/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10672134
>We think we had similar hallucinations so magic

Much scientific rigor.

>>10672141
>strawman fallacy to cope with a cognitive dissonance about shattered paradigm

>>10672148
>Strawman fallacy

Nope. You decided to believe in the supernatural because, as you just said, you did drugs with companions and believe yourselves to have had similar hallucinations. If it were genuinely a misrepresentation, you would have corrected me. You didn’t.

>>10672152
but it was a misrepresentation because we didn't just BELIEVE to have had SIMILAR hallucinations. We all HAD the SAME hallucinations.

>>10672157
Congratulations on being the one human on the planet who’s memory is not suspectible to any suggestion or warping.

>>10672165
another strawman. Yikes.

>>10672171
Why’d you just lie again? If it’s a strawman, you’d explain how. You fail to do so yet again. You’re really low hanging fruit.

>>10672197
Schizophrenia.

>>10672183
you're attacking me for being suspectible to suggestion or warping despite not having anything to support it other than your pavlovian response of mocking anything that doesn't fit the paradigm.

>>10672199
>he says that like it's a bad thing

>>10672211
There you go again claiming to be the only person with an unfailing memory.
Literally every human has a memory that is suspectible to suggestion and warping. You’re no different. Stop pretending you are.

this thread needs to go

>>10672220
No, it needs to be deleted.

>>10672215
i used the wrong words. I meant that you don't have anything to say that this is what happened in my case other than IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED BECAUSE CURRENT PARADIGM DOESN'T ALLOW THINGS LIKE THAT

>4 people describes the same thing independently without communicating with each other

how do you explain that?

>>10672233
> I meant that you don't have anything to say that this is what happened in my case other than IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED BECAUSE CURRENT PARADIGM DOESN'T ALLOW THINGS LIKE THAT

Occam’s razor, my dude.

>>10672239
>Occam’s razor, my dude.

thanks for the confirmation you're a retard

>>10672249
Insults aren’t an argument. Try again, or you lose.

>how do you explain that?

Unicorns fly out of my ass. How do you explain that?

>>10672134
Fucking kys retarded /x/ poster

>>10672257
i have few witnesses corroborating my story and i also have an experiment anyone can replicate. Do ayahuasca and see for yourself. What do you have for unicorns?

>>10672275
>i have few witnesses corroborating my story

No, you have a claim that a few witnesses exist somewhere to corroborate your story.

>and i also have an experiment anyone can replicate.

And not get the same results.

>Do ayahuasca and see for yourself.

It’s just DMT. Did it. Saw some hallucinations. Thought nothing of it because it’s just a chemical that makes your brain retarded.

>What do you have for unicorns?

Nothing, exactly like you.

I mean I don't even agree with OP but Occam's Razor faggots make my blood boil.

>>10672134
>materialistic worldview DROPPED
finally some one had seen the light. there is a god. it was right before you the whole time. the great worm . it self inserted in consumer electronics. the almighty wire coil. it is the inductor, electromagnet, the solenoid, the am , fm , wifi antenna, the tesla coil, the transformer, the filament in your light bulb, the resistor, the bose inductor thingy that they were bad mouthed over because it was just a generic inductor. its the rf choke... if you count flat worms (spools of flat sheet) then electrolytic capacitors and lithium ion batteries as well

oh yes any old piece of wire wrapped in a coil around something is a type of something thats not strange at all.

>>10672288
Yeah maybe the guy standing next to the dead body with a bloody knife killed that person or alien ninjas froze time, killed them, then arranged the scene like it was that person that killed them.

Could go either way

>>10672288
What's wrong with Occam's Razor?

>>10672305
still seething from the race/IQ thread lol

>>10672320
Pretty sure those are bannable. “Racism outside of /b/“.

>>10672305
The explanation has to fit the data. People here usually ignore facts in order to justify the "simpler" explanation. That's how how you follow Occam's Razor. Then you have people here overusing it incorrectly to dismiss whatever they don't like.
Not to mention that this person probably knows nothing about psychedelics. Anyone can use ignorance and Occam's Razor to dismiss anything. There are many scientific facts that would have been dismissed with the misuse of Occam's Razor.

Doesn't mean you accept everything you see, of course. If you don't believe it, don't. Call the person retarded. There's no need to be a pseudo-intellectual that uses an oftenly mis-defined method of cutting down well-researched scientific hypotheses.

>>10672348
>Well-researched hypothesis
>Unverifiable personal anecdote

>>10672362
That makes your use of Occam's Razor even dumber. My point that it shouldn't be thrown around willy-nilly. Just don't fucking believe it and stop using methods that you don't understand to dismiss things you don't know about. See?

>>10672365
I’ll use it whenever I like.

>>10672369
Congratulations. Glad you understand that you were using it wrong. That's all I wanted to clarify. Use it incorrectly as much as you like as long as you know you're doing it dishonestly.

>>10672374
Nah, I’m using it correctly. You’re wrong.

>>10672383
Your inability to understand what's going on around you doesn't matter to me as long as others know you're wrong and are able to shut you down when you use it incorrectly again.
Take care, willfully ignorant internet goober.

>>10672391
Nah, you’re wrong. Bye loser.

>>10672393
Have a nice day, I wish you the best. Unironically.

