Extended time for a DMT flash? Sounds cool to me! I wonder where you sign up to be a test subject?
New Approaches to Scientific DMT Research
New Approaches to Scientific DMT Research
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Elongating That Peak Experience?
- Thread starter Christopher O'Brien
- Start date
Wade
FeralNormal master
This sounds pretty intense. I'm in no position to make a qualified statement on this but I wonder if any shamans have any insight on this . They have spent decades getting to this state and I assume they still proceed with caution. Perhaps there is a good reason why DMT trips are short lived, maybe an untrained mind couldn't take in the sensory input of an extended trip or might not like the answers they get
That is an overly simplistic, knee-jerk answer to a great mystery. How do you know it's only "playing w/ our synapses"? That's rather presumptuous for someone that has never experienced a DMT flash, or read Strausman's book or become familiar w/ the work of McKenna.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
It's probably best not to read more into what I'm saying than I actually am.
I'm not saying that hallucinogenic experiences aren't subjectively powerful and that they cannot lead to insights. I have no doubt that they can. But there's a big difference between that and maintaining ( as the article you posted suggests ), that objectively real changes in time and space are taking place rather than subjectively real ones, and I'm confident ( rather than presumptuous ) that there are many academic studies that confirm that the effects produced by DMT and other mind altering substances are the result of the way they affect our nervous system, particularly our brain at the synaptic level.
It is therefore the perceiver who changes, not the universe around them, and that situation does nothing to make afterlives possible, nor does it produce any objective evidence for alternate universes alongside our own, or that time is objectively affected. What is affected is the biochemistry of the perceiver's brain, and it's a fair analogy to compare a human brain with a complex processor. Cause the processor to create beautiful colorful distortions and slow down the imagery and in both cases, well, that's exactly what you get. There's no big mystical mystery in it. In both cases the effects are the result of altering the signals and processing.
Last edited:
An oversimplified, purely conventional medical explanation. I would expect nothing more than this from you. There are other aspects to DMT that you cannot understand that are not fully understood. These involve higher aspects of pure consciousness and it's quantum connection to an overriding field of conscious awareness that is normally not accessible. Group telepathy, time dilation effects/predictive awareness and what appears to be expanded understanding of a hidden aspect of our external reality are not addressed by your elementary, non-up2speed rationale. But, as usual you know it all and cast aspersions on that which you have no clue. Let's agree (once again) to disagree, ok?
technomage
Paranormal Adept
I would like to see some specific examples of insights obtained from the DMT experience that in some manner can be put to the test or could potentially one day be put to the test.
Sand
Paranormal Adept
I’ve always liked this statement on the naiveté of radio SETI by Dr Dennis McKenna (ethnopharmacologist and brother of Terrence), and his speculation on whether the uniqueness of the genetic coding for the amino acid that leads to DMT might be an artifact of alien engineering.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
I don't know what we're disagreeing about, let alone "agreeing to disagree" about, but it might help people ( including me ) understand your point of view better and bring them up to your speed ( whatever that is ) if you would address the points made in such a way as to relate them to the issue at hand rather than glossing over them as if they're irrelevant. For example, if you don't agree, despite the scientific evidence, that psychedelic compounds work by affecting brain chemistry at the synaptic level, and that the subsequent changes in the neural processing are responsible for the user's subjective experiences, then please provide some convincing evidence to the contrary.
Everything we experience in life is subjective and again, to quote myself, "You provide an oversimplified, purely conventional medical explanation. There are other aspects to DMT that you cannot understand—that are not fully understood. These involve higher aspects of pure consciousness and it's quantum connection to an overriding field of conscious awareness that is normally not accessible. Group telepathy, time dilation effects/predictive awareness and what appears to be expanded understanding of a hidden aspect of our external reality are not addressed by your elementary, non-up2speed rationale." You will not and do not acknowledge this so I prefer not to discuss this subject further w/ you.
(There is so much we don't know about consciousness, the assumed role of the brain, the true nature of the human mind and the incredible conscious world unleashed by DMT and psilocybin. —chris)
Mind Exists Apart From Brain: Study
If the mind is just a function of the brain, it stands to reason that the worse the brain is injured, the worse the mind would function. While this is what much of current brain research is finding, a body of evidence exists suggesting otherwise: under extreme circumstances, such as close to death, the mind may function well—or even better than usual—when the brain is impaired.
