earth made perfect sense according to data people had, and people could still live a meaningful life. But if you assume one way, if you believe one way, you are closing yourself from considering an alternative that might be true, no matter how unlikely. If you assume that all of hyperspace is just brain perturbation or that all synchronicities are just coincidences, you might be closing yourself from devising experiments and exploring the world in a way that might result in a breakthrough in understanding, that might lead to new knowledge, that might have practical benefits, just like finding out about heliocentrism ended up having very practical consequences even if before it didnt matter, or if the other assumption worked well enough for the moment to explain the phenomena at hand. Of course, as I mentioned before, contemplating the different possibilities, even the unlikely ones, requires a limit, requires critical thinking, because we have a limited time, and there are unlimited alternative possibilities to explain all phenomena, so we have to somehow limit ourselves to what we think might be beneficial, to what possibilities might have some worth contemplating or investigating, and to what extent taking that investigation. But then wouldnt it be much more critical and interesting to consider where could be the guideliness of that alternative exploration, to consider what questions can be asked and how could they possibly be answered in a way that doesnt inhibit 'normal functioning', instead of assuming one thing with pretension of Objectivity while in fact its just a belief like any other belief, even if it seems for the moment the most likely (even though thats arguable)?
As for "quantum entanglement", I dont know enough about quantum physics to really use that in an argument, I would just be using some words very superficially if I was to debate that aspect... But nevertheless I think your main point stands, that we dont know enough (yet?) to be able to affirm something with absolute certainty at this point.Hyperspace Fool, interesting post! I think its a very good point about how one could "chase the rabbit" of a seeming synchronicity and see where it leads, as it might lead to somewhere interesting, as it did many times in my life (though no free diving trip yet!
). But of course, as you are well aware and we talked before, a balance is always necessary. I can see how some people could for example become obsessed and paranoid about one or another theme from some synchronicity they experienced, and could lose track of other things in life and instead of 'seeing where the rabit hole goes', actually be digging their own direction-less hole that they cant get out of. So where do we draw the line? I guess its very contextual, and it depends on each person and how they are in life and what are the other responsibilities that one must fullfil. Thats why I think questioning oneself continually is the way to go... "Am I overdoing this? Are there more important things I should or could be devoting energy to at this moment? Is this search for the meaning or direction of the synchronicity having a negative impact on my or someone else's life ? etc". By the way HF, I would love it if you shared some of your hypothesis regarding synchronicities, even if they are very far out. I love thinking far out, when we are aware they are hypothesis that might not be true (or might be... but we dont know it, at least yet).
DoctorMantus, I think you are totally free to have your own beliefs when, as you express, you are conscious they are beliefs, and if they dont hurt anybody. Nevertheless, personally I see it as problematic (for myself, if I was to follow that) to fall into a belief that there are no such things as coincidences first of all because as citta and others mentioned, there IS such a well-explained phenomenon as perceptive filtering/apophenia, and it's easily explained by how it has offered some evolutionary advantage to humans (But of course, to say that all synchronicities are simply that is, as mentioned before, purely speculation). But also because it could lead to some paranoid/obsessive thinking. In psychiatric jargon sometimes they talk about 'self-reference delirium' for some psychosis, like when you scratched your ear because you had it itching, and a schizophrenic paranoid delusional person might think you are sending signals to the cops to arrest him/her, or whatever. So in the same lines as ragabr was asking, how does that make it when you are a part of someone else's "synchronicity"? If we take that thought to the extreme, can you see how this would lead to a lot of contradictions?