>>10672134
It really pains me as a spiritually-rational (meaning, I am an intrinsically-spiritual person but never discard rationality in my being such) individual to see so many scientifically-knowledgable people here or elsewhere on the internet, who possess a far greater depth of understanding regarding empirical realities than I do, simultaneously be so closed-minded in their beliefs, and obstinately arrogant in their characters. It bothers me because even though I might not be very scientifically-literate myself, I don't believe there are such concepts as "reductionism" or of contradictions between scientific realities and that of spiritual ones. Taking DMT for example, the subject of our thread, we know quite plainly that DMT is a chemical compound, having all the properties belonging to any chemical entity. We also know that when absorbed, it produces an otherworldly experience for its users, who claim to have experienced a reality even realer than ours, and encountered entities unlike anything they have in the world down here, which diminishes the plausibility of it being a hallucination of their own mind, as any such imagining would require the elements of their experience to furnish it. This, alongside the consistency of the entities perceived, which seemingly hold no cultural influence across these users, and are also of extraordinary peculiar and unfamiliar species-types (Jesters, for example), as well as OP's story regarding an entire group perceiving the same entities at once, and the fact they show the users items which they cannot comprehend either in that moment or after - all of this and more gives me reason to believe that such experiences correspond to an externally-based reality, and not an internal hallucination. Now I do believe some of it could be the latter, namely the "archetypal entities" encountered, which correspond to a worldwide symbolic reservoir, but that said the other, alien entities are independently existent. (1/?)

>>10672239
Occam's razor is retarded because everybody's preferred explanation looks the simplest to them.

>>10672440
The question for us now is no longer whether the experience is a chemical hallucination or a spiritual reality, but how a chemical activation causally connects to a spiritual actualization? How does a chemical compound induce a spiritual experience, whereby one has left one's body, entered another dimension, are in the presence of other lifeforms, and eventually return to ordinary materiality after the trip fades - if both dimensions, the chemical and the spiritual, are real?

What I don't understand about biological materialists is firstly why they perceive anything outside of their doctrine to be impossible and blatantly nonsensical - when nobody of sense is denying the existence of any biological element or phenomena - we merely accept there is more to ourselves alongside these, and that there somehow exists interaction. I mentioned earlier I don't believe in the term "reductionism", since there is no such thing - for anything which is "reduced" to an area must simply then "expand" said area - if one desires to reduce items like consciousness, mind, emotion and DMT trips to electrochemical activity - there is no intrinsic harm in doing so, but it simply means that one has now dramatically expanded the scope of these fields. If emotions are entirely chemistry, for example, it would entail now that every realm which they affect must now be brought under the field of chemistry, being a subcategory of it as it were. Poets would become a class of chemists, and chemists could be seen as poets - both studying the same phenomena from their outward and inward dimensions. (2/?)

>>10672481
And while I respect scientific/biological materialism as a belief-system, it seems unfortunately the case that due to the popularization of science, and the above worldview being the mainstream one, it has unfortunately attracted many individuals to it who are not themselves capable of refined thought or original understanding, instead believing themselves to appear wise to the rest of the world simply for riding a trending wave. In other words, I wish I could speak to biological materialists that displayed greater individuation, demonstrating themselves to subscribe to their worldview not for its outward popularity, but its inward soundness.

As far as I'm concerned, monism should be the first rule of any position you take, be it a biomaterialist or a biomaterialist-plus, like I am. Monism, referring to that trending dictum: "You are the universe experiencing itself". This is entirely true, regardless of whatever beliefs you may hold - there is not a single particle to yourself which is not the universe, not a single attribute of you which you created, everything that you presently are precedes your making - you are piloting a persona which belongs to the cosmos itself - to be, to think, to see, to feel, to love, to laugh, to do anything that you do, all of it precedes your doing it, belonging not to you but the elements you are partaking in. And more simplistically, we can also simply say that many natural phenomena are quite literally yourself - you quite literally are a collection of atoms, molecules, cells and whatever else, embodied into a larger and more complex intelligence. But those same entities are still you, no different than they are the objects around you - yet we objectify them when referring to them in those items, forgetting that we are are ultimately speaking of ourselves. (3/?)

This thread is fucking stupid but I'll venture to say that psychedelics in general expand your associative horizon well-past schizophrenic levels and destroy your ability to meaningfully filter information, causing your already fragile psyche to comfort itself by adjusting to the completely devastated gelatinous egos of your 3 friends who are as obnoxiously, retartedly high as you (or anyone else in the same situation)

>>10672519
Already, in such a simple manner, we have dramatically transformed our outlook of ourselves, and of reality. You'll never hear of biomaterialists speaking of such conceptions however, because unfortunately theistic religion has framed modern sciences conception of spirituality, such that the very term itself has attained a tinge of "irrationality", brought to association with behaviors and concepts that never held any intrinsic relationship to it.

Personally, I believe, based on my own theorizing and some research into spiritual literature, that we are all essentially constituted of this biological vessel, along with other, bipedal, equivalently-shaped "subtle bodies" that are made of some kind of electromagnetic phenomena. The "soul", therefore, if we call it that, is not "immaterial", it's actually "physical" in the classical sense of the term. It's made of light, and can exist after our dense, biological body has expired. Reality is multidimensional, for lack of a better term. Everything known to our perception is electromagnetic, but we can perceive the smallest band of such in our ordinary experience. We believe, falsely, that this dense environment we walk through is all there is - when really, there is far more here, but only people of psychic acumen or those altered by drugs like DMT can perceive more of said spectrum. When we die, our "souls", which are made of light-phenomena in some basic sense, are now able to experience the physical reality that always existed but was inaccessible to most of us while living under a biological body. This is why I always use the term "biological materialism", rather than simply "materialism", as it would make it appear that I believe the soul is made of "nothing", or "magic" or so on. (4/?)

Anyways, I've rambled long enough now. The point is that I appreciate threads like this, which seek to challenge the positions of and of biological-materialists, and suggest they reconsider their worldview, but am always disappointed to see the same individuals return such dull, unoriginal and plainly unintelligent responses to them. You are not representing your own worldview well, when you leave explanations as lazy as I often observe them to. Have more respect for yourself and your doctrine, and defend it properly - you give the rest of the people who support your views a bad image, just like New Agers tend to give spirituality a bad image, misrepresenting the rest of us by doing so.

I wish that more people who are deeply scientifically-savvy would combine their knowledge with positions like the monism mentioned above, and move towards a new image of science, whereby a more holistic integration has been made without any leaps of logic, but rather from the most logical connections possible to make.

