Franklin2100
Esteemed member
Has there been an increase in telepathy amongst people or has it always been like this?
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Telepathy
- Thread starter Franklin2100
- Start date
-
- Tags
- occult spirituality telepathy
"amongst people" ? which ones ? I guess "people in the same room who had taken psychedelics".
Extreme empathy (confining to "telepathy-like" effect) seems anecdotally a quite common effect of entheogens (I've read about it a lot of times, and also experienced it myself).
Rational hypothesis would hint to the mirror-neurons system of the brain, but for now I've found very few scientific studies on the "psychedelics+mirror neurons" topic.
Edit:
maybe this one: The Mechanisms of Psychedelic Visionary Experiences: Hypotheses from Evolutionary Psychology
It only claim hypotheses, but the studies referenced (in "the mirror neuron system" and below) may be worth digging. I'm usually very cautious/wary with the "Evolutionnary Psychology" field, but here at first glance it seems interesting (be ready to take that with a gain of salt).
(hope my reply is not too out of topic given the forum section)
Extreme empathy (confining to "telepathy-like" effect) seems anecdotally a quite common effect of entheogens (I've read about it a lot of times, and also experienced it myself).
Rational hypothesis would hint to the mirror-neurons system of the brain, but for now I've found very few scientific studies on the "psychedelics+mirror neurons" topic.
Edit:
maybe this one: The Mechanisms of Psychedelic Visionary Experiences: Hypotheses from Evolutionary Psychology
It only claim hypotheses, but the studies referenced (in "the mirror neuron system" and below) may be worth digging. I'm usually very cautious/wary with the "Evolutionnary Psychology" field, but here at first glance it seems interesting (be ready to take that with a gain of salt).
(hope my reply is not too out of topic given the forum section)
Last edited:
Franklin2100
Esteemed member
"Which ones ?"
Everything and everyone
Blind_Goat
Esteemed member
This is a constant subject among individuals who took psychedelics.
We don't have the comprehension of brain, mind and conscioussness yet to really defend telepathy. But we can do tests to check if it is real, and I would guess it would fail miserably.
I would guess it is more an impression than a real fact, but maybe under the influence of psychedelics you are more opened to external stimulae (if you can perceive the external world), thus making your perception more accurate and also you can "read" the situation in a different perspective.
I myself had perceived many familiar places as dirty (also a common thing among psychedelic users) because you denaturalize your way of view things, plus you can perceive better the details so you can now see what was always there but your brain chose to ignore (the brain-filter hypothesis from Huxley in Doors of Perception). I think the same apply to "telepathy": you denaturalize your image of the other person (like the way you already had perceive their personality, identity etc) and you are more opened to details, thus you can antecipate (in a limited level) the feelings and thoughts of a person like a competent psychologist would do. Since you both are sharing a similar experience, I can totally see a perception of telepathy in this kind of situation.
It really is very interesting that such a specific paranormal ability is perceived by so many people. Further investigation is required.
We don't have the comprehension of brain, mind and conscioussness yet to really defend telepathy. But we can do tests to check if it is real, and I would guess it would fail miserably.
I would guess it is more an impression than a real fact, but maybe under the influence of psychedelics you are more opened to external stimulae (if you can perceive the external world), thus making your perception more accurate and also you can "read" the situation in a different perspective.
I myself had perceived many familiar places as dirty (also a common thing among psychedelic users) because you denaturalize your way of view things, plus you can perceive better the details so you can now see what was always there but your brain chose to ignore (the brain-filter hypothesis from Huxley in Doors of Perception). I think the same apply to "telepathy": you denaturalize your image of the other person (like the way you already had perceive their personality, identity etc) and you are more opened to details, thus you can antecipate (in a limited level) the feelings and thoughts of a person like a competent psychologist would do. Since you both are sharing a similar experience, I can totally see a perception of telepathy in this kind of situation.
It really is very interesting that such a specific paranormal ability is perceived by so many people. Further investigation is required.
