I didn't realize rats made forum posts...
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Zero proof DMT is made in your head.
- Thread starter Orion
- Start date
The Neural
Rising Star
prelim said:
The title of the thread is "made in your head", not "found in your head".
You also may find that others appreciate a normal font when posting, since it's the content of the post that we're interested in, not how flashy it looks.
The Neural said:
Read the article...
"Our new data now establish that the enzyme actively produces DMT in the pineal."
The Neural
Rising Star
universecannon said:
Read & think.
"Research at the University of Wisconsin has recently demonstrated the presence of the DMT-synthesizing enzyme as well as activity of the gene responsible for the enzyme in pineal (and retina)."
It's a very clever workaround, and a rather indirect route to be able to infer what this "means". It's wise to wait for the actual study.
?
Obviously we are waiting for the actual study. I don't know why one would assume that i'm saying this proves 100% that dmt is made by the pineal when we haven't even seen the study.
And it still stands that they are claiming to have demonstrated that the pineal actively produces dmt, at least based on this article. What you quoted is a reference to a different study that further supports this one....not the study in question.
"Research at the University of Wisconsin has recently demonstrated the presence of the DMT-synthesizing enzyme as well as activity of the gene responsible for the enzyme in pineal (and retina). Our new data now establish that the enzyme actively produces DMT in the pineal."
Obviously we are waiting for the actual study. I don't know why one would assume that i'm saying this proves 100% that dmt is made by the pineal when we haven't even seen the study.
And it still stands that they are claiming to have demonstrated that the pineal actively produces dmt, at least based on this article. What you quoted is a reference to a different study that further supports this one....not the study in question.
"Research at the University of Wisconsin has recently demonstrated the presence of the DMT-synthesizing enzyme as well as activity of the gene responsible for the enzyme in pineal (and retina). Our new data now establish that the enzyme actively produces DMT in the pineal."
Who is this cottonwood research ? Is this their data ?
'Our new data now establish that the enzyme actively produces DMT in the pineal'
I think they mean 'has established' or 'establishes'. Credibility something something hint hint.
So these folks conducted the research? This website calling it 'Our' new data...
'Our new data now establish that the enzyme actively produces DMT in the pineal'
I think they mean 'has established' or 'establishes'. Credibility something something hint hint.
So these folks conducted the research? This website calling it 'Our' new data...
The Neural
Rising Star
universecannon said:
I don't believe I mentioned anywhere that "you" deemed that proven, only to the bumper, yet you jumped up to tell me to "read" it.
We are either skeptical of everything or nothing. Statistically speaking, a good percentage of studies may have very complex methodology and sometimes not showing what they were aiming for. My original comment may have been out of context, but it still stands that we should not rush into believing even the researcher who (in a blog) claims that "my study now establishes this and that".
My objection still stands, that someone advertising their positive results beforehand does not warrant an accurate study at all; only the study will. Fingers crossed.
I'm not saying it is an accurate study or anything like that. Just that everyone who keeps claiming its only about dmts presence in the pineal and not about its production in the gland seem to be mistaken, at least according to what Strassman wrote in that link. We have to wait and see for sure, obviously
I'm skeptical and not suggesting we rush into believing anything
I'm skeptical and not suggesting we rush into believing anything
The Neural
Rising Star
universecannon said:
Agreed
My bad for the first part indeed.
hug46
Esteemed member
moniker said:
You can change 100 in the box to any amount you wish to donate. Rick Strassman is the president. I think it is good that they are trying work out for sure whats going on.
This pineal gland thing is a real hot potato. It should be written in a sub heading on our attitude page that NO-ONE is allowed to discuss the pineal in absolute terms until an exhaustive peer reviewed paper on the subject has been published for a minimum of 5 years.
causmic
Rising Star
This has been an interesting and opinionated read, and I'm no scientist, a lot of it is over my head, but it seems to me that as the conversation goes on the skeptics are steadily losing ground. As more and more evidence is presented that seems to indicate DMT is produced in the brain (non-conclusively), the OP and the like still refuse to budge, simply because the evidence is "not conclusive", even though highly indicative.
Healthy skepticism is healthy. Cynical skepticism is cynical.
Rewind time a while, and the OP would probably be the guy going around saying "There is ZERO evidence that the world is round."
My $.02. Just sayin
Healthy skepticism is healthy. Cynical skepticism is cynical.
Rewind time a while, and the OP would probably be the guy going around saying "There is ZERO evidence that the world is round."
My $.02. Just sayin
Guys (and girls?), please, lets not turn this into a silly debate whether DMT is in the pineal or not, this is not for us to argue, this is for science to confirm or not.
The necessity of skepticism/rationality/prudence here is not about denying DMT being produced in the pineal, but to not claim something is (or isn't) before we know it for a fact.
The necessity of skepticism/rationality/prudence here is not about denying DMT being produced in the pineal, but to not claim something is (or isn't) before we know it for a fact.
Correct endlessness, as I tried to reflect in the title and it's early revision.
I still can't take that 'our data establish' sentence
I still can't take that 'our data establish' sentence
It's probably just me alpha but it sounds engrish to me is all, I don't want a debate about it.