OP, do you mind detailing your experiences here a bit more clearly for us? It'd be interesting to read. Also, were you a biological materialist yourself prior to it, and changed your stance after? Or were you just poking fun at those on here that are? I have heard one or two anons here who were biomaterialists and thought that DMT entities were a mental projection take the drug for themselves and later change their positions, and now argue against their former worldview and its proponents. Very interesting stuff. Anyway, sadly /sci/ doesn't seem conceptually-open enough to entertain such possibilities in the first place, so I don't think there's much use in trying to have a discussion about them on here, despite how interesting the subject is.

>>10672402
Not them, but thank you for the positivity, and taking the route of compassion. This was a very kind thing of you. I send you my blessings through the screen, and I hope the best for you too, friend. <3

>>10672239
The explanation that scientific materialism provides regarding DMT is that it consists of a hallucination produced by the individual drug-user's brain, in reaction to the compound.

The OP has presented a personal anecdote, which we have to hope is not an outright fabrication, whereby him and a group of friends all ingested the substance, and collectively perceived an identical reality, in real-time. This does not fit the above explanatory model, whereby the experience is an internal hallucination, much like most dreams would be, and therefore requires a response by those of said worldview, whereby the seeming contradiction to the "individual, internal hallucination" explanation is reconciled with the details of his (presumed as true) experience with the drug.

If you and all your friends crashed in a room after a party one night, and the next morning you all relayed a dream you had, and discovered while sharing it that every single one of you had the exact same dream, and one that had no relation to anything you guys had done earlier or associated to eachother, how would you react? It would certainly bewilder you, and leave you questioning what you considered a "dream" to be, would it not? You previously thought they were isolated to yourself, and might now wonder whether the film Inception was depicting a reality in the concept of "dream-sharing" that it featured. You could still believe in your original position, but should attempt to account for the new, outlier-data within said model.

>>10672233
>how do you explain that?
A drug evokes similar patterns of neural activation in members of the same species. This is a documented occurrence for thousands of substances this is not news and your bait is weak

>>10672134 >>10672157
Based

>>10672141
Well CIA did some well known (((experiments)))...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

Many of these (((experiments))) seem too dangerous to try by yourself...
it's risky but ... you can try it.

Soviet Union (Pavlov, etc) & Nazi Germany also did some trippy (((experiments))) as well...

>>10672197
>homomorphic universe

any mathematician is laughing at you rn. homomorphic to what, you schizo fuck? probably don't even know wtf a manifold even is. buzzwords don't make you smart.

>>10672141
This is a really poor explanation, anon, if I could even call it that. You are not representing either your position or the others who subscribe to it well, and it almost sounds as if you don't truly subscribe to it yourself either, given the level, or lack of, argumentation. A true scientist seeks to explain realities, not "explain them away".

>>10672157
It's actually a recurring phenomena, if you look into DMT reports. Not saying OP couldn't himself be under a misapprehension, just that his experience of "group DMT simultaneous perception of same entities" is one that other accounts corroborate too. That does require an explanation, and stating "everyone to be misrememebering" isn't going to serve for such.

>>10672220
It bothers me that most, let's say 95%, of scientific materialists have never even researched the DMT phenomena properly in the first place, reading into the nature of the chemical and the corresponding reports on it - no, they're somehow so knowledgeable, they feel it can be dismissed off-hand, without first informing themselves of it in any shape. What is it that drives your kind? Is it arrogance, or laziness? Whatever it is, you certainly aren't "scientists", though you like to LARP as such. A scientist has an open-mind, examines the data, and attempts to explain it - your minds are so-closed that you skipped right to the final step, disregarding the middle, and desiring that nobody even waste your time with such a matter. Worse still is the fact that actual scientific materialists, the ones who formally wear such a title, don't proceed in such a manner - but their informal, civilian counterparts seem to. Ironic, really.

>>10672700
DMT isn’t magic, moron.

>>10672467
This. As soon as the new atheist movement gained momentum, noble heuristics like OR lost their original elegance, now being interpreted as a magical wand which automatically confirmed one's existing personal convictions as true. It's similar to Sagan's quote regarding "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Now I haven't read his original elaboration of it, and am not blaming him here, but the way I've seen it used by others involves a complete failure to recognize that "extraordinary" is not an objective value, like the number 4 - it's a subjective judgement, based on one's personal experiences and existing conceptions of reality's possibilities.

Let's say that consciousness is not a biological product, but is some kind of fundamental reality which is eternal in nature - uncreated, existing before biology and after it too. Now, to a person who believes such a conception to be unlikely, it would seem "extraordinary". Yet, it may simply be the case, with no sense in labelling it either extraordinary or ordinary or anything else. Similarly, people did not believe mechanical bodies could achieve sustained flight in the air, and I'm sure the earliest examples of such were a truly extraordinary sight. Today's inhabitants, however, consider the planes of the sky no more wondrous than they do a fly hovering closeby, and in my case I get quite vexed by the loud noise they emit. I'm sure a bird would be extraordinary to someone who'd never seen one - the concept of a creature which travelled not by land or water but through the sky itself would certainly arouse skepticism from an isolated tribe in which a lone member one day reported such a sight to them, which he briefly witnessed while out in nature one morning. And having seen one a few times, and "accepted" as being possible, is now completely "ordinary".

The quote is still nice however, but as with OR, it requires the one using it to have a proper understanding of when, and how, to do so.

>>10672728
It isn't, but if you've never read into it, you have no platform to speak where you lack the background information. Then again, if you were implying that "researching a specific, recurring, widespread, popular phenomena isn't necessary for me to dismiss it outright", I'll leave you to that approach. Just don't apply it to schoolwork is all, else your grades may suffer a bit...

>>10672753
It's easier to deny everything without knowing anything than actually think and study these things.

Is Joe Rogan the most influential scientist and philosopher of our time?

>>10672761
Yup - and if you have the intellectual orthodoxy of your day also supporting the conclusions which you synthesized out of your own personal beliefs - you can even feel enlightened while doing so.