Last edited:
Franklin2100
Esteemed member
Graceful response without completely shunning the idea and providing a continuation and study to something that is completely off the radar makes your judgement and intelligence seem noteworthy. Does your title of "blind goat" have a spiritual significance? Or would it be better for you to point me to a subject that would elaborate such a thing a bit further ?
Never experienced a psychodelic telepathy experience as I enjoy to trip alone.
But in a day to day life I experienced situations which could be viewed as telepathy or however some would like to state them.
I also think that these situations could be viewed mor as observant then telepathic.
Like what does someone say in which way, the pitch of his voice, dynamic or static pitch, microexpressions, facial expressions, geastures,..
IMO all of that is only a hint which could help to create assumptions.
But this assumptions are worth nothing as long as they are not approved or rejected by myself.
Example: If 8/10 observable sources result for me for an assumtion then the assumption could be right with an 80% accuracy but it can also be wrong for 20%. And that sill remains only an 8/10 assumption till verification.
The more observable sources there are the easier it is, on the other way the less observable sources are the harder it gets.
It is a difference when you see someone and talk to him per voice or if you do not see him.
I view this topic as communicative or interpersonal sensory skills rather then telepathy.
Although it helps me to guess how the other person could finish his sentence or how my interaction impacted the other party.
But I also think that it is always important to listening till the end and not only to see if I was right/wrong.
IMO there is no general guidance to this like "if someone touches his nose he lies".
This general rules look very cliche like for me.
As others wrote above that it involves to know the other party very well.
Would I be able to interact with someone blindfolded with no ability to speak and listen independently of using psychodelics or not?
Then my answer is no.
But in a day to day life I experienced situations which could be viewed as telepathy or however some would like to state them.
I also think that these situations could be viewed mor as observant then telepathic.
Like what does someone say in which way, the pitch of his voice, dynamic or static pitch, microexpressions, facial expressions, geastures,..
IMO all of that is only a hint which could help to create assumptions.
But this assumptions are worth nothing as long as they are not approved or rejected by myself.
Example: If 8/10 observable sources result for me for an assumtion then the assumption could be right with an 80% accuracy but it can also be wrong for 20%. And that sill remains only an 8/10 assumption till verification.
The more observable sources there are the easier it is, on the other way the less observable sources are the harder it gets.
It is a difference when you see someone and talk to him per voice or if you do not see him.
I view this topic as communicative or interpersonal sensory skills rather then telepathy.
Although it helps me to guess how the other person could finish his sentence or how my interaction impacted the other party.
But I also think that it is always important to listening till the end and not only to see if I was right/wrong.
IMO there is no general guidance to this like "if someone touches his nose he lies".
This general rules look very cliche like for me.
As others wrote above that it involves to know the other party very well.
Would I be able to interact with someone blindfolded with no ability to speak and listen independently of using psychodelics or not?
Then my answer is no.
Franklin2100
Esteemed member
Curious to know what your philosophy or thoughts behind "free will" is.
@Franklin2100 when gernerally thinking then will is what makes everyone unique as a being.
Will a non free being be not unique?
When thinking about internal will:
Is my will free or was it ever not free?
Sometimes we are forced to undermine our own principles because of circumstances.
Example: When participating in a big meeting and everyone is on the edge while something important but also critical should be communicated.
IMO that would distract the idea of having a free will for me in the moment.
But would it be intelligent or unintelligent to communicate the critical content at that time?
Probably depends on how something is communicated.
But imo it is more important when and what is communicated.
When thinking about external will:
All i want or can provide is my thoughts and how it affects others.
But as I do not like to get distracted in terms of my will so I also do not want to distract others.
All I can provide is to report about experiences.
It may or may not fit the scenario of the other party but the other party has some more information available for him to work with it.
Everything I wrote regarding "telepathy" or "interpersonal" can be used for good and bad.
I was pushed into this mindset because I always had to be very observant as a child in order to evade tradegy.
When comming back to "free will" then even this sircumstances distracted my free will in some way.
The question is at which point can it be viewed as wrong or right to interfere with the free will of someself or someone else?
Also marketing campains or advertisements could probably be viewed as sort of manipulation.
Well but propaganade as well, right?
So what is the difference between propaganda and advertisements?
