|
Icon
Bloomer



Registered: 05/15/14
Posts: 2,866
Last seen: 6 hours, 31 minutes
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: stareatclouds]
#28600964 - 12/28/23 02:15 PM (30 days, 10 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
stareatclouds said: It wasn't a hypothesis or an attack on you. I am agnostic on the entities, bro. With that being said, I don't really find anything in that last one worth engaging further. It's just mindless reductionism with zero explanations for anything in-between. Dreaming is not at all comparable to a DMT experience.
No offense, but there isn't any substantive ideas for me to dig much into. "I think there are far more similarities between the experiences and our personalities than there are spontaneous, totally foreign concepts." Well, yeah, you apparently don't even think something can be a totally foreign concept, so what the hell am I even responding to? Why not just lead off with, "I don't believe anything about this experience can be anything but mind made." This is what I mean by boring ass reductionism. You might as well say, "YoU tOoK a DrUg!"
Quote:
My point is that everything experienced on DMT is indeed a familiar concept to the person.
Demonstrably false, unless you believe every living human is familiar with everything ever. But I feel like you're going to devolve "familiar concept to the person" --> "person recognizes something about whatever it is and tries their best, which I think I already covered. Haha, skimming your post, and yep. We went from Vishnu, a very specific being, obviously, into, "What? You're telling me someone ain't never heard of SOMETHING with more limbs? Oh, a blue genie type thing is foreign? Who hasn't seen Alladin?!" Okay, yeah, someone played Mortal Kombat or saw an octopus once, so it's not worthwhile. Regardless, it's yet another pointless distinction to me, either way. I don't place the emphasis on this that you do with regard to entity explanation.
Your claim was that, "when people manifest a messianic experience it's always in their primary or secondary religion." It's matter-of-factly stating something you obviously can't know or provide evidence for, thus, pulled from your ass.
My reply said, "Plenty of people report seeing blue, 4-armed Gods in Hyperspace, many of whom swear they'd never seen/heard of Vishnu prior." "Plenty", not all. "Many of whom", not everybody. If you think these are comparable, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm relaying something interesting that is clearly some shit from TRs I've read. It's cool, it's fun, it's believable, and dammit, people liked it.
You? Every time I turn around, you're shrieking at the top of your lungs like a howler monkey, bouncing up and down while flinging poo everywhere. "EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO DOES DMT SEES THEIR #1 RELIGIOUS FIGURE. FACT. IF THEY REJECT THEIR #1 CHOICE, THEIR MIND SHUFFLES IN THEIR BACKUP #2 RELIGIOUS FIGURE. FACT. LAST WEEK, THE BOUNCER AT THE BAR SAID, "HEY, WEREN'T YOU THAT WEIRDO SNIFFING THE BAR STOOLS ON NEVERENDING NACHO NIGHT?" HE HAD A STUPID, PUNY, CLOSED MIND LIKE YOU. FOOL, I SAID, IT WAS BUT MY SUBCONSCIOUS ARCHETYPE!"
I massively disagree with your last paragraph as it's kind of childish and silly to assume they'd know the future or would even care about something so silly to them. I also think it's rude and egotistical to make them jump through hoops to help you cheat at Powerball. I've heard Dr. Gallimore reference the entities fluently speaking an incredibly rare and unique Amazon language that was validated by a linguist who studies it. I wish I had a paper on that.
But just for fun, imagine if the entities gave you clues to construct a cheap device that when combined with DMT, you could see something novel and repeatable each time. Would you consider that intelligence if it were true?
Quote:
If you don't have the patience to think about and consider other people's points, just let someone else talk. Why is it so important to you that your beliefs go unchallenged?
None of these are my "beliefs" and I think my reply to you was pretty reasonable and rational. I did think about and consider your points. There's no requirement or guarantee I won't find them poorly thought out. No idea how you're registering my open discourse on the topic as needing my beliefs to go unchallenged, either. I wish you could return fire with something thought provoking, man. Do it!