>>10672134
Materialism is the big gay, but it's silly to think a material change to the material part of you would allow you to experience immaterial beings.

>>10672467
Simplest explanation = Hypothesis with the least amount of additional assumptions

>>10672134
We also all have the same brain chemistry and the drug works on our brains via the same chemical reaction, makes sense really that we see the same shit.

>>10672762
Yes

>>10672656
>>10672995
Depends on the specifics. If they perceive phenomena right in front of them, as if all were literally inside the same VR experience together, observing it as if there was no individual substance taken by each of them but a single experience all were sharing - then that seems different. There is no known report of a drug which could create such a synchronous experience within separate individuals. If it's occurring in their minds, they shouldn't be able to perceive "exactly" the same reality, in the case of very complex phenomena like autonomous-behaving lifeforms (compared to a simpler one, like perceiving the same reality around them augmented by a hallucinogenic layer on top of it).

If it were more general, with several individuals undergoing their own mental trip, and all of them seeing generally similar items, but still locked within their own worlds - that would more plausibly fit your explanation. It depends on the specific accounts being given, which OP has not detailed for us here.

>>10672134
It's already been demonstrated that certain drugs can generate strikingly similar reactions in people because the drugs all operate broadly in the same way between people. Near death experiences can be reliably recreated in a lab, it seems highly probable that ayahuasca has a similar mind-altering effect which is similar enough across most people that the majority of people who take it experience a similar trip. At least so far as I can tell this is at least not any better than the established materialistic explanations for why most drugs have similar effects on most people. Most drugs act on most people the same way, they excite or retard action by the same receptors and fuck around with the same internal systems across recipients, and I'd question what's more probable, that people's minds fill in the incomprehensible parts of their trips with similar interpretations or that their material brain which is being acted on by a material drug both of which are working within the structure of a material universe are forming an unobservable connection to a non-material or supernatural dimension, a connection which requires no extra energy or work and which produces no observable effects except in the anecdotal account of a person who has had their mental state temporarily altered from the norm by the consumption of drugs?

>>10673045
Good information, but ultimately I feel we need actual, detailed reports of group DMT experiences in order to speak on it further. Keep in mind we don't understand what these entities or realms are in the first place, and the significance of them being there - which applies whether they are mentally hallucinated or externally perceived - and if it becomes discovered that even groups can experience said environments and entities collectively, to a degree of synchronousness - then it becomes even more interesting for us to explore, and ascertain the nature of. It's also not strong reasoning at all to use existing knowledge to disqualify unknown possibilities, whereby an unknown phenomena is simply associated with a known one and deemed "understood" by such - when the phenomena could have had a different nature, presently beyond our understanding, and it was our own error to hastily attach it to one that we did because we felt it was "more probable" for it to be. If the first observers of the earliest airplanes presumed it was "more probable" for it be the wind which had carried those vessels for the few seconds they hovered over ground, rather than the known laws of physics be violated for those few moments, they would be wrong - they were not aware of the full range of possibilities, of the fact that their conception of physical laws did not match reality's true list of them, and that there was nothing "improbable" except by their own mistaken beliefs about what was possible at all. Now, I'm not saying "everything is possible, never tether an unfamiliar phenomena to something understood, it 's always something new and beyond our understanding". I'm merely saying we need to be careful here, recognizing ourselves to only hold a portion of understanding of reality at any given moment, and not to mistake this portion as being the whole, whereby we'd never learn anything new in the first place.

>>10672141
scientism fags like you are getting the rope

>>10672853
It's just a heuristic for finding mental shortcuts for things you don't want to bother figuring out. It doesn't make a good argument because we all quantify and rank assumptions differently.

>>10673083
Cool murder fantasy. See a doctor.

>>10672808
We don't understand the relationship between chemistry and experience in the first place, though. We see there is one, and are wholly clueless as to how they connect. Until we understand that connection, it isn't accurate to claim this.

>>10673104
have sex

>>10672134
It isn't surprising to me that a drug would produce similar experiences amongst similar people. There's no mystical phenomenon required to explain this.

Psychology is more powerful than you brainlets realize. Emotional bonding --> deleted self and le Groupthink ---> synesthetic serotonergia --> group meta entity emotions plop into visual cortex the sameish way for all. Then memory warping ontop of that.

Materialism prevails but is weirder and wilder than most stemfag asians will believe

>>10672561
Thank you so much for this anon as well as what preceded. Wish you’d tripfag so I could follow more of your stuff on here. For now I’ll just look for similarities in paradigm and writing style I guess..additionally just wanted to ask-you aren’t the same guy who created the parapsych thread by chance are you?

>>10673137
>Materialism prevails but is weirder and wilder than most stemfag asians will believe
this.

>>10672290
quick before the demiurge deletes this!

>>10673137
>Materialism prevails but is weirder and wilder than most stemfag asians will believe

upboat. this tho tbqh family.

>>10672531
this

>>10672199
>>10672662

seething asian stemfags.

>>10672134
most people have similar psyches, same reason most religions have similar themes, psychs are useful for sure but the correct way to develop the spirit is through exercise

>>10673083
Please don't say such mean things like this.

>>10673649
No problem, anon. Wasn't expecting such a warm and positive response to my posts. I am the parapsychology-anon, yes. How did you know? Writing similarities, and overlapping of themes (perceiving a merger between spirituality and science)? Either way, very impressive. Sadly, I won't be creating any long-term profile here, because I am not a fan of 4chan, considering it a very negative domain and influence to one's soul, and had previously left this place with a vow made not to return to it. I only did so yesterday for the sake of the thread you saw, whereby I genuinely needed help from anyone of scientific background with a set of experiences dealt with in my daily life. As soon as that thread archives, I will leave here again, hopefully for good. Sorry anon, I'm glad you enjoyed whatever I wrote though. Assuming you're a scientific-minded person, then I recommend you try and find sources out there of individuals or groups that incorporate similar to what I wrote of - I've had Henri Bergson be recommended to me before (by scientific-background individuals, who believed I'd like him), so maybe he's one such example. Either way, apply such types of thinking in your own life, synthesizing your own philosophy instead of merely accepting what your mainstream presents to you. Instead of seeing ourselves as "either" chemical or spiritual in nature, as the modern intellectual sector may have one believe to be the only two options - cut through the false dichotomy, and ask yourself the far more nuanced question - what if we are both? And if so, how does the chemical dimension connect to the spiritual one? This position may eventually become mainstream, but until then, human psychology has the tendency of siding into tribes, and the human mind the frequent inability to recognize the possibility for synthesis of two seemingly opposed realities, preferring to mentally segregate themselves in addition to doing so socially. That said, take care anon. Best wishes to you.

