The Improbability of Hyperspace

[jamie]

"mate i am on a forum trying to have a meaningfull and rational discussion with people. in order to do soneither i nor thay can take any of those forms of solipsism to be true otherwise it renders my or there discussion meaningless. does that mean one of those forms of solipsism are not true. no it is possible they are true. but in order to be doing what i am doing here i cant take them as the truth"

Well, I agree that we cant really discuss this stuff in a ration mannor past a certain point..everything(science included) has it's boundries and once you pass them what follows is philosophy. There is no way around that.

I dont agree that it renders all scientific knowledge as meaningless though. I would not use that term. It would render much of it only subjectivly relevant though. If the current conscentual paradigm is in fact subjective, then the science that supports it is still relative to that paradigm. It is just not a universal truth. Science measures processes within a system..that is what it does. To question the relevance of such a system on the level we are talking about is just beyond the scope of science at this point.

I cant possibly imagine humans at this time holding universal truths to be honest. We are one tiny little speck of a planet sitting on the edge of a little galaxy in a cosmos full of things we cant even fathom. Who ever said we should have the ultimate truth?

 

[Perderabo]

"mate i am on a forum trying to have a meaningfull and rational discussion with people. in order to do soneither i nor thay can take any of those forms of solipsism to be true otherwise it renders my or there discussion meaningless. does that mean one of those forms of solipsism are not true. no it is possible they are true. but in order to be doing what i am doing here i cant take them as the truth"

Well, I agree that we cant really discuss this stuff in a ration mannor past a certain point..everything(science included) has it's boundries and once you pass them what follows is philosophy. There is no way around that.

I dont agree that it renders all scientific knowledge as meaningless though. I would not use that term. It would render much of it only subjectivly relevant though. If the current conscentual paradigm is in fact subjective, then the science that supports it is still relative to that paradigm. It is just not a universal truth. Science measures processes within a system..that is what it does. To question the relevance of such a system on the level we are talking about is just beyond the scope of science at this point.

I cant possibly imagine humans at this time holding universal truths to be honest. We are one tiny little speck of a planet sitting on the edge of a little galaxy in a cosmos full of things we cant even fathom. Who ever said we should have the ultimate truth?

I agree with you here. it is for practical reasons why i reject all forms of solipsism because the natural end state of taking it as truth is realising you cant even know whether you cant know anything about anything. and then there is no where to go from there. atleast taking every day reality at face value provides you with something to work with. despite whether it is actually "reality" or not

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

no what you dont get is that if you take that route you have nothing to base any further arguments or discussion upon. language, experience, knowledge thoughts etc etc all becomes meaningless. so if that is what you believe then fine but then the discussion ends here for you. because to have any sort of rational or meaningfull discussion past that point then it cannot be taken as the truth

This is simply not true.

You might fear that all meaning has gone when you entertain the notion that your world is not real, but that is not the case. Dreams can still be immensely meaningful and important, even when one fully knows them to be dreams.

Even if we were computer simulations programmed to believe we were human, that would change nothing about our everyday existence. We would still be confronted with this reality every day. We would still get hungry, still argue with our significant others, still enjoy the Jimmy Fallon Show... still dig hearing Bob Marley etc.

 

[joedirt]

Awareness is the fundamental particle that binds everything together.

Any attempt to disprove that statement or water it down will result in a circular argument that depends upon awareness.

Awareness gives rise to consciousness. What more is there really to say?

 

[gibran2]

"The simplest use of brain-in-a-vat scenarios is as an argument for philosophical skepticism and solipsism. A simple version of this runs as follows: Since the brain in a vat gives and receives exactly the same impulses as it would if it were in a skull, and since these are its only way of interacting with its environment, then it is not possible to tell, from the perspective of that brain, whether it is in a skull or a vat. Yet in the first case most of the person's beliefs may be true (if he believes, say, that he is walking down the street, or eating ice-cream); in the latter case they are false. Since the argument says one cannot know whether he or she is a brain in a vat, then he or she cannot know whether most of his or her beliefs might be completely false. Since, in principle, it is impossible to rule out oneself being a brain in a vat, there cannot be good grounds for believing any of the things one believes; one certainly cannot know them."

as you can see this is saying the same thing that you are, which is there is no way to know if everyday reality is actualy reality or not.