Citta, thanks for the elaboration! I still find a few issues with your thinking that I think we can discuss a bit... I understand that believing the effects of DMT are hallucinations do not necessarily make the experience meaningless or without value. In fact, even if we could prove somehow that it was "merely" hallucinations, I still think there is great value in it. But thats not really my point, the fact is, that it is still a belief that has no data to support it, and just like I said to doctor mantus, I think its fine if you are conscious its a belief and it hurts nobody, but do know its a belief and not a fact, and not necessarily more likely than any other belief (just like supposing all synchronicities are just 'empty' coincidences)
You say that tests can confirm that certain stimulations can induce certain types of state, again while this is of course interesting, it is no evidence at all of a causal relationship, that is merely a supposition. Maybe you dont personally think that the TV analogy is true, but that is your own personal hypothesis, speculation or belief. Sure, the 5HT2a is directly connected to the experience (for example how ketanserin blocks psychedelic effects by being a 5HT2a antagonist), but this only shows how 5HT2a is the pathway through which the activation that leads to the effects happens, but it does not in any moment tell us that the effects themselves and all the phenomenological experience is created by the brain or by the 5ht2a receptors.
And as for your question of the computer screen, arent you using an analogy that contradicts yourself? You are saying that a new code changes what the screen presents, but the data from what is appearing in the screen is NOT created by the new code or by the video card, the data is being created elsewhere (in the harddisk), and the videocard and new code is merely modulating the image
and I would disagree with you here. From a critical perspective, there is no reason to assume the image is being created by the new code or the video card, just like there is no reason to assume the dmt experience is created by the brain or the dmt molecule, all we know is they are modulated by it, that there is a relationship, but we dont know that its a causal relationship (we neither know that its NOT a causal relationship, but there is no reason to assume either way, from a critical perspective). In the same way, from a critical perspective, I think there is no reason to assume all synchronicities are just coincidences, just like there is no reason to assume that all coincidences are meaningful synchronicities. Both are just speculation.
With that being said, so what is the use, in practical terms, of not assuming either way? What is the difference, why does it matter?
It matters, imo, in the same way that it would have mattered to NOT suppose the sun revolves around the earth, even though in practical terms at the moment, for all people cared at the time, supposing the sun revolved around the earth made perfect sense according to data people had, and people could still live a meaningful life. But if you assume one way, if you believe one way, you are closing yourself from considering an alternative that might be true, no matter how unlikely. If you assume that all of hyperspace is just brain perturbation or that all synchronicities are just coincidences, you might be closing yourself from devising experiments and exploring the world in a way that might result in a breakthrough in understanding, that might lead to new knowledge, that might have practical benefits, just like finding out about heliocentrism ended up having very practical consequences even if before it didnt matter, or if the other assumption worked well enough for the moment to explain the phenomena at hand. Of course, as I mentioned before, contemplating the different possibilities, even the unlikely ones, requires a limit, requires critical thinking, because we have a limited time, and there are unlimited alternative possibilities to explain all phenomena, so we have to somehow limit ourselves to what we think might be beneficial, to what possibilities might have some worth contemplating or investigating, and to what extent taking that investigation. But then wouldnt it be much more critical and interesting to consider where could be the guideliness of that alternative exploration, to consider what questions can be asked and how could they possibly be answered in a way that doesnt inhibit 'normal functioning', instead of assuming one thing with pretension of Objectivity while in fact its just a belief like any other belief, even if it seems for the moment the most likely (even though thats arguable)?
Endlessness
Exellent post... 8)
Much Peace and Sunshine
Exellent post... 8)
Much Peace and Sunshine
endlessness:
I tend to agree with you, at least from a philosophical perspective. But as you may have noticed, everything becomes troubling in philosophical and metaphysical musings like this. If one is to define reality, or relate to reality, in such a way that it doesn't touch any of these infinite metaphysical problems, it would really not be efficient for any practical purposes, me thinks. We would be standing still, walking in metaphysical circles while playing with semantics. I mean, for every claim you have, I could come up with "but dude, this could in principle be the dream of a unicorn in another universe, so what we deduce need not be true, we can't decide!". For me, this will spiral into the meaningless, thus I tend to avoid these musings (even though I do love me some hashish together with a good metaphysical cocktail every once in a while
).