I never wanted to interact with you in the first place, I really don't care what you think; you responded to me because my ideas apparently contradict yours. I've lost track of what your beliefs even are because you apparently only care about getting attention from disagreeing and personally attacking others.
Quote:
You? Every time I turn around, you're shrieking at the top of your lungs like a howler monkey, bouncing up and down while flinging poo everywhere. "EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO DOES DMT SEES THEIR #1 RELIGIOUS FIGURE. FACT. IF THEY REJECT THEIR #1 CHOICE, THEIR MIND SHUFFLES IN THEIR BACKUP #2 RELIGIOUS FIGURE. FACT. LAST WEEK, THE BOUNCER AT THE BAR SAID, "HEY, WEREN'T YOU THAT WEIRDO SNIFFING THE BAR STOOLS ON NEVERENDING NACHO NIGHT?" HE HAD A STUPID, PUNY, CLOSED MIND LIKE YOU. FOOL, I SAID, IT WAS BUT MY SUBCONSCIOUS ARCHETYPE!"
What a powerful and emotional imagination you have, buddy. It's like you're on deemz right now with how much you're painting the situation and all of us in your own victimized way.
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: Icon]
#28600972 - 12/28/23 02:23 PM (30 days, 10 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
"EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO DOES DMT SEES THEIR #1 RELIGIOUS FIGURE. FACT. IF THEY REJECT THEIR #1 CHOICE, THEIR MIND SHUFFLES IN THEIR BACKUP #2 RELIGIOUS FIGURE. FACT.
I find it difficult that anyone could believe that. Seems like trolling.
|
stareatclouds
star eat clouds?



Registered: 09/29/14
Posts: 9,881
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: Nillion]
#28600986 - 12/28/23 02:34 PM (30 days, 10 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nillion said: Go insult the authors of the study, they identified their methodology as flawed in several aspects. It's not a silly opinion at all.
They absolutely did not call their methodology flawed because it relies on self-reports. As I said, self-reports are standard for a study like this -- how else would you conduct it?! Are they going to ask someone else how they imagine your trip went?
They obviously knew they'd have to rely on self-reporting, Nillion. And they clearly do not consider the study flawed because of it. As a potential harm, they listed what would be described as a potential selection bias on participants because those with extremely negative experiences might be less likely to participate in this kind of research. That's also a very common problem and it's good they recognized it. They also mentioned potentially underestimating harmful experiences due to not asking specifically about them, only memorable ones.
So yes, it is a silly opinion, although I'm not 100% convinced it wasn't you being disingenuous and misrepresenting the study on purpose.
Quote:
I challenge you to find just three examples of this and post links. You're talking out your ass. Bro.
I bet you would, man. Like when you accused me of imagining the well-known DMT effect of turning atheists into believers? Sorry, but I'm unwilling to do to do the leg work for you again. You didn't even apologize or say thanks for the last asswhooping.
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: stareatclouds]
#28600989 - 12/28/23 02:38 PM (30 days, 10 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
stareatclouds said: They absolutely did not call their methodology flawed because it relies on self-reports.
From the study:
Quote:
Limitations to this study are similar to those of any retrospective Internet-based survey and include retrospective recall and social desirability biases, the use of a cross-sectional assessment which makes causal interpretations impossible and lacks the ability to determine whether the sample is representative of the entire population of people who ingest DMT.
Want to try again?
|
Kiwi89
Stranger
Registered: 06/16/20
Posts: 648
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: stareatclouds]
#28600990 - 12/28/23 02:39 PM (30 days, 10 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
stareatclouds said: Kiwi,
Unable to discuss what topic? The laser? I discussed it for like 15 pages, including politely explaining to you personally just how much sense your thoughts didn't make. Maybe brush up on your posts ITT and my replies to them?
Actually I do remember those posts, I think that it is you that should brush up on your posts. We had two interactions on that thread before you lost your cool. You did not personally explain to me anything, you were rambling angry. There seems to be thread to your behavior, posters have a view that does not align with yours, you loose your shit and start insulting other posters.
|
stareatclouds
star eat clouds?