Yes, so what’s your point?

Now this only renders everything meaningless when it is taken seriously. lets say i believe i am a brain in the jar, now tell me why should i think that any one else is real. murdering you would have the same moral implication of shooting someone in a video game so that is morality becoming meaningless.you could not have a maeningfull discussion because they are not real, there will be no point in having an argument or anything as language is based upon our perception of "reality" but "reality" is a lie. there will be no point in going to school or learning as it would all be based upon a fiction and all you learned could be lies. and on top of that there would be no way for me to ever know what reality trully is.

If you are a brain in a jar, the input your brain receives would still come from somewhere, so how would it be a lie?

Existence is what it is. Our inability to understand it does not make it a “lie”. I find it very self-centered and, might I say, even solipsistic that you accuse existence of lying to you because it doesn’t conform to your beliefs!

but then lets go a bit further onto another form of more exotic solopsism.can you prove to me that you are not just a very complicated piece of programing on a advanced computer, with no real consciousness or free will. yes you may say you are conscious but that is only because you have been programmed to do so and in reality you are no more conscious than windows 7( this theory can get alot more complicated than that but this is just the basics)

This entire argument depends heavily on the belief in the primacy of matter paradigm. You assume that matter gives rise to consciousness (or to what appears to be consciousness). This is not necessarily the case. If something like the primacy of consciousness paradigm more accurately reflects existence, then your entire premise is false – it would not be possible for matter in the form of computer code (or any other form) to give rise to consciousness.

 

[Perderabo]

gibran2

mate do you have a problem with memory. you ask me 2 specific questions. and then when i answer you you comment on my answer saying "what is my point". my point was in answering these questions you asked.
"1. Show me specifically where I referred to the "brain in a jar" argument.

2. Explain how the brain in a jar argument is related to solipsism."-gibran2

"If you are a brain in a jar, the input your brain receives would still come from somewhere, so how would it be a lie?

Existence is what it is. Our inability to understand it does not make it a “lie”. I find it very self-centered and, might I say, even solipsistic that you accuse existence of lying to you because it doesn’t conform to your beliefs!"gibran2

can you read what i posted
"Yet in the first case most of the person's beliefs may be true (if he believes, say, that he is walking down the street, or eating ice-cream); in the latter case they are false. "-me
firstly just because those signals come from somewhere doesnt mean they are the truth, as the case i just pointed out. even though i thought i was walking down the street eating an icecream the reality is that i was just a brain in a jar being lied to.

secondly please dont try accuse me of arguing for solipsism. reality conforms perfectly well to my beliefs so far. and you are the one who is using an argument that is inherently solopsistic in nature not me. i am just using a reductio ad absurdum to take your argument to its logical conclusion that it is then imposible to know anything about anything, not even whether we are conscious.

"This entire argument depends heavily on the belief in the primacy of matter paradigm. You assume that matter gives rise to consciousness (or to what appears to be consciousness). This is not necessarily the case. If something like the primacy of consciousness paradigm more accurately reflects existence, then your entire premise is false – it would not be possible for matter in the form of computer code (or any other form) to give rise to consciousness" gibran2

again can you read what i actualy said. this does not depend on the primacy of matter since the program called you wouldnt actualy be conscious
"but then lets go a bit further onto another form of more exotic solopsism.can you prove to me that you are not just a very complicated piece of programing on a advanced computer, with no real consciousness or free will. yes you may say you are conscious but that is only because you have been programmed to do so and in reality you are NO MORE CONSCIOUS THAN WINDOWS 7"-me

and lastly. since i cant claim every day reality is "real" unless i can prove it then how can you claim you are conscious unless you can prove it?

 

[gibran2]

Why so argumentative?

As I said, existence is what it is.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

even though i thought i was walking down the street eating an icecream the reality is that i was just a brain in a jar being lied to.