This suggests the mind may function independently of the brain.
One of the researchers who has been studying such cases is Dr. Alexander Batthyany, a professor of theoretical psychology and the philosophy of psychology in Liechtenstein and at the cognitive science department at the University of Vienna.
In his most recent study, published this month in the Journal of Near-Death Studies, Batthyany and his colleagues reviewed thousands of accounts of near-death experiences (NDEs) to determine the quality of vision and cognition.
He reported: “The more severe the physiological crisis, the more likely NDEers are to report having experienced clear and complex cognitive and sensory functioning.”
Part of Batthyany’s goal was to replicate earlier studies, few as they are, that have looked at the quality of vision and cognition during NDEs.
In a 2007 study by researchers at the University of Virginia, titled “Unusual Experiences: Near Death and Related Phenomena,” 52.2 percent of NDEers reported clearer vision. Jeffrey Long, M.D., founder of the Near Death Experiences Research Foundation (NDERF), found in a survey of 1,122 NDEers, that about 74 percent reported “more consciousness and alertness.”
“I felt extremely aware, totally present, sharp, and focused. In hindsight, it’s like being half asleep when I was alive, and totally awake after I was pronounced dead,” said one experiencer, as noted in Batthyany’s study. REST OF ARTICLE HERE
Mind Exists Apart From Brain: Study
If the mind is just a function of the brain, it stands to reason that the worse the brain is injured, the worse the mind would function. While this is what much of current brain research is finding, a body of evidence exists suggesting otherwise: under extreme circumstances, such as close to death, the mind may function well—or even better than usual—when the brain is impaired.
This suggests the mind may function independently of the brain.
One of the researchers who has been studying such cases is Dr. Alexander Batthyany, a professor of theoretical psychology and the philosophy of psychology in Liechtenstein and at the cognitive science department at the University of Vienna.
In his most recent study, published this month in the Journal of Near-Death Studies, Batthyany and his colleagues reviewed thousands of accounts of near-death experiences (NDEs) to determine the quality of vision and cognition.
He reported: “The more severe the physiological crisis, the more likely NDEers are to report having experienced clear and complex cognitive and sensory functioning.”
Part of Batthyany’s goal was to replicate earlier studies, few as they are, that have looked at the quality of vision and cognition during NDEs.
In a 2007 study by researchers at the University of Virginia, titled “Unusual Experiences: Near Death and Related Phenomena,” 52.2 percent of NDEers reported clearer vision. Jeffrey Long, M.D., founder of the Near Death Experiences Research Foundation (NDERF), found in a survey of 1,122 NDEers, that about 74 percent reported “more consciousness and alertness.”
“I felt extremely aware, totally present, sharp, and focused. In hindsight, it’s like being half asleep when I was alive, and totally awake after I was pronounced dead,” said one experiencer, as noted in Batthyany’s study. REST OF ARTICLE HERE
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Chris, I hope that you will instead look at this as an opportunity and try to bear with me. I'm not trying to trivialize or discredit you or your beliefs about this topic. It's just that it is very complex and that taking it in bite sized pieces helps to keep it on track. If we don't do that, then it's going to get really murky really fast and we'll be hopelessly lost. I know this from the extended discussions and endless loops going on in the Consciousness thread. In this spirit I'm going to address your issues in a point by point fashion, and I invite you to work through it with me. In doing so, it is my hope that we'll learn to get past what I'm seeing as a communication barrier.
While it is true that all our experiences are subjective, the point ( for me ) is that through intelligent and logical analysis of our experiences we can identify objective truths. Being a truth seeker, that is the path I choose, and it seems to me that we're both after the same thing, even if we're going about it in different ways.
My post about the scientific medical, physical aspects of the brain and the chemistry of psychedelics was not meant as an all encompassing explanation, but to lay a crucial part of the foundation for further exploration of the subject matter, and my initial comment was based on this part of the evidence. There is certainly much more to the discussion to be had, but I felt that starting there seemed to make a lot of sense because it directly addressed a couple of the claims in the article that seem to be in contradiction to what seems to be established fact.