And of course, all I present in this thread are my beliefs, I know this. This is why I repeatedly say that it is my opinion. I think we're all aware here that we are not talking about facts that are hammered to the wall, so we're all ultimately speculating. But, in this position comes the divide; someone believes strongly in what is, in fact, less likely, while others believe in what is, in fact, more likely. Now, even though I am expressing my opinions, I am in a total open commitment to change them if evidence will point to something else. This is the strength of being scientific, as well as critical. As of now, no evidence points in any other direction than that DMT is a result of chemical influences in the brain.
I tend to disagree with you on your opinion that we close ourselves up if we believe in something, and dispute something else. Two things to note here, whereas the first is that one does not necessarily dispute another proposition, one just thinks it is less likeley. Second, as I've said, if one believes that DMT experiences are a result of chemical influences in the brain and doesn't relate anything more to the external, physical world than this, one can do simple experiments with this hypothesis. Just receive some new information from DMT realms that you couldn't have received any other way, and your hypothesis is totally gimped. Also, I think Rick Strassman is relevant here. Remember that he didn't go into his DMT research in the 1990's motivated spesifically by the belief that DMT states are necessarily more than hallucinations? He did great research nevertheless. Very relevant here is also the gimped hypothesis that proposes the existence of something paranormal, because it is logically impossible to prove. One cannot work with this hypothesis.
It is true we have great problems in science explaining consciousness, and how we can even have conscious experiences. But this is not a free card to start wildly speculating about everything else, me thinks. This is a common fallacy of reason in many cases, especially when discussing supernatural claims. People say that since science haven't spesifically answered something yet, "it must be aliens, gnomes, demons, angels or God!". This isn't even remotely close to any kind of critical thinking. This is akin to something called God of the gaps, just replace God by gnomes, demons, angels, aliens, entities or anything else that is your fancy. Also, while it is true science have not disproved the objective existence of hyperspace, this doesn't by default lend any credence to the claim that it is in fact an autonomous place. Robert Carroll calls this the “fallacy from lack of sufficient evidence to the contrary”. While you have not spesifically suggested this, I chose to include it in my post anyway.
And to the last, which is this about consciousness existing outside the brain. If one assumes this, one runs into problems. Where was consciousness before life? Where was consciousness in the early stages of the universe? Where is consciousness located at all? Is a rock conscious? How to explain this in light of evolution? A series of problems arises with this proposition, making Occam's Razor relevant. If consciousness exists outside of the brain, wouldn't this furthermore imply that consciousness creates external reality? This also runs into many problems that I have discussed several times before.
But you raise many good points endlessness, I enjoy this word exchange.
I tend to agree with you, at least from a philosophical perspective. But as you may have noticed, everything becomes troubling in philosophical and metaphysical musings like this. If one is to define reality, or relate to reality, in such a way that it doesn't touch any of these infinite metaphysical problems, it would really not be efficient for any practical purposes, me thinks. We would be standing still, walking in metaphysical circles while playing with semantics. I mean, for every claim you have, I could come up with "but dude, this could in principle be the dream of a unicorn in another universe, so what we deduce need not be true, we can't decide!". For me, this will spiral into the meaningless, thus I tend to avoid these musings (even though I do love me some hashish together with a good metaphysical cocktail every once in a while
). And of course, all I present in this thread are my beliefs, I know this. This is why I repeatedly say that it is my opinion. I think we're all aware here that we are not talking about facts that are hammered to the wall, so we're all ultimately speculating. But, in this position comes the divide; someone believes strongly in what is, in fact, less likely, while others believe in what is, in fact, more likely. Now, even though I am expressing my opinions, I am in a total open commitment to change them if evidence will point to something else. This is the strength of being scientific, as well as critical. As of now, no evidence points in any other direction than that DMT is a result of chemical influences in the brain.