Ummm... hate to break it to you, but whether your brain is in a jar or in a skull, the stimuli you interpret as reality has frighteningly little resemblance to what you perceive in your mind. You assume that the apparently external stimuli that reaches your sense organs is "real," but as with dreaming (where you have no physical eyes or ears) the brain can create very realistic and even hyperrealistic scenes without a single drop of external stimuli at all.

You seem to think that our inability to prove that anything exists other than our own consciousness is solipsism. It is not.

Solipsism in its true phiosophical useage means the belief that no one but yourself exists. No one here ever claimed that. Even the agnostic and epistemological solipsisms only say that we can not be sure that anyone else exists, and none of this precludes any debate or renders any experience meaningless as you insist. Recognizing an obvious truth about our limits renders everything meaningless? Ridiculous.

Even your oft touted "brain in a vat" theory is not solipsism. It might be loosely related to solipsism, but such a concept actually implies the existence of other minds. Otherwise who is feeding stimuli to the brain in a vat? Who programed the machine?

secondly please dont try accuse me of arguing for solipsism. reality conforms perfectly well to my beliefs so far. and you are the one who is using an argument that is inherently solopsistic in nature not me. i am just using a reductio ad absurdum to take your argument to its logical conclusion that it is then imposible to know anything about anything, not even whether we are conscious.

Well you did try and dismiss my friend SWIM's experience by suggesting that he somehow fell asleep while meditating and then had a false awakening where he simply imagined the proof of his OOBE. This is not solipsism, but it is very close to what you have been trying to call solipsistic in other people's logic.

Furthermore, since the horseshit was still in the street 24 hours later, and the private rooms of SWIM's friends remained matching to his vision of their contents even weeks later... SWIM would have to have been dreaming for months at least. In fact, he could still be dreaming. Only that would mean that you yourself are simply a character in his dream.

i am just using a reductio ad absurdum to take your argument to its logical conclusion that it is then imposible to know anything about anything, not even whether we are conscious.

Reductio Ad Absurdum is a classic logical fallacy. I don't wanna speculate on whether or not you have studied logic, but even a primer sheet for a high school debate team would tell you that such arguments are not valid. They prove absolutely nothing and simply attempt to set up a straw man that you can then tear down.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people who value hard science never seem to have much of a grasp on logic. It should be required study for all majors. Simply being a champion of scientific materialism does not render one an expert on logic or epistemology. As I have said before, scientific materialism is actually an irrational philosophic stance. It is not based on logic, but on inductive reasoning... which as you know can not even be used in a logical argument.

and lastly. since i cant claim every day reality is "real" unless i can prove it then how can you claim you are conscious unless you can prove it?

Ummm... this is basic philosophy 101 stuff my friend. Descartes said "I think therefore I am." No one has even tried to disprove that dictum. I know of no logical challenges to this. So if you think that denial of consciousness is a valid stance you are on your own, philosophically speaking. Afterall, a brain in a vat, a self-aware computer program AI, a conscious being that lives in a dream world... all are still conscious regardless of the objective truth of their supposed realities.

I think you are grasping at straws.

 

[Perderabo]

even though i thought i was walking down the street eating an icecream the reality is that i was just a brain in a jar being lied to.

Ummm... hate to break it to you, but whether your brain is in a jar or in a skull, the stimuli you interpret as reality has frighteningly little resemblance to what you perceive in your mind. You assume that the apparently external stimuli that reaches your sense organs is "real," but as with dreaming (where you have no physical eyes or ears) the brain can create very realistic and even hyperrealistic scenes without a single drop of external stimuli at all.

You seem to think that our inability to prove that anything exists other than our own consciousness is solipsism. It is not.

Solipsism in its true phiosophical useage means the belief that no one but yourself exists. No one here ever claimed that. Even the agnostic and epistemological solipsisms only say that we can not be sure that anyone else exists, and none of this precludes any debate or renders any experience meaningless as you insist. Recognizing an obvious truth about our limits renders everything meaningless? Ridiculous.