While it is true that we may not understand everything about the brain, consciousness, and the chemistry of psychedelics, it's also true that we often do not need to understand every intricate detail to determine the truth of a claim or at the very least what is most likely to be true given the available evidence. This is the point of having this discussion. Let's look at what we do know and extrapolate from there what the situation either must be or is most likely to be based on the available evidence and some critical thinking. To this end, I'll make further comment on the content of the above in a follow-up post. But right now my aim is to see if you and I can get on the same track with respect to how we can explore the subject matter, rather than get into assumptions about intent and personalities.
I do hope you will change your mind on this. I'm trying really hard here to make a breakthrough here.
Last edited:
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
There's a huge difference between findings that demonstrate how a brain can adapt to damage and making the assumption that the mind can exist when there is no brain, which is the basis for most forms of afterlife claims, and the assumption that the "mind exists apart from the brain", seems to be a recurring theme in support of this assumption. However, it is important to realize that even if we assume that the mind and the brain are two distinct things, there is zero unambiguous evidence of a verifiable nature that any person ever in the history of humanity has demonstrated consciousness without a working brain being present.
Therefore the preponderance of evidence upon which to form a reasonable conclusion still suggests that the existence of the mind is dependent upon the existence of a functioning brain. This is analogous to the way a magnetic field is dependent on a physical magnet, or the way that light is dependent on a light source. Remove the light bulb and no more light. Remove the magnet and no more magnetic field. Remove the brain and no more mind. In all cases the phenomena produced can be said to be separate from and yet dependent on the source.
A common response to the above is for someone to bring up Near Death Experiences ( NDEs ), however in every case, the NDE experiencer has survived with a functioning brain, and it's only after regaining consciousness that the stories have been told. So they are told after the fact. There is no real-time objective verification, and the resulting evidence is limited to memory, and memories can be false. The brain is very good at forming subconscious imagery based on expectations, previous experiences, and subconsciously acquired stimuli.
Therefore although NDE experiences may be subjectively powerful, they are not good evidence upon which to conclude that the brain is not primarily responsible for them. Add to the above that experiments have been done in medical operating theatres where in the event of an OOBE ( Out Of Body Experience ) during an NDE, the experiencer can perceive unique messages posted on a screen that can later be verified. To date, nobody ( zero patients ) have correctly identified any of these messages.
Another person might ask: What about reincarnation? However reincarnation suffers from the same issues as NDEs. What we're relying on for evidence is still a memory ( or an alleged memory ) of an experience that someone else is assumed ( correctly or incorrectly ) to have had, and therefore once again, even if the memory is accurate, we are still relying on a functioning brain to recall it. How the memory came into being may be unexplained, but it's also beside the point. It could be false or planted or fake, but even if it it's real somehow, the only reason we're hearing about it is because someone with a functioning brain is making the claim.
So to sum up, there is no unambiguous evidence of a verifiable nature that any person ever in the history of humanity has demonstrated consciousness without a working brain being present, and the rest can all be attributed to some sort of memory recalled from a functioning brain. Therefore it is a virtual certainty that claims of continuity of consciousness in the absence of functioning brain are far ( very far ) from being true. Definitive evidence, like multiple 100% successes on verifiable, unambiguous, and independent NDE OOBE experiments is needed, and that still wouldn't settle the issue with respect to claims where no brain at all is present ( such as for claims of afterlives ).
Last edited:
Sue
Paranormal Maven
I disagree with you, ufology, about your representation of the research on consciousness without brain, NDEs, etc. Which is not to say I have an answer myself, other than that that it's something we just don't know for sure. Parapsychological research cannot be dismissed with a Klassian wave of the hand; it's becoming more and more theoretically and methodologically rigorous, as far as I can tell on the basis of participating in the 2015 and 2016 Parapsychology Foundation's free online courses.
However there's another theoretical question I would like to address.
I've heard you say this in various ways at various times. The problem with the way you deploy the argument is that it's only a tiny part of the story of science and knowledge.
I really hate to go back to Max Weber because he was such an extremely boring sociologist, but it was from his stuff I learned about the seemingly obvious idea that there are some questions that can be phrased in scientific terms and answered by science while other answers can only be a matter of personal opinion. That does not mean that science can't be done about personal opinions, subjective experiences, etc.