Registered: 09/29/14
Posts: 9,881
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: Bardy]
#28601005 - 12/28/23 02:54 PM (30 days, 10 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bardy said: Stareatclouds, what happens if someone does DMT and doesn’t see the code in the laser? Did they accidentally crack through into the wrong reality where the developers of the universe didn’t hide their code in lasers only able to be perceived by a human sense organ while under the influence of a specific dose of a specific chemical?
Not sure if I’m picking up what your putting down yo 🤙
Man, what a difficult run-on sentence to read.
1. Per Dan, developers/higher-ups/simulators/whatever left the code for us to find. It's not like we outsmarted them to find it and now we know too much. By all accounts (which is basically just the one, Dan, who discovered it), they want us to discover it and play with it. I get the sense from Dan that things are going to be changing a LOT in the near future.
2. It can take a while to see it for some, but others see it right away. I have mailed a few lasers out and I think I'm like 2/4 of people seeing it of those who have tried a bit. OP of this thread started getting some good results. Encourage him to play with it some more. I think a lot were trying on mush, though, which isn't as easy. But it definitely takes the right amount of DMT to get your brain to lock onto it, so to speak. I'm hopeful to try again shortly, provided DMT doesn't whoop my ass instead. I need to FU with those laser recipients and try and troubleshoot a bit.
3. You seem to be using the "specific dose of a specific chemical" bit in some type of way. The specifics of the experiment, of which there are a couple, lend credence to the experiment. It's why it's so annoying hearing people say shit like, "We've all stared in trippy lights or lasers for a bit, man. Yeah, you can see stuff!" None of that is what we're talking about.
Nillion,
Are you ESL or something? Again, they are NOT calling their methodology flawed, you bonehead. They are corroborating exactly what I've been trying to explain to you -- this is the STANDARD way to conduct studies like this and is in no way flawed methodology. Do you notice how they didn't come close to saying, "our methodology was flawed?" They're affirming how this study has the same limitations as every other study that uses self-reported surveys. That isn't a flawed methodology, dingus, it's responsible scientists stating the obvious.
You're spending so much time to incorrectly argue a point that doesn't even have any bearing on your takeaways from the study lol
Quote:
Kiwi89 said: Actually I do remember those posts, I think that it is you that should brush up on your posts. We had two interactions on that thread before you lost your cool. You did not personally explain to me anything, you were rambling angry. There seems to be thread to your behavior, posters have a view that does not align with yours, you loose your shit and start insulting other posters.
Are you sure you didn't show up and begin firing off with silly explanations that have already been addressed in the source materials?
|
stareatclouds
star eat clouds?



Registered: 09/29/14
Posts: 9,881
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: Nillion]
#28601053 - 12/28/23 03:19 PM (30 days, 9 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nillion said:
Quote:
stareatclouds said: They absolutely did not call their methodology flawed because it relies on self-reports.
From the study:
Quote:
Limitations to this study are similar to those of any retrospective Internet-based survey and include retrospective recall and social desirability biases, the use of a cross-sectional assessment which makes causal interpretations impossible and lacks the ability to determine whether the sample is representative of the entire population of people who ingest DMT.
Want to try again?
This is truly my last Hail Mary. If you don't get it after this, we'll just have to chalk it as a loss.
Edited by stareatclouds (12/28/23 03:29 PM)
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 1 hour, 2 minutes
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: stareatclouds]
#28601109 - 12/28/23 03:53 PM (30 days, 9 hours ago) |
|
|
Andrew Gallimore seems to have created some type of DMT based religion. It’s all subjective by definition.
To believe this stuff you need to have had a drug experience in which you perceive things and then interpret them the same way as others that are part of the religion.
Anyone who has a different interpretation just hasn’t seen the light.
As for my long sentence, you may need to read it a few times but it should provide you with some insight into why you might be wrong about literally believing the code exists in another dimension; or whatever the specific words are that you choose.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,526
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: Bardy]
#28601151 - 12/28/23 04:14 PM (30 days, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
prob a bit too religious for me but I can see that there is a Jungian kind of sanity in trying to categorize and become familiar with DMT arcana even if it is just like dreams
it's still 1000% better than shooting people, unless someone in the group decides...
how come guns are legal again??