Even your oft touted "brain in a vat" theory is not solipsism. It might be loosely related to solipsism, but such a concept actually implies the existence of other minds. Otherwise who is feeding stimuli to the brain in a vat? Who programed the machine?

secondly please dont try accuse me of arguing for solipsism. reality conforms perfectly well to my beliefs so far. and you are the one who is using an argument that is inherently solopsistic in nature not me. i am just using a reductio ad absurdum to take your argument to its logical conclusion that it is then imposible to know anything about anything, not even whether we are conscious.

Well you did try and dismiss my friend SWIM's experience by suggesting that he somehow fell asleep while meditating and then had a false awakening where he simply imagined the proof of his OOBE. This is not solipsism, but it is very close to what you have been trying to call solipsistic in other people's logic.

Furthermore, since the horseshit was still in the street 24 hours later, and the private rooms of SWIM's friends remained matching to his vision of their contents even weeks later... SWIM would have to have been dreaming for months at least. In fact, he could still be dreaming. Only that would mean that you yourself are simply a character in his dream.

i am just using a reductio ad absurdum to take your argument to its logical conclusion that it is then imposible to know anything about anything, not even whether we are conscious.

Reductio Ad Absurdum is a classic logical fallacy. I don't wanna speculate on whether or not you have studied logic, but even a primer sheet for a high school debate team would tell you that such arguments are not valid. They prove absolutely nothing and simply attempt to set up a straw man that you can then tear down.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people who value hard science never seem to have much of a grasp on logic. It should be required study for all majors. Simply being a champion of scientific materialism does not render one an expert on logic or epistemology. As I have said before, scientific materialism is actually an irrational philosophic stance. It is not based on logic, but on inductive reasoning... which as you know can not even be used in a logical argument.

and lastly. since i cant claim every day reality is "real" unless i can prove it then how can you claim you are conscious unless you can prove it?

Ummm... this is basic philosophy 101 stuff my friend. Descartes said "I think therefore I am." No one has even tried to disprove that dictum. I know of no logical challenges to this. So if you think that denial of consciousness is a valid stance you are on your own, philosophically speaking. Afterall, a brain in a vat, a self-aware computer program AI, a conscious being that lives in a dream world... all are still conscious regardless of the objective truth of their supposed realities.

I think you are grasping at straws.

Firstly reductio ad absurdum is perfectly valid when used properly, and it is still used in everything from philosophy to mathematics( in mathematics it is called proof by contradiction)
"Reductio ad absurdum is the technique of reducing an argument or hypothesis to absurdity, by pushing the argument's premises or conclusions to their logical limits and showing how ridiculous the consequences would be, thus disproving or discrediting the argument.

This has roots in the Socratic method, and has been employed throughout the history of logic, mathematics, philosophy and the philosophy of science.


Validity and fallacious use

Reductio ad absurdum is only valid when it builds on assertions which are actually present in the argument it is deconstructing, and not when it misrepresents them as a straw man."

Now your friend argued that i cant say every day reality is real because i cannot prove it. then fine but then he cannot say consciusness, reality, thought or anything is real unless he can prove it. and since he's own argument relies on things he cannot prove hes argument becomes invalid by he's own criteria.

i have used no straw man there, i have used no fallacious contradictions and have worked up from hes own assertions. so my reductio ad absurdum is valid.

It amazes me how people who value this woo woo never seem to have much of a grasp on logic. It should be required study for all .


secondly the brain in a jar hypothesis is a type of solipsism and you are mistaken claiming it is not . it is a form solipsism called Methodological solipsism. If you do not belive me look it up and educate yourself.

thirdly i see you will poopoo all over inductive reasoning. fine i undestand inductive reasoning is flawed, but then tell me what do you propose instead of inductive reasoning? the only alternative i cann think of is deductive reasoning. but then dont you know that deductive reasoning is just as fataly flawed as inductive reasoning? and that is because there is no way to prove a deductive argument is sound except with more deductive arguments. but then you need to prove those new arguments are sound with even more deductive arguments ad infinitum. and then pretty soon you have a major infestation of turtles, all the way down as the say. or otherwise known as the circular reasoning fallacy


and lastly- I think theforer i exist ( or better known as cogito ergo sum) has been criticized in a variety of ways from many philosophers from Bernard Williams to David Hume. so again your claim that "this is basic philosophy 101 stuff my friend. Descartes said "I think therefore I am." No one has even tried to disprove that dictum. I know of no logical challenges to this" only highlights your own ignorance and the fact you might need a philosophy lesson or better yet a whole class on them .