Qualitative research based on subjective, anecdotal data points really is scientific and really is practiced by actual PhD-holding scientists on a daily basis. I know this because it helps me earn my living. Anecdotal does not mean bad science. Subjective does not mean bad science. Logic and rationality only go so far; beyond that point, other competencies have to take over.
Anyway, my point of view on talking with plants is different from both you and Chris. My experiences in this regard were not drug-induced but were communications with something that specifically identified itself as a plant. (One even gave its Latin name). I've done my share of psychedelics and have great respect for them, but when a plant just up and talks to you (as you perceive it) it's kind of a game changer.
I started to be a lot more aware of the plants around me, for one thing.
However there's another theoretical question I would like to address.
I've heard you say this in various ways at various times. The problem with the way you deploy the argument is that it's only a tiny part of the story of science and knowledge.
I really hate to go back to Max Weber because he was such an extremely boring sociologist, but it was from his stuff I learned about the seemingly obvious idea that there are some questions that can be phrased in scientific terms and answered by science while other answers can only be a matter of personal opinion. That does not mean that science can't be done about personal opinions, subjective experiences, etc.
Qualitative research based on subjective, anecdotal data points really is scientific and really is practiced by actual PhD-holding scientists on a daily basis. I know this because it helps me earn my living. Anecdotal does not mean bad science. Subjective does not mean bad science. Logic and rationality only go so far; beyond that point, other competencies have to take over.
Anyway, my point of view on talking with plants is different from both you and Chris. My experiences in this regard were not drug-induced but were communications with something that specifically identified itself as a plant. (One even gave its Latin name). I've done my share of psychedelics and have great respect for them, but when a plant just up and talks to you (as you perceive it) it's kind of a game changer.
I started to be a lot more aware of the plants around me, for one thing.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Other aspects are another matter, and I'm fine discussing those as well.
I think I know what you're trying to say, but unfortunately it sounds a lot like it came from another New Age Quantum Woo generator. Nevertheless, for the sake of discussion let's have a closer look:
What exactly do we mean by "higher aspects" of "pure consciousness" ( apart from the feeling of being "high" )?
When we try to answer the above question we find that notions of what "higher" are often based on subjective Modern New Agey type "spiritual" practices stemming in part from ancient eastern religion. Example here: The Experience of the state of Pure Consciousness
That's not to say that there isn't some sort of value in meditation, but these terms do not provide any insights into the point of the discussion ( Does any of this provide objective evidence for claims like afterlives or parallel universes? ). The answer is "No". They only provide a linguistic framework for subjective beliefs. In the link above we see a photo of a woman meditating in the middle of a two lane highway ( also inserted below for your viewing pleasure ). I find this to be an ironically appropriate illustration of how the belief in becoming more attuned to the universe seems to make believers oblivious to the common sense and objective reality. I personally advise those who want to try mediation not to do it in the middle of a two lane highway ... LOL.
A more objective view of what a "pure" consciousness" might be is a state of consciousness that is uncontaminated by foreign chemicals, and functioning within measurable known tolerances, and in a full state of health according to known factors that affect consciousness, such as mental health on both a psychological and biological level. IMO that sounds a lot more "pure" than being radically affected by a chemical imbalance.
What is meant by a, "quantum connection to an overriding field of conscious awareness"?
Most people don't even know where the term "quantum" comes from, and nobody knows exactly how consciousness is able to manifest. Philosopher David Chalmers and I both favor the idea that it is some sort of field, but nobody knows exactly what that field is made of ( if that's even what it is ). So if few people ( including scientists ) truly understand quantum theory, and nobody knows what consciousness is made of, obviously nobody can state with any certainty that there is any "overriding consciousness field", let alone a "quantum connection", to it.
But for the sake of argument let's suppose that there is a "quantum connection". How is that significant? When you charge your cell phone in you're making a "quantum connection" via electrons. When you use it to make a call you're making a "quantum connection" using an ultra-high RF frequency. At the level of individual particles, virtually everything is a "quantum connection", therefore simply inserting the word "quantum" adds little insight. It does however serve as an admission that something physical is taking place. That's a start, but much more evidence is needed.
What evidence is there that "Group telepathy" is actually taking place rather than a group hallucination?