I tend to disagree with you on your opinion that we close ourselves up if we believe in something, and dispute something else. Two things to note here, whereas the first is that one does not necessarily dispute another proposition, one just thinks it is less likeley. Second, as I've said, if one believes that DMT experiences are a result of chemical influences in the brain and doesn't relate anything more to the external, physical world than this, one can do simple experiments with this hypothesis. Just receive some new information from DMT realms that you couldn't have received any other way, and your hypothesis is totally gimped. Also, I think Rick Strassman is relevant here. Remember that he didn't go into his DMT research in the 1990's motivated spesifically by the belief that DMT states are necessarily more than hallucinations? He did great research nevertheless. Very relevant here is also the gimped hypothesis that proposes the existence of something paranormal, because it is logically impossible to prove. One cannot work with this hypothesis.
It is true we have great problems in science explaining consciousness, and how we can even have conscious experiences. But this is not a free card to start wildly speculating about everything else, me thinks. This is a common fallacy of reason in many cases, especially when discussing supernatural claims. People say that since science haven't spesifically answered something yet, "it must be aliens, gnomes, demons, angels or God!". This isn't even remotely close to any kind of critical thinking. This is akin to something called God of the gaps, just replace God by gnomes, demons, angels, aliens, entities or anything else that is your fancy. Also, while it is true science have not disproved the objective existence of hyperspace, this doesn't by default lend any credence to the claim that it is in fact an autonomous place. Robert Carroll calls this the “fallacy from lack of sufficient evidence to the contrary”. While you have not spesifically suggested this, I chose to include it in my post anyway.
And to the last, which is this about consciousness existing outside the brain. If one assumes this, one runs into problems. Where was consciousness before life? Where was consciousness in the early stages of the universe? Where is consciousness located at all? Is a rock conscious? How to explain this in light of evolution? A series of problems arises with this proposition, making Occam's Razor relevant. If consciousness exists outside of the brain, wouldn't this furthermore imply that consciousness creates external reality? This also runs into many problems that I have discussed several times before.
But you raise many good points endlessness, I enjoy this word exchange.
Hey Citta, thanks for the post! I love these discussions
Yes but one would only walk in metaphysical circles forever if one wouldnt have guidelines and limits. So what are these limits? Because the other extreme would be to never think beyond the box and suggest wild possibilities, and learn for example that we go around the sun and not the other way around.
You say you would change your ideas if facts pointed otherwise, which is of course a good honest scientific attitude, but how do we find out the other facts and changes in the first place? Only if we question the current knowledge in the first place, right? I mean, why would Copernicus bother to calculate the movement in the first place, if he didnt think there might be something else to it? If he had believed the sun went around the earth because all evidence at that point still pointed to it, it might have not been found out (at least till much later). How would you possibly prove that hyperspace is real by getting an impossible answer from beings, if you didnt ask the question in the first place?
And when we go towards the realm of the human subjectivity, this is also so. I mean, think about it, we can learn so much from altered states of consciousness (and yet also need to limit them due to basic survival functions at least), or by experiencing different emotions, some things being insights that are related to the objective wof our universe (like say, for example, nobel prize winners or general good ideas one has that are true, or insights into oneself and how one works), while at the same time other insights can be wrong, mistaken, but you only really know after you've gone through the experience and thought critically and integrated afterwards. Dont you think that in the same way we can learn a lot about exploring different world-views and ideas on reality, thinking beyond the box even if at the moment it might not have any practical consequences, knowing that eve if some might not correspond to Objective Reality, some might even be indeed better models for at least our known universe than the current model.
And how to decide if that wild model is better, how to decide how many alternatives and which alternatives to test and consider? How much effort to put into it? Again these are the guidelines that I think are important. The questions you asked that are raised in the example of consciousness existing outside of the brain, I think thats very important to ask, and then try to find out ways to answer those questions. Sometimes maybe you cant think of answers for it, maybe others already have, and by discussing them and putting them public such as here, the development can move along. Another thing is to rely on feeling/intuition/whatever-you-call-it. It's hard to define, it may be a mixture of many things in different occasions, but it often happens that the biggest discoveries are preceded by a feeling that one must do something, like a direction one feels one should go. Did you ever had that happen to you? Another aspect is that it depends contextually, because you may be in some position in life where your time or other responsibilities allow it, or you may have certain innate potentials and skills and taste for some kind of development/model/area of exploration. So we already have a few guidelines here: Deciding the amount of exploration depending on your contextual factors and a healthy distribution of priorities in life, also listening to feeling/intuition, and asking critical questions about the model that allow one to improve the model, or to decide if its wrong or at least so likely wrong that at this moment does not deserve further look.