But as for you sonny jim... no I will not budge and neither should anyone else until there is evidence. If everyone hadn't peddled the pineal... 'theory' .. in the first place so much...
We will respectfully give way to new evidence, welcome it with open arms. But so far, no such cigar.
causmic said:This has been an interesting and opinionated read, and I'm no scientist, a lot of it is over my head, but it seems to me that as the conversation goes on the skeptics are steadily losing ground. As more and more evidence is presented that seems to indicate DMT is produced in the brain (non-conclusively), the OP and the like still refuse to budge, simply because the evidence is "not conclusive", even though highly indicative.
Healthy skepticism is healthy. Cynical skepticism is cynical.
Rewind time a while, and the OP would probably be the guy going around saying "There is ZERO evidence that the world is round."
My $.02. Just sayin
But as for you sonny jim... no I will not budge and neither should anyone else until there is evidence. If everyone hadn't peddled the pineal... 'theory' .. in the first place so much...
We will respectfully give way to new evidence, welcome it with open arms. But so far, no such cigar.
coz42
Rising Star
I think the descent of DMT in the human body has become a bit of an infatuation. We clearly have much to understand about neurology and the metabolization of the many tryptamines that are found in the body. You may indeed be looking at the incorrect molecule. In fact, pinoline has been identified to produced as the endogenous component of the pineal gland with similar concentrations and circadian release patterns to those of melatonin; potentially the mediator for the dream sequence. It's even similar to the chemical structure of harmine.
It's quite droll if you ask me. The body is such an odd thing wouldn't you agree?
Hell, I see weird things when I eat potatoes :twisted:
It's quite droll if you ask me. The body is such an odd thing wouldn't you agree?
Hell, I see weird things when I eat potatoes :twisted:
causmic
Rising Star
Orion said:It's probably just me alpha but it sounds engrish to me is all, I don't want a debate about it.
causmic said:This has been an interesting and opinionated read, and I'm no scientist, a lot of it is over my head, but it seems to me that as the conversation goes on the skeptics are steadily losing ground. As more and more evidence is presented that seems to indicate DMT is produced in the brain (non-conclusively), the OP and the like still refuse to budge, simply because the evidence is "not conclusive", even though highly indicative.
Healthy skepticism is healthy. Cynical skepticism is cynical.
Rewind time a while, and the OP would probably be the guy going around saying "There is ZERO evidence that the world is round."
My $.02. Just sayin
But as for you sonny jim... no I will not budge and neither should anyone else until there is evidence. If everyone hadn't peddled the pineal... 'theory' .. in the first place so much...
We will respectfully give way to new evidence, welcome it with open arms. But so far, no such cigar.
Bringing new evidence into question over the grammar used to deliver it, and using that as an excuse to not even consider it doesn't seem very welcoming, IMO. I just don't understand the skepticism, really. If this isn't just a campaign against Joe Rogan and/or The Spirit Molecule for whatever reason then prove it by being open to the information!
Historically, we have consistently scientifically described our world based on the furthest implications of our current understanding(s), at that time in history, in whatever field of data you pick. And historically, we always find out that the picture we thought we were looking at is much bigger at some point down the line when we gain better analyzation tools and methods, and in many cases, the furthest imaginings and theorizing from a "genius" of old do not compare to the knowledge which a modern day child posesses, because although the genius had the right idea, he was wrong.
The "discovery" that 99% of our DNA is "junk" is a great example of this. This is obviously not true, but we make it true based on our very limited understanding of DNA. It's not that 99% is "junk" we have just only come to understand 1% of it so far. The junk DNA theory is in the process of being dismantled as we speak though, with some studies involving coding and modifying DNA using vibrationally tuned lazers. We will eventually come to learn how utterly wrong we were about this once we are using a better understanding as a point of contemplation.
Human history is rife with scientific conclusions being jumped to and then overturned based on better understandings as data compounds over time, so we can use that itself as "scientific data", and quite safely say that we are going to come to learn that whatever is really going on in a 'psychedelic experience' is more complex than we had ever dreamed, simply since this subject inherently involves some of the least understood concepts, scientifically speaking (consciousness/perception, dimensions, etc. etc. etc.) and at this point we actually have no idea what is really going on.
In reality, the subject of the psychedelic experience may be the most scientifically complex subject we have ever tried to make sense of as humans, and since we currently know next to nothing, there is obviously so much more to be discovered.
How can one ignore the indicators just because that avenue has not been concluded in its course of study? It's very typical when dealing with complex theories to have indicators of something which can't be verified, which lead to the eventual verification of what was indicated. How about the Higgs-Boson, for example? Arguably the most important scientific discovery of all time to date. The LHC was constructed based on a plethora of indicators. We had no idea if we would really find a Higgs-Boson, it just really seemed like we would. And guess what. We found it.
Sometimes, (in the case of the LHC) you even need to assume that what is indicated is true in order to verify it.
So again, I just don't really understand the heavy skepticism at this point. There seems to have been information posted since you started this thread which you were not privy to, and are now resisting. Perhaps you're not being as open as you think? Remember, the world was flat at one time.