My asnwer to this question is the intention.
While ads try to help vendors to fill their pocket they try to create the interest of potential people by expressing or creating the demand for the product.
So companies try to get more advantages by ads but also want to create advantages for others. (although it can result in people buying things they actually not need)
While propaganda tries to manipulate in order to get more self advantages while not careing for disadvantages of others.
The difference is the win-win and win-lose with this scenario.
IMO information should be shared neutrally.
Without trying to pick a side.
Just listing every advantage and disadvantage without unlisting some.
That way an opportunity for the observer is created without distracting his free will or mind explicitly.
But people are too much focused on being right/wrong instead of wanting to know what actually is right and wrong.
Resulting in debates or discussions while everyone could move mush faster and longer with dialoges.
Will a non free being be not unique?
When thinking about internal will:
Is my will free or was it ever not free?
Sometimes we are forced to undermine our own principles because of circumstances.
Example: When participating in a big meeting and everyone is on the edge while something important but also critical should be communicated.
IMO that would distract the idea of having a free will for me in the moment.
But would it be intelligent or unintelligent to communicate the critical content at that time?
Probably depends on how something is communicated.
But imo it is more important when and what is communicated.
When thinking about external will:
All i want or can provide is my thoughts and how it affects others.
But as I do not like to get distracted in terms of my will so I also do not want to distract others.
All I can provide is to report about experiences.
It may or may not fit the scenario of the other party but the other party has some more information available for him to work with it.
Everything I wrote regarding "telepathy" or "interpersonal" can be used for good and bad.
I was pushed into this mindset because I always had to be very observant as a child in order to evade tradegy.
When comming back to "free will" then even this sircumstances distracted my free will in some way.
The question is at which point can it be viewed as wrong or right to interfere with the free will of someself or someone else?
Also marketing campains or advertisements could probably be viewed as sort of manipulation.
Well but propaganade as well, right?
So what is the difference between propaganda and advertisements?
My asnwer to this question is the intention.
While ads try to help vendors to fill their pocket they try to create the interest of potential people by expressing or creating the demand for the product.
So companies try to get more advantages by ads but also want to create advantages for others. (although it can result in people buying things they actually not need)
While propaganda tries to manipulate in order to get more self advantages while not careing for disadvantages of others.
The difference is the win-win and win-lose with this scenario.
IMO information should be shared neutrally.
Without trying to pick a side.
Just listing every advantage and disadvantage without unlisting some.
That way an opportunity for the observer is created without distracting his free will or mind explicitly.
But people are too much focused on being right/wrong instead of wanting to know what actually is right and wrong.
Resulting in debates or discussions while everyone could move mush faster and longer with dialoges.
Franklin2100
Esteemed member
So does the question of who created you or does such a concept of "what created you" come into mind?
If God is free then everything and everyone else is also free and unique since they are an extension of God, even if they aren't separate from God and thus not entirely unique but that doesn't mean that they're not unique , just part of something that is unique so that makes them unique in their own space and imo it is the Veil Of Maya that gives one or God the illusion of separation.
I would imagine that a being so powerful and infinite would like to have the illusion of separation to experience itself and live life in such a way that makes infinity.....seem like a shared thing. From what I remember hearing , bears die in captivity because they need to have a companion , a death of loneliness. Could that also be an expression of God?
I would understand the role of Satanism is to protect the individuality of a mortal and to be reminded to not seek too much enlightenment but that is a double edge sword imo.
Hindus believe that the 10th avatar of Vishnu is amongst us and such a avatar would be in a struggle against the Veil Of Maya. Since Maya cannot be killed then Vishnu would lead and Maya would follow and this imo is where religion stems from. A divine leader that takes a mortal body that encompasses God to such a degree that even Maya would recognize it's divinity. Maya being those who believe in "free will," and that concept of Do As Thou Will Being The fullest Extent Of The Law in Satanism.
This concept is also shown in The Game of Thrones when the Iron Throne is destroyed. The Iron Throne being this notion that" this nation" or "this political party" is superior or knows whats right for the people and the people coming to terms that and being all shown that they are truly free and always have been. Marking a new age of mankind.