The answer is that there is no definitive unambiguous evidence that confirms that telepathic communication takes place the way it is commonly portrayed in sci-fi and other fantasy fiction. There are a lot of anecdotal stories that seem more than coincidental, but even if it is true that someone hears a voice in their head that they think is telepathic, and it turns out to be accurate, it is possible that it is the result of an audio hallucination cooked up by the brain of the experiencer. After all, we're talking about deliberately using a mind altering substance with hallucinogenic properties. There is also technology that can produce the effect of sound coming from inside one's head. So how do we know with certainty that these experiencers are actually experiencing telepathy? The fact is: We don't.
Nevertheless, a reference to any unambiguous verifiable evidence would be most welcome. I know many people have experiences that they associate with telepathy. I've experienced more than one myself. But I still question whether or not telepathy is the answer rather than technology or the result of neuroprocessing.
Is any objective time dilation really taking place? Or is it all in the mind of the experiencer?
It is a virtual certainty that the "time dilation effects" are purely subjective in nature because time for those not affected ( not to mention the clocks ) are to my knowledge completely unaffected. This is self-evident. When someone gets high on DMT or whatever, the GPS system dependent on atomic clock precision remains unaffected. Planes don't suddenly go off course and people don't suddenly get lost, and if they do, it's probably more because they're the ones high on the substances than it is because time around them has changed.
Is there really a "hidden aspect of our external reality" or is it a purely subjective experience?
I've seen no convincing evidence ( and yes I've looked for it ) that is sufficient to justify the belief that that psychedelic experiences are more than purely subjective constructs of the mind. This doesn't mean that such constructs may not have some correlate to some reality that is external to the experiencer. For example dreams often have correlates to external realities, but they are still constructs of the mind and therefore are unlikely to be sensory perceptions of external realities, and there is a huge difference between assuming someone is perceiving something externally real, and perceiving a hallucination of something that seems externally real.
Knowing the difference is crucial to knowing the truth of the situation, and I'm not convinced that being under the influence of psychedelics is the best way to ensure that objective information is being gathered. That being said, it does seem reasonable to theorize that because psychedelics do work by opening up more processing to the conscious mind, that some perceptions might be enhanced to a degree that might lead to certain kinds of insights that are beyond our normal ability. Careful study and interpretation of such theories might yield advancements in neuroscience and the search for an explanation for consciousness itself. But like all other research and findings, I think we need to be very careful about the way it's done and not be too willing to jump to far out conclusions that are not fully supported by the evidence.
Last edited:
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Hopefully you're not accusing me of being dismissive or "Klassian". I am not making any personal attacks, glossing over anything as if it is irrelevant, or refusing to discuss the issue. Instead I'm posing questions, analysis, and information that speak directly to the heart of contentious issues alluded to in the opening article. This is IMO what real discussing is about and I'm more than happy to be challenged with valid counterpoint. I'm even happier to be proven wrong because then I've learned something new. So if you can be more specific about what you disagree with and why, perhaps we can explore that to see if there is something new to be learned?
Sue said:
ufology said:
OK I readily admit that I said that. But what is the problem with it?
Perhaps if you were more specific? My last usage was as counterpoint to Chris' statement that "everything we experience is subjective" ( here ). My point was that while it may be true that all our experiences are subjective, that doesn't mean we cannot use subjective experiences to determine with reasonable certainty that there are objective realities, and it is by that process that we have learned many accurate things about ourselves and the universe around us. It is not a trivial thing. If we want to know the truth about the universe around us, and about ourselves, it is very important that we discern between what is a fabrication of the mind and what is not.
I have no disagreement with that. If I recall correctly, Searle makes the same point about the study of consciousness.
I have no disagreement with that. I've often said that there is a scientific foundation to subjective experiences because they are based on the stimulus response, which is fairly well understood by neuroscience. My issue is in making the assumption that when we chemically alter the normal functioning of our system to produce abnormal experiences, that those experiences indicate the same type of objective realities as they do under normal circumstances. Basically it's claiming that hallucinations aren't hallucinations, but actual perceptions of objectively real external things, and that to me indicates that it's more likely that the experiencer has lost touch with reality rather than become more in tune with it ( as seems to be the crux of this debate ).
I have no disagreement with that. But it's also a very vague statement. While it's true that logic and rationality have limitations, they are not trivial tools in determining the truth of things. They are very powerful and when they they indicate that a claim is not coherent, then it is very likely that the claim is false.