Now for someone who has the gall to criticize my understanding of philosophy and logic you seem to have very very little grasp of the subject yourself. And as for the othe points you raised i suggest you reread what i said again as you have either miss comprehended or willfuly miss-represented what i have said

 

[gibran2]

@ Perderabo - Have you ever used DMT?


Also, have you bothered to read the title of this thread?

 

[DeMenTed]

The reality is that im still under the influence of nitrous oxide gas at the dentist 25 years ago and you are all a figment of my imagination.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Now for someone who has the gall to criticize my understanding of philosophy and logic you seem to have very very little grasp of the subject yourself. And as for the othe points you raised i suggest you reread what i said again as you have either miss comprehended or willfuly miss-represented what i have said

You seem to be very defensive and argumentative, and my better judgement tells me not to keep this up with you... but a few of your statements cry for clarification.

Saying that the Universe could be based on consciousness, is not the same as saying that the Universe is certainly and totally material. Gibran2 and others here have only offered up possible alternative options to your materialism, not insisted that they are true. On the contrary he continually says that he doesn't know and believes that such things can not be known.

Furthermore, speculations on the extistence of Hyperspace do not rely on a primacy of consciousness model, a brain in a vat model, or any of the handful of variations on Solipsism. Your insistance to make the argument about solipsism and proof of consciousness amounts to a classic red herring fallacy here.

Deny that your so-called use of reductio ad absurdum is based on assertions that have not been asserted or other straw men, all you want, but a simple read through of the points that have been made here will show that you are reducing other people's arguments to absurdities that are not only not implicit in the argument, but are actually completely other than what has been asserted.

Futhermore, while the reductio ad absurdum ploy can work in simple mathematical arguments (which this is not), it is rarely every acceptable in any actual debate. This is because it nearly always falls prey to "slippery slope" fallacies, and is often used to back up (or be backed up by) the continuum fallacy.

Cartesian insistance that the act of thinking is proof of existence is not actually challenged by David Hume. I don't know where you get that. There are a lot of philosophical subtle points where diversions arise, but Hume (as an empiricist) never argued that we don't exist or can not prove ourselves to be conscious. Your saying that proof of materialism is on the same order as proof of conscious existence is laughable and unfounded. If your wild conjecture was true, than you could be the first philosopher in history to disprove Solipsism.

BTW, saying that a brain in a vat analogy is Methodological Solipsism is not the same as saying it is Solipsism... which is what you have been saying. And, while some Methodological Solipsists might entertain the brain in the vat idea as an argument to support their "weak agnostic" stance on reality, even there, it is by no means synonymous. As I said before, a brain in a vat implies the existence of other minds.

Meanwhile, no one but you is claiming brain in a vat anyway, and even if we were claiming full-bore Solipsism (as opposed to the agnostic kind which most empiricists and rationalists claim to some degree (including Hume), there is no reason that such a stance renders "everything" meaningless, or precludes debate. Plenty of solipsists engage in meaningful debates.

Your insinuation that I need to study philosophy is ad hominem. While my college days are long past, and I might need a refresher course, or keep up a bit better on some of the more recent consensus stances on certain points... my understanding of logic and philosophy is just fine. Quoting a bit of wikipedia to back up an argument that doesn't even fit your quotes does not give you the high ground here.

If you don't want to even leave any room for the faintest notion that Hyperspace might be real, and its entities autonomous... fine. No one is trying to convince you. I think that if you yourself had had some confirmatory experiences that were undeniable, you might change your tune... but who cares? SWIM thinks he would have lost interest in DMT if he felt it was all just a meaningless brainfart... and even the "exploring your subconscious" idea, falls awfully flat for him, but then, to each their own.