>>10674068
>Believing this fake shit

>>10672134
Don't ask me what my source for this information is, but let me just tell you that by my estimation we are quite literally surrounded by these entities at all moments. They inhabit this space with us, but a different plane of it, thereby leaving them unseen. But they are indeed here in every second we ourselves are, and in some sense you should feel nice for knowing that you've never truly been "alone", nor can you ever be.

people have been saying this since the beginning of time with nothing tangible coming of it

>>10672134
>baked person describes what they see
>listener starts seeing it
>"ya man i totally see it too"

>>10672531
Finally, someone who actually understands

I wonder how many experiments people have done where they verified information they couldn't know (like a piece of paper with a number on it that the variable doesn't know) using OBEs, Astral Projection, or remote viewing. I believe the Monroe institute has experimented with this but I'm not sure if they have any substantial results.

>>10672199
or just any person who's done psychedelics

>>10672134
You didn't see the same entities, you saw a series of representations derived from language that you lack the complexity to disambiguate between minds.

>>10672141
>We think we had similar hallucinations so magic
This is legitimately science
>grug see rocks roll down hill
>peer review grug grunt yes
>rocks roll down hill confirmed

>>10672324
>facts are racist

Reminds me of when I took a few edibles with a tinder date and at one point we sat with our backs in front of a fireplace and closed our eyes and just sat for a few minutes dreaming up images and thoughts of god knows what until I looked at her and asked if we were just thinking the same thing and then we laughed.

Good times, shame about her pancake ass though.

it's time for another rick and morty adventure.

>>10672212
>is the best at watching horror films because his real life is much more scary
kek

Why are /sci/fags so afraid of DMT?

>>10676584
drugs are in general retarded

You can experience similar things without DMT if you're too pussy to try psychedelics.

Why can almost anyone tell if someone is looking at them from behind?

Why can most people feel what someone is feeling just by being in proximity to them - without asking them or even looking at their facial expression?

Entering a room, most people can immediately feel the energies and mind frames of multiple people.

At some point we will be able to scientifically measures these ethereal phenomenon -that currently can't be explained through "traditional" scientific methodology. Call them what you want, I personally prefer "morphogenetic field", "mental fields", etc.

OP, would you mind telling us what you saw? If you do, I'll share my DMT experience as well. Maybe we saw the same things?

>do alcohol with friends
>you all become happy, dumb and uncoordinated
>do food with friends
> you all become satiated and tired

>>10676605
>You can experience similar things without DMT

No, you cannot.

>>10676610
>he thinks this is a valid analogy
Brainlets everywhere.

>>10676595
DMT is not a drug.

>>10676626
What stupid ass definition of drug are you using

>>10676627
Are neurotransmitters drugs?

>>10676623
>similar organisms subjected to the same chemicals have similar reactions
> the only explanation is elves from another dimension

>>10672285
So you didnt do ayahuasca?

>>10675835
STFU you fucking brainlet

>Beep boop bop look at me im stupid

>>10676595
Look! The retard! Can you objectively tell me why drugs are retarded, retard?

>>10672303
>be me
>walk into room with a dead wife in it
>pull knife from wife
>cops bust in
>jail time

>be me
>poschatzio
>put knife in wife
>cops bust in
>jail time

>>10676669
>>10676623
if there is an pattern that benefits people, psychonauts or whatever, should act as sages for the people who haven't done the drug. but you all talk about mechanical elves and say that everyone should just trip acid and get along (in my experience)

>>10672134
>Be on drugs
>Duuuuude, is that like, a blotchy shadow guy over there?
>Woaaah, duuuuude, I see it tooo maaaaaaaan
>Woaaah, it's like we've opened our minds, maaaaaaaan
>woaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
>woooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

>>10676605
None of that has ever been proven empirically.

>>10677126
He's not wrong about the phenomena but like with all /x/philes, he fills in gaps of empirical knowledge with parapsychic conjecture.

>>10672583
Interesting posts. Thank you for sharing

>>10672676
source or bust

>>10672141
Try it and tell me it's a hallucination

>>10677186
I've tried it before.
It's a hallucination.

>>10677186
>>10677189
Also note that even if trying it universally made people think it's real, that still wouldn't prove it is.

>>10675576
Because it lies outside the tangible. You miss the point.

>>10672134
>all see the same entities
stopped reading there. You learn about group psychology and memory manipulation in Psych101. Its thousands of times more likely that you and your friends influence each others memories until your descriptions were mostly the same, then that you all vividly remembered a DMT hallucination.

I know you want to believe in an afterlife man, but get an actual religion if you're serious about it, rather than this schizophrenic hippie-new-age bullshit you're spewing.

>>10677189
>I've tried it before.
What and how much

You need a decent dose to have what qualifies as a life-changing trip

At those doses, I've met exactly 0 people who didn't say that their worldview has been shattered after experiencing it. Hallucinations are nothing, they aren't even the important part. What is important is you get to feel things you had no idea you are capable of feeling, and those feelings are so powerful and so beyond the ordinary that there's no chance to question it. The only way you can say "i tried it, it hasn't influenced my worldview" is you didn't take enough to actually have the full experience. Either that or you mixed it with some other drug which made it much more drug-like.