Very interesting. As mentioned during our round table discussion, I do believe that people have strange experiences. I've had plenty of them myself. I also said that we need to be careful about how we interpret them. I've heard stories of completely inanimate objects communicating to people.
One person who I completely trust said that she was in a church one day and that a statue of the Virgin May spoke to her as clearly as a real person and that she was sure it wasn't some kind of trick. I believe that really happened to her, but there are alternate possible explanations besides that it was the spirit of the Virgin Mary speaking to her, and because logically it could not have been the Virgin Mary ( assuming there was even an actual real-life Virgin Mary ), there is no reason to believe that explanation. What was it then? I don't know.
Here's a plant story of my own you might find interesting: I was out working a section of track in Glacier National Park and was in the habit of taking a break under a particularly spectacular blue spruce near a waterfall. One day while sitting there contemplating, I was overcome by the beauty of nature around me and had one of those "oneness with nature type moments", and for some reason just gave that tree a great big hug. Well I know this sounds totally corny ( the whole tree hugger thing ), but this huge tree suddenly shivered.
I don't mean that the wind blew, or that there was some animal crawling in it, or that the ground shook, but the whole thing, the tree itself, shivered, as if it were a direct response to the love of nature I was feeling, and I could feel some sort of energy from it, and emotionally I felt as though I had really made some sort of connection. But I don't know for sure what it was. I have no real explanation. Do I jump to the conclusion that this tree had some sort of rudimentary emotional sense? Or was the energy part of some sort of geostatic build up caused by the waterfall that my contact with the tree facilitated? I liked the emotional experience better. I want to believe it was a special "in tune with nature experience", but was it really?
Last edited:
I asked you nicely to agree to disagree. Until you allow yourself to become more up2speed in this subject matter, I refuse to have any more dialog w/ you about this subject. I'm sick & tired of you high-jacking every thread I post where I attempt to create a forum for others (such as myself) who don't have narrow-pointed heads totally lassoed by materialistic, rational scientific view of something science is only beginning to understand. WE DON'T KNOW what consciousness is, how it works, where memory is located and how I can use psychokenetic power to type this post! OK? How can you define something with itself?! Tell me the answer to that one at some point in the distant future—NOT now, not in this thread. At this point, I don't care what you have to say, so stop saying it, please. YOU have not done your research. YOU do not have even the merest semblance of an open mind when it come to this subject.
If you take the time to listen carefully to the following McKenna lecture, you might actually learn something about the role of language, consciousness, memory and the connection to everything from evolution to UFOs. Until then, stop high jacking my fucking threads, OK?
If you take the time to listen carefully to the following McKenna lecture, you might actually learn something about the role of language, consciousness, memory and the connection to everything from evolution to UFOs. Until then, stop high jacking my fucking threads, OK?
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
The posting of voluminous amounts of information by someone else that doesn't deal with specific points is not a fair way to address those points. Nevertheless, in response to the audio you posted, I'll say that it had entertaining moments, and most of the opinions expressed were interesting to consider, but unfortunately there are some issues, and to prove I did actually listen to the audio ( in some detail ), here are two examples that deserve some attention. The first is when he speaks of listening to the hallucinations of voices in his head and says to:
Example One:
"8:34 "... get the voice to tell you something that you're sure you didn't already know so that you can be sure that you're not just talking to the back of your head."
What seems to be being suggested here is that communication with some external agent must be taking place because the information gained is new and unfamiliar. If that is the assumption being made, it is not necessarily correct. The human mind is the product of an incredibly powerful processing system that is fully capable of conjuring up imagery and sounds and voices and content that is new and unfamiliar to the experiencer. Anyone who has had a lucid dream of an unfamiliar place, person, or voice can attest to this. I've had it happen more than once without any psychedelic enhancement.
Also, consciously and without the use of psychedelics I can compose new music along with words and hear it in my mind the same as I can visualize what a finished painting will look like on the wall. These are perfectly normal abilities that are in my experience definitely not telepathic communication. However I can see how when these things happen spontaneously because a user's mind is affected by psychedelics, that a user who is unfamiliar with the power of visualization and imagination might jump to the conclusion that some sort of telepathic communication is taking place.