Blind_Goat
Esteemed member
Thank you for your considerations about my answer. I come from a culture which diplomacy and compatibility between oposite ideas is not just encorauged, but it is just in our soul, we are formed by many "races", cultures and perspectives and it is a survival issue for us to be able to do it. The traditional south american shaman is seen not just as "magic" but as a diplomat between worldly entities, who seeks to negotiate (more than making magic tricks) lives, knowledge and perspectives with entities. A lot of this is present in my approach to anything, although there are always ideas that put us off, at first glance.
"Blind_Goat" is in a part an homage to the most interesting professor I've had in my college years. He has the most interesting ideas about philosophy, I've heard in the last 20 years, write very well and is a very exotic guy (he even bought the apartament of his neighbor to don't have any neighbors at all) and he wroted many books about pessimism, cinema and about a new concept of ethics he was working on, he won some prizes and even was published by Cambridge Scholars (Discomfort and Moral Impediment: The Human Situation, Radical Bioethics and Procreation - Cambridge Scholars Publishing) he's name is Julio Cabrera. He has an e-mail address that sounds, in our language, like "Blind_Goat" and I've remebered him.
Besides that, I've always had problems with submission to DMT, and to let ego go (due to childhood traumas). DMT was a journey to me of learning how to do it. The goat, in many pagan cultures is the animal that must be sacrificed to entities, he must submit itself to the gods. Even the muslim people in Shariah (islamic law) have the concept of Halal, that is an "authorized" way of killing animals, a more ethical and religious way of doing it. It is a beautiful thing, actually although I'm not islamic . The animal must submit itself into agreeing being slaughtered, and in many cases the animal in question is a goat or a sheep. I found the concept very poetic and appropriated to my case. The most fragile goat that I could imagine is a blind goat, submitting to it's own slaughter for transcendent reasons. I've found myself like this blind goat, that cannot see the fisical worlds but hoping in seing gods or transcendent reality. It has to trust their powers and goodwill, willing to make the sacrifice with itself, despite not seeing the images of this world because he is blind, to be able to contemplate the indescribable, strange and familiar figures from higher planes, which are, in many shamanic cultures, the home of the gods. He is blind to this world because he cannot contemplate it, but its eyes are opened to a more complicated world, with complex geometry it never dreamed of before and it's this world that he can see. Only in this world it has eyes. In physical world he is blind, fragile and has fear, but he must submit himself to the sufferings of the ritual to access the transcendent and the nameless. My thirst for knowledge and experience, at the same time as the reverence necessary to access it, I see incarnated in this blind goat.
I hope this has clarified the reasons for the chosen nickname, so that it is a multi-layered metaphor, an inside joke that only I myself can fully laugh at.
A Halal video:
That whole argument of "free will existence" is kinda pointless. You can't prove neither existence, nor non-existence of something, while being inside that universe where that something is controlled by definition from "outside".
That's actually quite the same as arguing for or against God's (The One, Source, Allah, etc) existence.
It's just, if I were the God, it would be much more interesting to have certain rules for certain universe and then allow rules to play out themselves, then maybe incarnate as many observers, thus creating and observing element of randomness, eternal change and surprise.
On the other hand, one can argue that God exists outside of time and thus, everything is laid out infront of divine eyes, all at the same time, as there is no time in God's realm.
Don't know, maybe God allows themselves experience time while incarnating observers in material universe.
And forgot to add: and if there is no God, then you would require a computer much bigger than size of a Universe to compute the Universe and calculate your next non-free-will step, so good luck building it, iirc this is a mathematically proven fact.
There is also another type of "no free will" camp, championed by Sapolski, he's making some very straightforward argument.
It's that your starting condition and growing conditions predefine a lot of things in you, even if you think you have chosen them for yourselves.
This is another realm of "free will" discussion and is more of a human hardware/biological discussion, rather than proper philosophical one.
Disclaimer: all above is IMHO and I would like to hear some interesting thoughts for and against my points.
Blind_Goat
It was an interesting read, thank you.
That's actually quite the same as arguing for or against God's (The One, Source, Allah, etc) existence.