So only through deeply going into the alternatives in a balanced way, one can possibly get the benefit, and not be the one waiting for the paradigm change to happen, but be the one doing the change. Im not saying you're not making a change, btw, because at the same time I see there are different ways of exploring reality and expanding our known frontiers, and you clearly represent science in a good way, but at the same time there are other ways which might have a healthy place for themselves and for the world (or even for you at some or other point of your life?). Some of these ways might be more scientific exploration, forming hypothesis that can be proven or disproven with research at the moment or within a short or mid-term future, but there are also ways that are just as necessary and yet dont have such clear-cut results. Take for example the area I work on, education. How can you really know that what you are doing to the kid is good? Every kid is unique, the effects are so long-term and spread throughout so many levels of one's manifestation and social consequences that its impossible to measure. And yet dont you think it's incredibly important that there are people who devote for education and use their efforts in things that do not have scientifically testable results at least in many important aspects, and do so by following feelings, subjective experience and critical thinking? At the same time, the mysticism way, the wild existential questionings, the limit experiences, all of these things, when balanced and healthy, can also very important and beneficial to individuals and society. I understand when you debate against some loose-minded mysticism, because its there, just as is the mistaken 'god of gaps' but this is not an argument to invalidate it, it does not mean there is no god or that mystical thought is never true or that speculations are always wrong, in the same way that closed minded 'scientism' doesnt invalidate the benefits and uses of science. Critical thinking applies to all, right?
Citta said:But as you may have noticed, everything becomes troubling in philosophical and metaphysical musings like this. If one is to define reality, or relate to reality, in such a way that it doesn't touch any of these infinite metaphysical problems, it would really not be efficient for any practical purposes, me thinks. We would be standing still, walking in metaphysical circles while playing with semantics. I mean, for every claim you have, I could come up with "but dude, this could in principle be the dream of a unicorn in another universe, so what we deduce need not be true, we can't decide!". For me, this will spiral into the meaningless, thus I tend to avoid these musings (even though I do love me some hashish together with a good metaphysical cocktail every once in a while
Yes but one would only walk in metaphysical circles forever if one wouldnt have guidelines and limits. So what are these limits? Because the other extreme would be to never think beyond the box and suggest wild possibilities, and learn for example that we go around the sun and not the other way around.
You say you would change your ideas if facts pointed otherwise, which is of course a good honest scientific attitude, but how do we find out the other facts and changes in the first place? Only if we question the current knowledge in the first place, right? I mean, why would Copernicus bother to calculate the movement in the first place, if he didnt think there might be something else to it? If he had believed the sun went around the earth because all evidence at that point still pointed to it, it might have not been found out (at least till much later). How would you possibly prove that hyperspace is real by getting an impossible answer from beings, if you didnt ask the question in the first place?
And when we go towards the realm of the human subjectivity, this is also so. I mean, think about it, we can learn so much from altered states of consciousness (and yet also need to limit them due to basic survival functions at least), or by experiencing different emotions, some things being insights that are related to the objective wof our universe (like say, for example, nobel prize winners or general good ideas one has that are true, or insights into oneself and how one works), while at the same time other insights can be wrong, mistaken, but you only really know after you've gone through the experience and thought critically and integrated afterwards. Dont you think that in the same way we can learn a lot about exploring different world-views and ideas on reality, thinking beyond the box even if at the moment it might not have any practical consequences, knowing that eve if some might not correspond to Objective Reality, some might even be indeed better models for at least our known universe than the current model.