This is not to say that I think the experience of something assumed to be telepathy has not taken place, or even that I think telepathy isn't possible, only that the reasoning for assuming that it must be taking place due to the novel nature of the information is not reason enough to be sure it is actually taking place.
Example Two:
38:10: "In 1978 a very, a spectacular, daylight meteorite crossed the United States from east to west, required about 35 seconds to go from one side of the country to the other. There was no warning that this thing would occur, and in the 35 seconds that it was over the continental United States, thousands and thousands of people saw it, but we got 32 good photographs of it from different points along the ground, two movies of it from two different points along it's pathway, and it was very well documented.
Uh, UFOs have been visiting people and appearing all over the world for 30 years and the hardware faction can't come up with anything. So it seems clear to me that what we're dealing with is a kind of mass psychic phenomenon of some sort."
The first issue is the description of the "spectacular daylight meteorite" of 1978. A brief search for this "well documented" event produced zero search engine results that match this description. Perhaps there was one, and if anyone else can find it, please post it up. The other thing about this event is that meteorites produce craters, and I found no indication that there were any significant meteorite craters made in 1978, so I also searched for meteors and found none of those either.
What I did find were numerous reports of the Great Daylight Fireball of 1972, which I personally saw, and almost fits with the description in the audio, but the direction of travel and speed are way off. So if he was talking about the 1972 event, he had the kind of object, the date, the direction, and the speed of the object wrong. But again, who knows? Maybe there was a spectacular meteorite in 1978. But where's all the alleged documentation and film and pictures, not to mention the crater?
With respect to UFOs, apart from his suggestion that UFOs have been around for 30 years, if we look at the claim that "the hardware faction can't come up with anything." I would remind those interested in ufology that there have been photographs and films of UFOs that were studied by the USAF, and that UFOs have been visually observed by highly trained unimpaired observers including Air Force pilots, while in at least one exceptional case being concurrently tracked on radar, and then there's the stuff Stanford supposedly has. So unless we're capable of photographing and tracking hallucinations on radar, I would very much take issue with the notion that UFOs are a "mass psychic phenomenon".
That is not to say that I don't believe that some people who are on psychedelics have hallucinated alien craft, but that is IMO certainly not the explanation for the majority of good reports from seemingly dependable and unimpaired witnesses. This is all I have the time to comment on now. In the meantime it is my hope that you might address these two example in some specific manner without resorting to accusatory comments about my intent or personal traits. Thanks.
Last edited:
William Strathmann
Paranormal Adept
I've read several articles by Dr. Strassman and I have seen a few of his vids. I exchanged a few emails with him prior to his most recent book release, DMT and the Soul of Prophecy, in which he attempts to link DMT to a framework of the Hebrew prophets of the Tanakh (Old Testament). I had expressed to him my concern that, evidently, he seemed to think the Hebrew prophets actually depended on DMT, which IMHO cannot be proven from the Hebrew texts themselves. Humans may produce DMT, but that would not necessarily mean it has anything to do with the visionary experiences of the Hebrew prophets. So I've just read the Kindle preview of his Soul of Prophecy book and it seems to me that he's qualified his approach to a greater degree than when we exchanged emails, but I don't really recall.
I have no experience as a narconaut. I have some experience as a theist with episodes that align with spiritual experiences described in the nascent Judeo-Christian tradition.
What troubles me most about Dr. Strassman's DMT approach is described in the article that Chris links to in the OP:
Strassman has said that the Hebrew prophets like Ezekiel had similar visionary experiences to those reported in DMT sessions, leading him to postulate some sort of a connection. But from what I recall reading about DMT experiences, sentient entities are regularly described in terms of "reptilian." THAT's what troubles me. [And to clarify, from my theistic approach such "reptilians" would evidently be cohorts of sentient beings who've rebelled against the Creator, and not "aliens."] And if my understanding of the reported entities is flawed then I am open for correction. But if it is correct, then I would say that there are significant differences between Hebrew prophets and DMT experiencers.
Moreover, in the ancient world prophets, augurs, enchanters and prognosticators had access to their ruling courts and could affect the future course of their respective nations. What the heck, didn't Nancy Reagan have horoscopes done while Ronny was in office. In any case, ancient rulers would hear what prophets had to say. The OT reports that leaders of Israel sometimes refused to obey what their prophets, of YHWH, were saying, leading to discipline in the form of some national disaster. So Hebrew prophets were not seeking personal enlightenment or pleasure. They operated under the stricture of trust in YHWH, Creator of the Universe, and obedience to his Torah (Law of Moses), and they prophesied about the how YHWH would discipline and/or bless the nation Israel, and all the nations. They also gave inviolable promises of future national glory for Israel and the world.