It's just, if I were the God, it would be much more interesting to have certain rules for certain universe and then allow rules to play out themselves, then maybe incarnate as many observers, thus creating and observing element of randomness, eternal change and surprise.
On the other hand, one can argue that God exists outside of time and thus, everything is laid out infront of divine eyes, all at the same time, as there is no time in God's realm.
Don't know, maybe God allows themselves experience time while incarnating observers in material universe.
And forgot to add: and if there is no God, then you would require a computer much bigger than size of a Universe to compute the Universe and calculate your next non-free-will step, so good luck building it, iirc this is a mathematically proven fact.
There is also another type of "no free will" camp, championed by Sapolski, he's making some very straightforward argument.
It's that your starting condition and growing conditions predefine a lot of things in you, even if you think you have chosen them for yourselves.
This is another realm of "free will" discussion and is more of a human hardware/biological discussion, rather than proper philosophical one.
Disclaimer: all above is IMHO and I would like to hear some interesting thoughts for and against my points.
Blind_Goat
It was an interesting read, thank you.
Franklin2100
Esteemed member
I got kinda teary eyed reading this. Also because I know all about childhood trauma and learning to relax when taking that Dmt journey. Learning to let yourself go to the experience and feeling when you take the first inhale after it makes you feel nervous really does heal and help so much and after healing from what I'm understanding from you comes intelligence and to seek how life is ritualistic in the terms of the goat being willingly slaughtered. That concept and me imagining such a thing makes me feel like I'm the goat and understanding the Love of God , whereas this physical body is not the end but only a part of a much more beautiful existence as Gods Love is immense and incomprehensible and this body of mine would be wise to submit the ego to God or Love as that is where one truly sees .
Lol, I just found this forum a few days ago and signed up and already the amount of information and support here is simply awesome...lol y'all got me tearing up over here (x
@Franklin2100 i am not really believing in any human "created" or interpreted religion but I like how you compare few of them.
I am very open to religions and looking always for something which I think is helpful and integrate it in my life.
Never thought about free will from this higher religious order.
It is probably an interesting topic to think or philosophize about but I view it like @Exitwound.
@Blind_Goat just out of curiosity because you wrote:
@Exitwound I like your mindset:
I am very open to religions and looking always for something which I think is helpful and integrate it in my life.
Never thought about free will from this higher religious order.
It is probably an interesting topic to think or philosophize about but I view it like @Exitwound.
@Blind_Goat just out of curiosity because you wrote:
What happens if the animal does not agree to be slaughtered?
@Exitwound I like your mindset:
Franklin2100
Esteemed member
I agree that such a thing would be hard to prove but I was more inclining to what Physics131 felt about such a thing to further understand his viewpoint on things and ,yea, that computer simulation needing to be bigger than the universe is wiiilld. Amazing how humanity can figure stuff like that out.
Your response reminds me of the Aurelian and Aristotle frame of seeing the divine and how the Aurelian philosophy clings more to the notion that God exists outside of the universe and how Aristotle clings more to the idea that Nothing cannot create Nothing so in some terms God is also a manifestation of existence and not God manifesting existence as per the Aurelian philosophy but both viewpoints are definitely worth exploring and learning from .
Don't know how this thread got passed my radar.
We don't seem to know if telepathy is "real." (We have yet to settle on what constitutes knowledge, and therefore what really constitutes "reality;" potentially unsolvable epistemic and ontological inquiries.)
Anecdotally, I've had several experiences that seem telepathic. And at the end of the day, that's all we seem to have: the appearance of how reality seems to be to us subjectively and intersubjectively.
Aside from mirror neurons, we could just be more aware of each other in a way that lends itself towards interaction that seem telepathic, considering the increase in population density in many places.
However, being psychedelically inclined as I am, I won't say that telepathy doesn't exist.
I also won't say it does, just talk about potential appearances of such.
I'll suspend judgment.
One love
We don't seem to know if telepathy is "real." (We have yet to settle on what constitutes knowledge, and therefore what really constitutes "reality;" potentially unsolvable epistemic and ontological inquiries.)