And how to decide if that wild model is better, how to decide how many alternatives and which alternatives to test and consider? How much effort to put into it? Again these are the guidelines that I think are important. The questions you asked that are raised in the example of consciousness existing outside of the brain, I think thats very important to ask, and then try to find out ways to answer those questions. Sometimes maybe you cant think of answers for it, maybe others already have, and by discussing them and putting them public such as here, the development can move along. Another thing is to rely on feeling/intuition/whatever-you-call-it. It's hard to define, it may be a mixture of many things in different occasions, but it often happens that the biggest discoveries are preceded by a feeling that one must do something, like a direction one feels one should go. Did you ever had that happen to you? Another aspect is that it depends contextually, because you may be in some position in life where your time or other responsibilities allow it, or you may have certain innate potentials and skills and taste for some kind of development/model/area of exploration. So we already have a few guidelines here: Deciding the amount of exploration depending on your contextual factors and a healthy distribution of priorities in life, also listening to feeling/intuition, and asking critical questions about the model that allow one to improve the model, or to decide if its wrong or at least so likely wrong that at this moment does not deserve further look.
So only through deeply going into the alternatives in a balanced way, one can possibly get the benefit, and not be the one waiting for the paradigm change to happen, but be the one doing the change. Im not saying you're not making a change, btw, because at the same time I see there are different ways of exploring reality and expanding our known frontiers, and you clearly represent science in a good way, but at the same time there are other ways which might have a healthy place for themselves and for the world (or even for you at some or other point of your life?). Some of these ways might be more scientific exploration, forming hypothesis that can be proven or disproven with research at the moment or within a short or mid-term future, but there are also ways that are just as necessary and yet dont have such clear-cut results. Take for example the area I work on, education. How can you really know that what you are doing to the kid is good? Every kid is unique, the effects are so long-term and spread throughout so many levels of one's manifestation and social consequences that its impossible to measure. And yet dont you think it's incredibly important that there are people who devote for education and use their efforts in things that do not have scientifically testable results at least in many important aspects, and do so by following feelings, subjective experience and critical thinking? At the same time, the mysticism way, the wild existential questionings, the limit experiences, all of these things, when balanced and healthy, can also very important and beneficial to individuals and society. I understand when you debate against some loose-minded mysticism, because its there, just as is the mistaken 'god of gaps' but this is not an argument to invalidate it, it does not mean there is no god or that mystical thought is never true or that speculations are always wrong, in the same way that closed minded 'scientism' doesnt invalidate the benefits and uses of science. Critical thinking applies to all, right?
So consistency is key here. Consistency demands that there is a time and place to think out of the box and a time and place to follow the rules as layed-out: The metaphysical question: 'could this all be a dream?' is a very usefull and important question, but it´s not a usefull question anymore when you´re trying to answer the question: 'what if all of this is not a dream?', wich is basically the question science deals with.endlessness said:Hey Citta, thanks for the post! I love these discussions
Citta said:But as you may have noticed, everything becomes troubling in philosophical and metaphysical musings like this. If one is to define reality, or relate to reality, in such a way that it doesn't touch any of these infinite metaphysical problems, it would really not be efficient for any practical purposes, me thinks. We would be standing still, walking in metaphysical circles while playing with semantics. I mean, for every claim you have, I could come up with "but dude, this could in principle be the dream of a unicorn in another universe, so what we deduce need not be true, we can't decide!". For me, this will spiral into the meaningless, thus I tend to avoid these musings (even though I do love me some hashish together with a good metaphysical cocktail every once in a while
Yes but one would only walk in metaphysical circles forever if one wouldnt have guidelines and limits. So what are these limits? Because the other extreme would be to never think beyond the box and suggest wild possibilities, and learn for example that we go around the sun and not the other way around.