So, IMHO the Hebrew prophets made themselves sensitive to the communications of YHWH, Creator of the Universe, to be able speak to national leaders about national administration, and they had remarkable experiences. But they were not seeking personal insight, per se. There is no sign of pharmacological enhancement for their experiences in the OT, though music was sometimes requested.
In both the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew OT, and in the Greek NT that followed, the Greek word φάρμακος (pharmacos) and derivatives occur and they are translated as sorcery or some similar word. Any attempt to contact other worlds via potions, herbs, etc., was strictly proscribed from the Hebrew perspective. So that is why Dr. Strassman's "Hebrew prophets" approach troubles me.
I have no experience as a narconaut. I have some experience as a theist with episodes that align with spiritual experiences described in the nascent Judeo-Christian tradition.
What troubles me most about Dr. Strassman's DMT approach is described in the article that Chris links to in the OP:
and
Strassman has said that the Hebrew prophets like Ezekiel had similar visionary experiences to those reported in DMT sessions, leading him to postulate some sort of a connection. But from what I recall reading about DMT experiences, sentient entities are regularly described in terms of "reptilian." THAT's what troubles me. [And to clarify, from my theistic approach such "reptilians" would evidently be cohorts of sentient beings who've rebelled against the Creator, and not "aliens."] And if my understanding of the reported entities is flawed then I am open for correction. But if it is correct, then I would say that there are significant differences between Hebrew prophets and DMT experiencers.
Moreover, in the ancient world prophets, augurs, enchanters and prognosticators had access to their ruling courts and could affect the future course of their respective nations. What the heck, didn't Nancy Reagan have horoscopes done while Ronny was in office. In any case, ancient rulers would hear what prophets had to say. The OT reports that leaders of Israel sometimes refused to obey what their prophets, of YHWH, were saying, leading to discipline in the form of some national disaster. So Hebrew prophets were not seeking personal enlightenment or pleasure. They operated under the stricture of trust in YHWH, Creator of the Universe, and obedience to his Torah (Law of Moses), and they prophesied about the how YHWH would discipline and/or bless the nation Israel, and all the nations. They also gave inviolable promises of future national glory for Israel and the world.
So, IMHO the Hebrew prophets made themselves sensitive to the communications of YHWH, Creator of the Universe, to be able speak to national leaders about national administration, and they had remarkable experiences. But they were not seeking personal insight, per se. There is no sign of pharmacological enhancement for their experiences in the OT, though music was sometimes requested.
In both the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew OT, and in the Greek NT that followed, the Greek word φάρμακος (pharmacos) and derivatives occur and they are translated as sorcery or some similar word. Any attempt to contact other worlds via potions, herbs, etc., was strictly proscribed from the Hebrew perspective. So that is why Dr. Strassman's "Hebrew prophets" approach troubles me.
Last edited by a moderator:
@ UFOLOGY: That's ALL you have to say about about an almost two hour lecture filled w/ countless points of compelling information ranging across the whole spectrum of McKenna's work i.e., the role of language in human development, Glossolalia, shamanic abilities, problems w/ conventional thinking re: the physics and location of memory, the possible hidden role of genetic programming in the location of human memory; the development and history of theoretical consciousness study; the role of the ego in the development of internal mind dialog; the logos; the connection between UFOs and the experiencer in what may be a co-creative process etc etc etc etc et??? Dude, you are REALLY shut down and calcified in your thinking and I actually feel sorry for you! My definition of aging includes the following... As soon as we stop allowing ourselves to wonder, to ponder the great mysteries from new and different directions and we stop asking questions that may have answers that we don't like or are not expecting, THAT'S when we get old and start to intellectually (and physically) die. Sad. I honestly feel sorry for you. And I'll stand by my opinions of your manner, method and mode of thinking. I ask again nicely: Please don't suck the air out of my threads that deal w/ psychedelic studies and theories around ethnotheogens. And thankfully, again Randell, I rest my case...