 

[DMT Psychonaut]

Well thanks Hypserpace Fool for re-awakening this thread, it's been a great read, but these last two pages are starting to get a little redundant with the whole solipsism argument. :roll:

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Well thanks Hypserpace Fool for re-awakening this thread, it's been a great read, but these last two pages are starting to get a little redundant with the whole solipsism argument. :roll:

I agree, that it would be nice to return to the main issue at hand. After all, as circular as this debate tends to get, it is a central and important theme for anyone who spends their time playing with any of the variations of dimethyltriptamine.

Some people say that it doesn't matter whether the entities are real. Many say that it is quite likely that nothing is "real" and that Hyperspace could be as real as our consensus life, but that isn't saying a whole lot. The subtle variations on what constitutes reality and how much of that we could or should attribute to the place that DMT takes people are myriad.

And, of course, we have the large contingent of people who believe thoroughly and fundamentally in the apparent consensual material world and no other, alternate, higher dimensions, mental, astral, or non-corporeal worlds exist whatsoever. They will say that Hyperspace is misfiring neurons or pure subconscious daydreaming regardless of philosophical jibber jabber or theoretical physics.

The only scientific human experiments on DMT in recent years (Strassman) have concluded that nearly everyone he tested had the experience of going to an alien world and interacting with alien entities. This is not the ramblings of a cult guru, or the speculations of hippies. This is not a poll taken at burning man. (Personally, the ramblings of such people tend to be more interesting than actual scientists... for me, anyway.) This is the only scientific knowledge we have. I think scientists who poo poo it are simply expressing knee jerk reactions.

I say, it does matter if these things are autonomous from your egoic mind. They could still be part of one's sub or unconsious, as there are philosophical stances that point towards a collective unconsciousness. The question is, "Do they know things that you don't know?" or more poignantly, "Will they tell you things you could not have known otherwise?"

These are the questions that interest me, and have kept SWIM coming backt to the Divine Moments Of Truth again and again for 2 decades. I hope we can address some of that here, as I think the brain trust of the Nexus is the best place to explore this.

 

[endlessness]

The question is, "Do they know things that you don't know?" or more poignantly, "Will they tell you things you could not have known otherwise?"

The original idea of S.H.E. was to answer these questions. Nothing came out of it (so far?) .. Do you have any proposed experiment where we could try to get these answers?

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

The question is, "Do they know things that you don't know?" or more poignantly, "Will they tell you things you could not have known otherwise?"

The original idea of S.H.E. was to answer these questions. Nothing came out of it (so far?) .. Do you have any proposed experiment where we could try to get these answers?

Actually, the idea of SHE was to see if psychonauts in different locations could meet up in Hyperspace. This is a different hypothesis entirely.

Furthermore, the SHE idea has had some results when done by people in the same location.

Thus, the only area where we haven't had success is in people simultaneously entering hyperspace in remote locations while trying to co-ordinate in a chat room. There are a lot of explanations for Hyperspace which could explain this (i.e. that Hyperspace is a higher dimension or alternate reality connected spatially to this one, and as such people in different locations would access different areas of it and encounter different entities). It could simply be that people here are not sufficiently skilled in navigation to find other psychonauts.

(not belittling any of us, this is not easy stuff to do when one can barely keep one's jaw off the floor.)

It could be that people lucid enough to chat about their experience or sit in front of a computer are not deep enough to get the job done. While SWIM has had a few amazing breakthroughs while in the chat room (actually goes away from the computer and comes back 15 min later), this does not strike me as a clinical study of the phenomenon.

*********

Anyway, SHEing aside, my questions have only been able to be answered by taking the information received from entities (or perceived from Hyperspace on one's own)... and then proving their veracity to oneself.

This is easy, and happens regularly for SWIM. It is unlikely to provide proof for skeptics, though. While I can imagine a testing protocol that could produce scientifically valid evidence, I can not imagine one that I myself would be willing to subject myself to. The idea of tripping in clinical conditions seems abhorrent to me.