You say you would change your ideas if facts pointed otherwise, which is of course a good honest scientific attitude, but how do we find out the other facts and changes in the first place? Only if we question the current knowledge in the first place, right? I mean, why would Copernicus bother to calculate the movement in the first place, if he didnt think there might be something else to it? If he had believed the sun went around the earth because all evidence at that point still pointed to it, it might have not been found out (at least till much later). How would you possibly prove that hyperspace is real by getting an impossible answer from beings, if you didnt ask the question in the first place?
Eventually a consistent aproach will lead you away from those metaphysical questions, since answers will become more and more concrete when this aproach is followed for long enough.
Untill metaphysical questions eventually will have turned into concrete scientific questions.
Hmmm, I dont think science deals with the question if this is not all a dream.. I think science deals with: "What are the patterns and consistencies inside of this dream/reality/whatever ? " .
so I dont think a consistent approach will necessarily lead you away from metaphysical questions because they may also have consistencies. And if metaphysical questions will have turned into scientific questions, some will, some might if the question is asked the right way, some could but might not because its not asked, and some might not by their nature be answerable through the scientific methods (but could through other methods?), and some might not be answerable by any method at all. And we dont really know a priori under which category the questions asked fall, so we must again rely on guidelines, critical thinking and contextual subjective decisions to decide which question to ask at any given moment (or if one should ask any question at all or cook some food ).
so I dont think a consistent approach will necessarily lead you away from metaphysical questions because they may also have consistencies. And if metaphysical questions will have turned into scientific questions, some will, some might if the question is asked the right way, some could but might not because its not asked, and some might not by their nature be answerable through the scientific methods (but could through other methods?), and some might not be answerable by any method at all. And we dont really know a priori under which category the questions asked fall, so we must again rely on guidelines, critical thinking and contextual subjective decisions to decide which question to ask at any given moment (or if one should ask any question at all or cook some food
).Yeah, but that was what i meant, as in: what if X is real? well, then Y must also be real.endlessness said:
I think that when you´re asking questions for long enough, eventually you will stray away from metaphysical questions, because once some metaphysical reality will show to also be consistent in some way, it will become more scientific in the sense that you´ll discover by what rules this metaphysical reality is bound. And that will lead to 'does Y follow X' kind of questions, wich are not metaphysical questions IMO, even if they would be about things like god or hyperspace-entity´s.
I think that for instance, when you´re trying to answer this metaphysical question 'could all of this be a dream?', you eventually will have to conclude that whatever reality we´re in, it will have to have some underlying material structure. Even if matter would turn out to be something completely different than we think it is.
So that would mean that any 'scenario' that defines a totally immaterial reality can be either declared false or incorrect, because it has wrongly defined the concept of matter in such a way that it´s not included while it actually should be.
If we´re all god´s dream, then gods mind must be material in some sense. Otherwise there could not be material elements in his dream.
majesticnature
Rising Star
Ez said:
Synchronicities are a indeed real and meant for a purpose. I suggest everyone watch the movie "The Celestine prophecies" and then come back and read the quote I took from Ez.
Now for the people who are on the fence, considering it could be patterns the minds picks up or perceptual filtering, there is truth in what you see, and yet synchronicities are real. The truth is in both sides of the story.
You see the more we open up to see coincidences as synchronictic oppurtunities the more they appear, so it has everything to do with perceptual filtering or the conditional state of the mind. Spriit and Science are all one design.
DoctorMantus
Hyperspace Architect/Doctor
endlessness said:
I Definitely do believe that. I know that i had said, I do not believe in coincidences, i don't mean it in the way were i am completely negating the idea. I am still both ways but more on the synchronicity side. As house had mention in the beginning he believes in 100% synchronicity i could believe that.
It seems like so many syncs could happen on a daily basis, and when ragabr mentions the sycn will multiple people, during trips or just hanging out, this has happened to me lots of times with friends. i don't know any particular examples but, there seems to be a syncs that you can almost make out of everything, this confirms to me that everything must be connected to everything.
now as Ragabr was saying if say we experienced someone else s sync, wouldn't everyone be involved it would be like a collective sync right.?