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 1 hour, 2 minutes
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: redgreenvines]
#28601155 - 12/28/23 04:16 PM (30 days, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
Agreed, it is better than shooting people lol
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: stareatclouds] 1
#28601157 - 12/28/23 04:16 PM (30 days, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
stareatclouds, it is rather clear that the study is flawed, for the reasons the authors mention, which is why they put the lines I quoted in their section on limitations.
It is noteworthy that their study only used people who reported encountering a deity, yet other than that single aspect there was very little consistency, this is in stark contrast to your assertions of common experiences.
Moreover literature consistently indicates that at least 1/3 of people do not encounter entities during DMT experiences. Of the remaining 2/3, their experiences are extremely diverse, despite most users literally being white males of a specific age range.
I get it, you see patterns in lasers when you are high and think it's profound and meaningful. Lots of people use lasers as trip toys, it's not some profound thing. In fact as far as the code goes there exists literally no evidence for the claim, only testimony, which puts your claims on par with those of the Mormons.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 1 hour, 2 minutes
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: Nillion]
#28601186 - 12/28/23 04:34 PM (30 days, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
Well said. That puts this to bed in my mind, for now
|
stareatclouds
star eat clouds?



Registered: 09/29/14
Posts: 9,881
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: Bardy] 1
#28601190 - 12/28/23 04:37 PM (30 days, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bardy said: Andrew Gallimore seems to have created some type of DMT based religion. It’s all subjective by definition.
To believe this stuff you need to have had a drug experience in which you perceive things and then interpret them the same way as others that are part of the religion.
Anyone who has a different interpretation just hasn’t seen the light.
As for my long sentence, you may need to read it a few times but it should provide you with some insight into why you might be wrong about literally believing the code exists in another dimension; or whatever the specific words are that you choose.
I believe that when you perform the experiment correctly, you can indeed see the expected pattern through the laser. It is a novel visual phenomena. That's it. You realize all the extra stuff is just some stupid shit you've invented on your own, right?
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 1 hour, 2 minutes
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: stareatclouds]
#28601226 - 12/28/23 04:57 PM (30 days, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
I thought you were talking the stupid shit that we were trying to dismantle? Glad we cleared that up 🤣 maybe we both talk stupid shit sometimes eh?
So now your claim is that it’s just a visual pattern? Seeing visual patterns and fractal like visuals is to be expected on psychedelics… this is nothing new. You were acting like someone came up with some new thing. “The laser experiment”. What was all this talk about code then?
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 1 hour, 2 minutes
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: Bardy]
#28601233 - 12/28/23 05:01 PM (30 days, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
You know that people have been staring at lasers on psychedelics for a long time right? Maybe not in there bedrooms and talking about it on the shroomery, but none of this is new.
|
stareatclouds
star eat clouds?



Registered: 09/29/14
Posts: 9,881
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: Nillion]
#28601265 - 12/28/23 05:25 PM (30 days, 7 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nillion said: stareatclouds, it is rather clear that the study is flawed, for the reasons the authors mention, which is why they put the lines I quoted in their section on limitations.
It is noteworthy that their study only used people who reported encountering a deity, yet other than that single aspect there was very little consistency, this is in stark contrast to your assertions of common experiences.
Moreover literature consistently indicates that at least 1/3 of people do not encounter entities during DMT experiences. Of the remaining 2/3, their experiences are extremely diverse, despite most users literally being white males of a specific age range.
I get it, you see patterns in lasers when you are high and think it's profound and meaningful. Lots of people use lasers as trip toys, it's not some profound thing. In fact as far as the code goes there exists literally no evidence for the claim, only testimony, which puts your claims on par with those of the Mormons.
No offense, but if you're genuinely not intelligent enough to understand the studies you're posting, maybe you should stop referencing them altogether? In all honesty, you are not interpreting any of this correctly, including thinking that study contrasts with anything I've said prior. Good luck in your research, fella.