Anecdotally, I've had several experiences that seem telepathic. And at the end of the day, that's all we seem to have: the appearance of how reality seems to be to us subjectively and intersubjectively.
Aside from mirror neurons, we could just be more aware of each other in a way that lends itself towards interaction that seem telepathic, considering the increase in population density in many places.
However, being psychedelically inclined as I am, I won't say that telepathy doesn't exist.
I also won't say it does, just talk about potential appearances of such.
I'll suspend judgment.
One love
Blind_Goat
Esteemed member
If the animal is too tense or agitated and doesn't submit it isn't slaughtered, simple as that, no questions asked. As you might suspect, it isn't a very industrial/commercial approach.
Yes, Dmt-nexus is really a refuge, for sure. It's a shame that some people only want to know the technical aspects of DMT extraction (or other substances) but not the human aspects of it (ritual, meaning, mind investigation, etc). In my humble opinion, nexus has a way more mature ethics and drug approach than many people out there that think that "harm reduction" consists in prohibiting every substance, and makes society deal with violence and drug trafficking. But I will not get myself into that kind of discussion here, since it goes against forum policy (no politics policy).
As always an interesting point, Void. For sure, reality is not an objective thing and has values and interpretation in it. I'm just thinking how we, modern western homo sapiens would deal with "pre-modern" or ancient approach of reality. I've read a book once that made it even more tense, which name is "The Falling Sky: Words of a Yanomami Shaman" that is a classic in south american anthropology, originally written in french (La Chute du Ciel: Paroles d'un Chaman Yanomami) is a Yanomami Shaman trying to explain many things to western man, among them, the psychedelic shamanic experience, and a very interesting "reverse ethnography" (since he observes and talks about the white man in a really original way).
Thank you for reading it. Just answering the question of a fellow forum member.
Last edited:
Franklin2100
Esteemed member
Why would you do that ?
What's your agenda or what's the point in doing such things that Im aware of that gets repeated.
It's that point that is to not talk about politics but then you talk about race theory ....
Why do that ?
Why say no politics and then bring up race theory with a little french culture plug in there , why ?
Btw Free Palestine and Ukraines leadership is a joke. They're sacrificing their own men for no reason at all.
Blind_Goat
Esteemed member
I don't know what you mean with "Race theory". I tend to have a more philosophical/scientific approach so, since "race theory" was already considered pseudoscience for almost 100 years now in Social Sciences and philosophy, I don't really know what are you talking about. I would appreciate an explanation.
No politics
Simply and officially, this forum will no longer permit political discussion and discourse. Of all the topics that people can argue about, almost anywhere, politics tend to do the most damage. This forum is no exception, and it has become apparent that it is unreasonable to expect people to...
forum.dmt-nexus.me
Franklin2100
Esteemed member
"since he observes and talks about the WHITE MAN in a really original way"I don't know what you call "Race theory". I tend to have a more philosophical/scientific approach so, since "race theory" was already considered pseudoscience for almost 100 years now in Social Sciences and philosophy, I don't really know what are you talking about. I would appreciate an explanation.
No politics
Simply and officially, this forum will no longer permit political discussion and discourse. Of all the topics that people can argue about, almost anywhere, politics tend to do the most damage. This forum is no exception, and it has become apparent that it is unreasonable to expect people to...
"that is a classic in south american anthropology, originally written in FRENCH"
Why mention anything about race??
Like what led you to mention that and also mention that it was originally written in french?
Ive been noticing this trend alot .
Maybe you can just be completely honest about your intention and not try any manipulation techniques for once and just be straight forward.
Blind_Goat
Esteemed member
Here "white man" designates many things, but mostly western people. In shaman's words "nape". It isn't racial in this context, but a description of a cultural shock. He does not have a "racial theory" neither do I as far as I can understand what you mean.
It goes without saying that "French" is not a race, but a nationality. The idea of saying that it was written in French was just to provide a historical and cultural overview that engendered the ethnography in question noted by Bruce Albert trying to organize the speeches of David Kopenawa (the shaman)
I'm being honest with my intentions, but I assume it's a little difficult to understand your line of reasoning.