At any rate, I could care less what skeptics think. I don't go around trying to convince skeptics about my experiences with tantric yoga (multiple male orgasms without ejaculation etc.) either. They are the one's missing out... not me.

 

[endlessness]

Actually, the idea of SHE was to see if psychonauts in different locations could meet up in Hyperspace. This is a different hypothesis entirely.

This also, but not exclusively. When the idea of SHE originally came up, we thought of several other ways to test the validity of hyperspace, not just meeting each other. One of them was to use a random number generator and see if we could statistically change it during our access to hyperspace. Another was to try to ask entities questions that we couldnt know the answers to. Another one was thinking of runes/symbols and trying to meet others and/or see the symbols other psychonauts imprinted in hyperspace.

"Furthermore, the SHE idea has had some results when done by people in the same location. "

care to share?

Thus, the only area where we haven't had success is in people simultaneously entering hyperspace in remote locations while trying to co-ordinate in a chat room.

We havent had success so far in any of the proposed areas AFAIK. You just mentioned for the first time some success so Im wondering what was that..

There are a lot of explanations for Hyperspace which could explain this (i.e. that Hyperspace is a higher dimension or alternate reality connected spatially to this one, and as such people in different locations would access different areas of it and encounter different entities). It could simply be that people here are not sufficiently skilled in navigation to find other psychonauts.

This is certainly true, the SHE idea is quite "naive" in a way, and hyperspace may still exist beyond our subjective minds and yet we might not (yet?) be able to prove this. But we should still try to, imo, to come up with ways to test it, from different angles. I mean, several things in physics were first untestable, and then with advances in technology or simply thinking outside the box, they became an object of scientific experiments.

Of course you know and I know that, scientific experiments aside, hyperspace is still incredible and life-changing, and that one result or another wont take out the beauty and mistery of the experience, but I see it as a very valid endeavor, to, while also exploring it subjectively and surrendering to the experience, also exploring it rationally and scientifically and seeing what we can get out of it that way too.

Anyway, SHEing aside, my questions, have only been able to be answered by taking the information received from entities or perceived from Hyperspace on one's own... and then proving their veracity to oneself.

This is easy, and happens regularly for SWIM. It is unlikely to provide proof for skeptics, though.

Independent of 'proving to skeptics', do you care to share some examples? Im curious !

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

care to share?

&

Independent of 'proving to skeptics', do you care to share some examples? Im curious !

Well, I have posted one example that occurred over 20 years ago (back when I, myself, was still at least somewhat skeptical) on this very thread already. (post #153)

This is not even in the top 10 of SWIM's personal proofs, and it is not really Hyperspace specific, as SWIM has been able to OOBE, astral project and have expanded awareness without drugs. But I described it here because (without resorting to Perderabo's speculation that SWIM was dreaming the proof) it marked one of the first times SWIM was unable to deny or shrug off one of his extra-normal mystical experiences.

I could elucidate plenty of even more striking events, but I had a hard time deciding to even post this one. I am not keen on exposing sacred experiences with the world at large to have them ridiculed or debased. This is not a private conversation we are having, as you know. And, anecdotal tales of the experiences of "drug addled freaks," regardless of how titillating and juicy, will never do anything to convince anyone.

Perhaps at some point I will post a proper trip report which includes some of SWIM's personal proof... it would deserve its own thread though, as even what I put here already has been glossed over and given little respect or attention in favor of the debate on whether cogito does indeed ergo sum.



As for local SHE success, SWIM as well as a number of us on chat, have shared examples of people in the same room sharing hallucinations, managing telepathy, hearing the same messages from entities who looked the same etc. etc.

I have not compiled all such talk, but it is even sprinkled throughout the forum postings as well. If you read enough trip reports, you will find that such things are reported quite frequently. Pop into chat and ask just the people there if they have ever had such experiences and I suspect you will find that more than one will confirm it.