DoctorMantus
Hyperspace Architect/Doctor
I guess it really depends who the experiencing is.
Just a moment ago, let me just start by saying we have six cats 1 dog. The one cat her name is laya, and she loves to watch sunsets out the front of the window.
I had just gone in the back of the house to bring her to the front, and another person in the house he says it's time for laya to go to the window, just as i was coming up to his office door.
I drop the cat off and he says wow what a coincidence you taking the cat just as i was mentioning it.
And i say it's no coincidence it's synchronicity, and he didn't respond, lol so idk maybe it really depends who it is happening to, and how it happens, he is 20 something years older than me, but is no where on the spiritual level that i am.
Just a moment ago, let me just start by saying we have six cats 1 dog. The one cat her name is laya, and she loves to watch sunsets out the front of the window.
I had just gone in the back of the house to bring her to the front, and another person in the house he says it's time for laya to go to the window, just as i was coming up to his office door.
I drop the cat off and he says wow what a coincidence you taking the cat just as i was mentioning it.
And i say it's no coincidence it's synchronicity, and he didn't respond, lol so idk maybe it really depends who it is happening to, and how it happens, he is 20 something years older than me, but is no where on the spiritual level that i am.
Was just going to say that. 8)endlessness said:
To go back to something Citta was saying earlier in this discussion, I think the purely physical "buzzing of the 5 ht2a receptors" to produce modulations in the visual centers hypothesis doesn't quite describe the kinds of things people see when on DMT. If we were talking simply about fractal patterns or walls breathing, then I could conceive that this could be the case... but we are talking about seemingly autonomous hyper intelligent beings and entire dreamscapes that are so detailed and finely wrought that even our best computer graphics and Hollywood set designers seem like preschoolers next to it.
I can remain open to the idea that we create these things with our imaginations. It is a stretch, but we are pretty amazing in that respect. Projections or some kind of extraordinary holographic mind artwork I can conceive... but a distortion? Mmmmm... I don't know about y'all's experiences, but this seems highly unlikely to me.
Citta, you also said 2 times here that if an entity told you something you didn't know and it turned out to be true, that would be proof enough for you.
Well... (insert relevant disclaimer here)... I have had this subjective experience literally dozens upon dozens of times. I don't expect you to believe me. And to anyone else reading this: DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING I SAY. Feel free to resonate with it if it feels right to you, of course...
Understand, I am not making a case to say that my experiences apply to anyone else... For all I know, none of you exist outside of my mind anyway. (wink wink)
(note: I'm not really a solipsist)
I suppose if I were to get into more details on this topic, I might have to move my conjectures over to the ol' TTLG suburb.
Hehehehe
But seriously folks...
Actually, what I wanted to say, is that even with such confirmations, I am not sure that entities, dream characters and the like are truly independent. They could be aspects of my mind and still know things I don't know. Perhaps our subconscious minds are not bound by the linear timeline and material plane that our conscious minds mostly seem to be. Who knows?
But, like the other big question on this thread... Is the material world REAL or a dream... it doesn't matter particularly for most lines of speculation. Sure, it would be great to get a definitive answer... but if science is describing the workings of a mechanistic material universe that is truly objective and independent of consciousness or the workings of an apparently stable and mostly consistent dream realm or some combination of the two or something completely other... with science (as with most things) what really matters, is if it works or not.
Pragmatism balanced with curiosity is the guideline I tend to use when deciding how far to chase white rabbits. The only thing with that, though, is that if you don't actually catch the rabbit... you might never know what it is he is late for.
Just have to say, I started reading a novel last night, after closing this thread. The first plot shift happens when the current protagonist learns the word "synchronicity" and changes his life by following the thread they leave.
Similar threads
Staff online
-
VoidmatrixRearranging the void -
blig-blug𐇐𐇐𐇐𐇐𐇐𐇐