Psychedelics are the only drug that I don't even consider a drug, because there's nothing drug-like about it. They're simply a way to cross realms both figuratively and literally. Science has 0 say in that domain because it's primitive by comparison. And I love fucking science. I don't say this lightly

Reality of things is simply that we have no fucking idea what reality of things is. Claiming otherwise is ignorant and naive. Thinking science has any answers whatsoever is the most naive thing our culture does. It actually knows absolutely nothing because the world is so much more than just fairly primitive descriptions of repeatable truths

>>10677200
>you learn about it
A person who spends 30 years studying how to ride the bicycle has no idea how to actually ride the bicycle. You have no idea what psychedelics do to your perception and your ramblings are comical at best. Go read some Jung so your poor materialistic tendencies can get some good old shaking

>>10672141
Scientism mixed with materialist dogma, not impressed, totally expected though

>>10677206
You’re very mentally ill.

>>10673095
This guy gets it. It's just a way to wiggle out of talking about something rigourously, as if actual physics or biomechanics are "simple" and not complex.

>>10677214
You're very culturally conditioned

A redpill about 0.5% of /sci/ will actually understand

Truly an age of NPCs

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00792R000300330001-8.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/psychic
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000200070001-9.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/collection/stargate
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/qi
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00792R000300380001-3.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1697751/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1978229/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20594090
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3085832/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29856007
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26275645

Plus many more if you just take the time to look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76FksKjCy58
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYVdhKVb9WE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03K8fYFUUhs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiQTCMolLqI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmo2Bye42go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVr1p-FlLtk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB5MdV90v-g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad7I7e3CYiw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itmn_1AsG10
the last one could be tech and not a psychic technique

https://psychicscience.org/pk2a.aspx
https://imgur.com/a/oLDaSsr

>>10672134
I spoke with my friend telepathically and empathically while on magic mushrooms for hours, we just looked at each other and we knew each others intentions immediately, it got to the point where he would say things as i was thinking them and i would say them when he was thinking them. It sounds weird but it was beyond the shadow of a doubt that we were sharing thoughts

Since then I can't into materialism, it 100% convinced me that telepathy is possible

>>10672134
>be nigger
>rape
>white worldview DROPPED

>>10677219
Literally the opposite, psychs don't "destroy" culture at all. Techies take them for perform enhancement, therapists want to use it as a quick treatment for depression instead of getting rid of the causes of depression. Psychedelics have been commodified and used as a tool of complacency and productivity just as caffeine, alcohol, and now cannabis have. Most of the time when people take psychs they feel like they've learned something but still reify the same status quo. It's the equivalent of those anonymousfags who buy guy Fawkes masks for social movements when in reality they're just feeding into the corporate machine, complete cognitive dissonance supported by pseuds.

>>10677250
Or maybe your perception of causality just got thrown off by drugs and you suffered from a prolonged deja-vu-like episode.

>>10677287
Disagreed. Psychedelics are unlike any other drug as they break interdimensional barriers. Yes I made up that term and yes that's exactly what they do and I say this as a 100% honest to god scientist

You believe whatever you want to though

>>10677292
No, it was extremely obvious that we were communicating through thought

When one of us got one idea, the other one immediately knew about it and we laughed about it. This repeated god knows how many times, probably a 1000. It was quite ridiculous but obviously it's a subjective experience. All I know is I'm 100% convinced that telepathy is possible now, and I admit I have no idea behind the mechanism of it. All I know is I experienced it, and I'm more sure of that than I'm sure of most things

>>10677296
this is why i dont do drugs anymore, they make you retarded. I could see myself becoming a literal walking stereotype of a stoner.

>>10677310
Yeah but when you don't do drugs you become a square. A brick in the wall with no original thoughts. I'm not saying drugs should be abused but I don't think psychedelics even qualify as drugs.

First of all, you don't get addicted to them. Period.
Second, there's very few people who would, after a night of tripping, be willing to have that experience again in any sort of near future. It's such a powerful experience that it's uncomfortable for most people.
Third, it's very hard to abuse due to the second point. You'd pretty much have to go full shizo to abuse psyhedelics

The fact that they're illegal shows how insecure our culture really is of things that directly question everything we've ever been told. And they really do

>>10677310
tbf drugs aren't meant to be done regularly. people who fall into that trap have addictive personalities or severe dopamine imbalances. the ideal way to do drugs is once in a while, in a controlled environment, and with the intent of uncovering unique perspectives on yourself and the world around you that are normally inaccessible to rational thought

>>10677261
>this is /pol/'s idea of a funny post

Yikes!

>>10677299
>No, it was extremely obvious
...while drugged.

If you still don't see the problem, you're beyond reason.

LISTEN YOU PLEB
Everything you experience is part of consciousness. It means that your brain is consciousness. It means that whatever you decided to arbitrarely categorize within your sensory grasp is consciousness. Enough with your tiny little spec of dust in a trillion galaxies bullshit. You are the universe experiencing all of itself.
What does spirituality even mean? Logic is the language by which you can attain tangible results within this plane of consciousness. Logic dictates that you have a shit metaphysical understanding.

>>10677338
I see the problem from your perspective, however that doesn't taint my own experience.

I realize that making the jump into non-materialistic thinking is extremely difficult if not impossible for you. It was for me too but this experience fundamentally changed my worldview. I don't know what else to tell you. This experience will always remain one of the most profound I've ever had

>>10672134
congrats and the using the temporary psychic drug antenna to get your mind on the level playing field. i can only wonder what wisdom a immortal entite could grant me.

>>10677348
>You are the universe experiencing all of itself.
This is cute but people who say this always attach some teleological significance to the statement, as if it means something deeper that we are a product of entropy capable of observing entropy.

But sometimes I do like a good dose of organelle.org , so I can't blame you for the spiritual excess.

>>10677206
>I love fucking science

>>10677384
What, you don't love what you do?