 

[dmtk2852]

Of course you know and I know that, scientific experiments aside, hyperspace is still incredible and life-changing, and that one result or another wont take out the beauty and mistery of the experience, but I see it as a very valid endeavor, to, while also exploring it subjectively and surrendering to the experience, also exploring it rationally and scientifically and seeing what we can get out of it that way too.

Anyway, SHEing aside, my questions, have only been able to be answered by taking the information received from entities or perceived from Hyperspace on one's own... and then proving their veracity to oneself.

This is easy, and happens regularly for SWIM. It is unlikely to provide proof for skeptics, though.

Independent of 'proving to skeptics', do you care to share some examples? Im curious !

Good point. This reminds me of the people who can't view the world/universe as beautiful,marvelous, grand or incredible if they don't have a supernatural reason for its existence.
I find the same with spice, I believe its incredible, life changing, mysterious, marvelous and magical without having to attribute some ridiculous explanation for what I think is being over-complicated.

Spice is an amazing tool for anybody, and even while not necessarily believing in all of the ideas discussed here, I'm not going to knock the experience at all if it just a "brain-fart" as HyperspaceFool put it.

The real idea is that we don't know and if we debate all day, we're not going to get the answer any time soon

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

The real idea is that we don't know and if we debate all day, we're not going to get the answer any time soon

Well, that is not exactly true in my opinion. WE (in terms of the abstract notion of human scientific understanding) are unlikely to figure this out, but we (as individuals) already are... and have been for millennia.

The thing about such advanced mystical practices as Astral Projection, WILDing, Intentional Satori, psy phenomena... as well as communing with hyperdimensional entities via entheogens... is that such things are not easy for laymen to replicate. They are usually tough enough for dedicated acolytes to master.

While most people will have the entity experience if they consume enough DMT, the ability to maintain one's equilibrium, communicate telepathically, retain the hyperdimensional data they download to you, and remember enough of it when you come down to test it... is beyond most noob psychonauts. IMHO only a fraction of the spicenauts retain even a significant fraction of their experience upon coming down to Earth.

(just read through some trip reports if you doubt me)

It is a lot like dreaming in this way.

The idea that some students of science with a passing interest (or even a negative preconceived view) of these activities will be able to reproduce them clinically is as laughable as the idea that a collection of Mormon, Jehova's Witness, and Evangelistic missionaries will be able to prove or disprove the findings of the Hubble Space Telescope or the Large Hadron Collider...using a prayer circle at a revival.

Scientists are not shaman or mystics. They are not going to be able to read a short book by Robert Monroe and then just manifest an OOBE.

Now, those psychonauts of a scientific bent, who also take the time to learn and master esoteric skills such as deep meditation and lucid dreaming... might be in a position to apply their knowledge of both worlds to come up with better proofs than those that satisfy mystics.

Considering how difficult both fields of knowledge are to master, it is rare that a single person can become a true master of both science and mysticism... especially in this day. With the volume of information needed to enter the scientific priesthood these days, I can't really see where people would have the time to do 5 hours a day of esoteric practice. (the bare minimum considered necessary to become proficient in arts like Internal Kung Fu for example)

Da Vinci and Newton were both mystics. In fact, most of the pioneers of science were occultists, Freemasons, Rosicrucians, deists, astrologers and alchemists. It is unclear exactly when spiritual agnosticism became a prerequisite for science, but in this day, atheism and disdain for anything remotely spiritual seem to go hand in hand with the study of science.

As such, the belief that scientists will "figure" any of this out is hopelessly naive. It is akin to the idea that an Amazonian ayahuascero will pen the grand ultimate unified field theory in mathematical equations, despite his being illiterate.

What I can say, though, is that my personal experiences have more than adequately answered these questions for me. This is not due to me being weak minded or engaging in wishful thinking. On the contrary, I am a hard headed, empirical pragmatist, who disdains the very notion of faith or hope.

Anyway, we will not come to a consensus on this thread. This, however, is not the point of all debate. There is a joy in challenging our conceptions. The very act of explaining something you have thought about to others forces you to comb your tangled thoughts into neat rows of linguistic explication.

This alone makes the endeavor worthwhile.