>>10677364
The universe is consciousness. You can try to find purpose in infinite recursion of probabilities, but that would be pointless because consciousness cannot be grasped. How do you point at behind those eyes?
What if we were one of the very few planets with metaconscious inhabitants? Would that attach some teleological sense? At least this part of the universe gets to experience what most parts will never experience. Does that make it teleological? Is consciousness teleological?

>>10677223
McKenna was a hack.

>>10676605
you should apologise for making me read this stupid fucking post

>>10672134
You can share a trip anon, especially as the moments leading up to it and the environment are shared by the group, meaning the only thing remaining is your personal experience. In strong enough doses you loose your sense of self so your world becomes a product of the immediate environment.

Add to this the fact that you would only trip with friends, and you make friends based on two major factors: proximity and similarity. The proximity factor is given, so its assumed you have a measure of similarity anyway, so any previous experiences in your lives are quite alike.

One final thing to do note is the fact that when you trip in a group someone always cues thoughts and then as individuals you feed back into that idea. Someone might say yellow and then a whole string of word associations happen and you're all thinking about the birth of the universe. You also need to consider that you may not have experienced anything your friend did, but because it's described so vividly and your mind is suseptable to hallucination, you trick yourself into thinking you saw the same thing.

Every psychedelic thread on /sci/ ever:
- people making interesting but quite provoking claims
- /sci/ responds with absolute close mindedness and personal attacks

Funny how some people just don't fucking get it and apparently never will

>>10677411
this board clearly isn't for philosophy metaphysics

>>10677411
>dude aliens and shit
>dude there was a recurring image it must mean something, if I figure it out I will unlock my full brain
>dude why can't we all just, see the world man
That's what most of the "provoking" claims are. Get back to studying for your high school c grades.

>>10677411
>Claims that can’t be verified


Oooo damn why won’t people believe them shit

>>10677411
Wrong. All I had to do was read the reply above yours >>10677406 to see that sci comes up with reasonable rationalisations and doesn't shit on everything. Stop getting so triggered.

>>10677419
True
>>10677420
A low-brow caricaturization is the best you can do?
>>10677421
Name one claim that can truly be verified. Let's see you handle that one
>>10677427
True but only up to 10% of posts at best are actually exploring the issue with any sort of sencerity involved

>>10677411
That's because the people making "interesting but quite provoking claims" are all grasping at straws. Yes, it's quite neat to think about telepathy and the veil of Maya and the Great Interconnected Monad, but the discussion fizzles out after that because it never goes beyond mere statement of the ideas. /sci/posters want to lay an idea down, examine it, deconstruct it, understand it and find out what contexts it's valid for.

>Funny how some people just don't fucking get it and apparently never will
We get it, you just fucking suck at explaining yourself.

here's a quick experimental design

randomly select groups of 3 people (and hope they're strangers lol)

administer equivalent doses of DMT to all three and have an evaluator close by to make sure they don't communicate

you might want groups with DMT and other psychedelics, as well as groups with a sober control subject

after a day (of no contact allowed) have them write down their experiences qualitatively

now interpret the qualitative descriptions as arbitrarily as you wish to gather evidence for your desired conclusion

you're welcome OP

>>10677440
>Name one claim that can truly be verified. Let's see you handle that one

The moon is visible in the sky from Earth.
You’re a retard.

>>10677467
Not during the day at the equator anon. Your claim isn't true at all times.

>>10677462
It's not how it works, you scientifically minded person

Lol. It's totally not how it works. Eh, what's the point

>>10672134
>you all see the same entities
These drugs act on receptors that are particularly strongly expressed in the visual cortex. They amplify naturally occurring patterns of activity* that spread in accordance with the anatomical organization of the visual system. We see particular geometric constellations of stimuli that may appear to have complex characteristics (e.g. faces) only because our brain is predisposed to them. The drugs simply amplify this property.

*http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0896-6273(08)00767-8

>>10677487
this is a science board, i don't know what you're expecting precisely

>>10677491
>predisposed to them
>predisposed to see* them

>>10677467
Can't be verified objectively, it's your claim that it's visible and you have to define what the fuck you mean by visible first. Do you mean you can see it? Your instruments can detect it? Or that it actually exists as an entity?

All of these claims are unverifiable.

I'll make it easier for you and generalize: every claim you make, no matter how mundane or complex in nature, can be reduced down to simpler claims which at some point become beliefs and no longer are verifiable. Therefore, every claim you make is unverifiable. You're operating on atomic assumptions which you then group together into coherent groups. They're still unverifiable at the baseline. You may be dreaming life for all you know, and no one would ever be able to make the distinction in an objective and verifiable way.

>>10677474
I said “Earth”. I never specified from where.
The moon is visible 24/7 from somewhere on earth.
You’re dumb.

>>10677500
>Can't be verified objectively

It can be verified within the limits of scientific epistemology. I never said “objectively”, so you’re lying.

>it's your claim that it's visible and you have to define what the fuck you mean by visible first

Emitting photons that we can see with our eyes or equipment.

>I'll make it easier for you and generalize: every claim you make, no matter how mundane or complex in nature, can be reduced down to simpler claims which at some point become beliefs and no longer are verifiable. Therefore, every claim you make is unverifiable.

Nope.

>>10677532
It's not visible 24/7 somewhere, it's visible 24/7 anywhere. Use the correct terminology before calling me are dumb

>>10677500
conflating objectivity and verifiability

>>10677537
>It's not visible 24/7 somewhere, it's visible 24/7 anywhere

Nope. Sometimes it’s occluded by the Earth.

>>10672134
Mods removed my "parapsychological experiences" thread bros...feeling really sad after seeing that. Oh well, I'm going to keep my vow of not returning to 4chan, and also continuing to unravel whatever I'm experiencing in a systematic and rational manner. I hope areas like DMT continue to receive more research into them, and definitive understandings yielded, regardless of what they might be. Whatever this chemical produces, it's clearly nothing like our waking experience and something that will dramatically alter our conception of our subconscious, our physical realities, or both - in a way that everyone should be interested to educate themselves of. Take care all of you, and best wishes on your pursuit of knowledge.

>>10677576
Thank God. Please don’t shitpost here again.

>>10673045
>NDEs can be reliably recreated in a lab

[Citation desperately needed.]

NDEs have never been replicated in a lab, and if they had, whoever could recreate them would be a quintillionaire by now. People who have NDEs describe them as vastly more amazing than any drugs they have ever tried. As one NDEr noted, the rush of ecstasy (MDMA) times a million would not even begin to scratch the surface to comparing to the love they felt in their NDE.

As another NDEr noted, "If I lived a billion years more, in my body or yours, there's not a single experience on Earth that could ever be as good as being dead. Nothing."

If you could sell the happiness of MDMA times 10^12, you would become rich fast. This has not happened. Hence NDEs have not been recreated in a lab.

>>10672134
>>10677411
>>10672700
Trying to argue with fundamaterialists is as much a waste of time as trying to argue with religious fundamentalists, unironically. While few fundamaterialists will admit to being fundamaterialists outright, just like how shallow people rarely admit that they are shallow, their behavior and other things they say betray their true stance on these issues.

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799144/m2/1/high_res_d/vol21-no1-5.pdf
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc937962/m2/1/high_res_d/vol26-no3-227.pdf

Also, the general progression from unenlightened to enlightened is something like this:

Level 1: Megaultrabrainlet-tier of religion.

Level 2: Can be argued with somewhat-tier of fundamaterialism.

Level 3: Cautionary agnostic-tier of indecisiveness.

Level 4: Psychedelics are relevant to these issues-tier of being empirical about the true nature of reality.

Level 5: Taking NDErs at face value-tier and realizing why it is both empirically sound and rational to do so.

You seem to be at level 4. But please know that you are leagues ahead of those you are trying to argue with, and you can generally only argue with those one level up or down.

>>10677296
As a non-scientist who doesn't want to abuse scientific terminology, how should I describe the existence of planes of energy beyond access of our ordinary sensory perception, and the intelligent entities that inhabit them? I have reluctantly used the words "interdimensional" or "higher-frequency/vibrational", but that's just because I hear those terms thrown around and not because I "understand" them well and consider them fitting. The point is that I believe we are not merely our dense, corporeal body - and the empirical reality it accesses - but are made of still-physical, yet-subtler energy/matter which constitute our "souls" and live on after our deaths, and also become accessed from our densest shells when substances like DMT are taken. This seems like a pretty "sober" belief system to me, and accords to the fact that something like visible light is an extremely tiny band of the total spectrum, and I simply believe that whatever "real" DMT entities exist, exist within that spectrum outside of visible light. How DMT alters us to give us access to it, is a much more difficult question. And this applies moreso to the entities that exist around us, and not in the far-off "hyperspace" or whatever users have named it. I haven't tried it before so my knowledge is naturally lacking, but I'm attempting to combine the anecdotes of it to beliefs I've already held, adjoining them into a larger worldview.

Long post, sorry. The basic question is what terminology we may correctly use to describe the planes outside corporeal perception, and the lifeforms residing on them.

>>10677299
If you read into reports of the "spirit world", which we are said to enter after physical death, apparently telepathy is the normal channel of communication there - everyone can hear everyone else's thoughts. Not saying it's true, but it's an interesting overlap with your own experiences. That you may have temporarily awakened or accessed an ability we all possess, but cannot use skillfully in our biological existences.

>>10677532
Not if it's very cloudy

>>10677610
It's quite a bit more profound that that, actually. The mistake you're making is you can't see past the logic ingrained in your perspective and thinking. As humans we are stuck in this thought paradigm that logic is be-all end-all. What a full blown psychedelic trip does is it shows you that that's not the case and in fact there's an entire universe beyond what logic can offer. What I'm saying in a rather convoluted way is that you can never understand the experience, not through logic anyway.

>>10677453
this is because you can only talk about it so much, at some point you need to either experience it through psys, meditation, or enlightenment so it's a near all pervasive thought process for you. From our physical 3D perspective, this is as close we can reach towards It: Love, Understanding, Interconnectedness, etc. That's as far as the surface of our physical ocean will go, above that are things unfathomable (4D, 5D and so on)

>>10677635
I'm sure it's beyond my conception, and that what you day regarding the backseat of logic holds true as well, but if us, waking, sober members of the populace are to discuss the phenomena of DMT, it has to be filtered through communication in ordinary language, and this requires us to use logic, and rationality, and all the other structures that, though they might fail to capture the full scope of the phenomena being discussed, must be used if they are to be conversed about at all. Otherwise, we'll open ourselves to the kinds of mockery found above, where people imitate the incredulity often found of stoners when attempting to convey their own experiences, phrasing it like "duuuuuuuuuude", "you just caaaaaan't", "maaaaaaan" and so on. You know the ridicule I'm referring to. And the only way to avoid such unintended failures at conveying the ineffable, are to successfully fail at conveying it through intentionally reductive formulations of it.

>>10672134
>ingest drink that contains certain chemicals
>chemicals interfere with your brain in the same way with everyone
>somehow surprised when people have similar experiences
Fucking retarded people in the world

>>10677594
"Materialism" has always been a misnomer itself, since what is "material" has only been known through consciousness - and everything "mechanical" is merely an item of vision, or sensation - which is itself not mechanical, in my view.

>>10675724
Good mention. I really wish more would aim for this. DMT users, for example, should attempt to retrieve information from the "entities" that they could not themselves have or know. Granted, the entities in many cases might not be interested in providing such to them - but it's a great avenue of possibility.

>>10672134
Facebook meme, no one cares "dad" go back to le epiceddit and post about your retard son more.

>>10672134
What do the entities spend the rest of their time doing, outside what the occasional glimpses humans have seen of them have shown to us? It's something I've wondered often - any guesses, anyone?

>>10672134
Yall niggas don't know shit until you've seen Hatman and the Shadow Fucks on a Benadryl trip