Bardy,
Go read the thread, you annoying fucking bum. Do you think I get enjoyment in listening to complete dipshits say the same worthless thing over and over and over as if it's novel? What do you think idiots like you are "dismantling" besides any respect I might've had for you as a silent stranger?
Seeing visual patterns and fractal like visuals is to be expected on psychedelics… this is nothing new.
Listen, man. I think you're projecting hardcore by asking me stuff like this. I'm not one of your chums or your work colleagues or your identical twin. The comment above would have to assume that I am because only complete fucking idiots would find value in it. There is obviously more to this laser thing than "visual patterns", you bozo. You think there's a good chance that I have never considered/realized that psychedelics and light sources can affect perception? You don't find it much more likely that you're a dumbass who has offered nothing of value in any of these exchanges?
As always, dumb people thinking they're explaining something without even being in the same ballpark. Despite what you lemmings seem to think, I don't actually give a shit if you understand what's novel about the experiment or even care about it. But I'd love to not have to listen to simple people confidently adding nothing to the discourse.
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
#28601272 - 12/28/23 05:31 PM (30 days, 7 hours ago) |
|
|
Is it necessary to insult people who have a different perspective or opinion that doesn't fit the consensus?
It seems that indicates that you feel deficient in your own intelligence and need to assert yourself by denigrating others.
|
stareatclouds
star eat clouds?



Registered: 09/29/14
Posts: 9,881
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: Nillion]
#28601283 - 12/28/23 05:38 PM (30 days, 7 hours ago) |
|
|
There is no difference in perspective. The issue is very, very dumb people, such as yourself, continuing to say stupid shit. It isn't debatable that you're not understanding your own reading materials. I can keep explaining it to you, but I can't understand it for you. I don't even know why you clowns are bringing up the laser again? There is a specific thread for it. You could even stop talking altogether, go read what has been said in it, and maybe end up asking slightly less stupid comments with just a little effort. Or don't. Again, it's not a worthwhile conversation for me to have dumb people repeatedly ask me dumb things about something I'm not even trying to talk about.
As described, the properties of the visual phenomena in the laser are 100% novel. This legitimately is not debatable. What's debatable and up for discussion is whether everybody can see them or not. And the only way to get to that point is for more people to give it a try, troubleshoot hang-ups, and report back on successes or fails. I really wish I could make your brains understand that we are a tad bit past the whole, "BUT DUDE, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE MOST OBVIOUS EXPLANATION MY 9 REMAINING BRAIN CELLS CAN'T GET PAST?" part of this.
That's all I'm trying to convey. Just pretend that I've actually spent more than the last 4-5 minutes thinking about it. That should rightfully wipe out most of what you've said so far. Signing off. Cheers.
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: stareatclouds] 1
#28601291 - 12/28/23 05:46 PM (30 days, 7 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
stareatclouds said: There is no difference in perspective. The issue is very, very dumb people, such as yourself, continuing to say stupid shit. It isn't debatable that you're not understanding your own reading materials. I can keep explaining it to you, but I can't understand it for you. I don't even know why you clowns are bringing up the laser again? There is a specific thread for it. You could even stop talking altogether, go read what has been said in it, and maybe end up asking slightly less stupid comments with just a little effort. Or don't. Again, it's not a worthwhile conversation for me to have dumb people repeatedly ask me dumb things about something I'm not even trying to talk about.
I find your antagonism amusing.
You keep making statements about how intelligent you are and how stupid others are.
Ironically, just as is the case with the laser, the evidence for your intelligence is also lacking and rests entirely upon your own testimony. If you think I am dumb that doesn't speak well to your powers of observation or intellect.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,849
Last seen: 41 minutes, 24 seconds
|
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: stareatclouds] 1
#28601302 - 12/28/23 05:58 PM (30 days, 7 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
stareatclouds said: There is no difference in perspective. The issue is very, very dumb people, such as yourself, continuing to say stupid shit. It isn't debatable that you're not understanding your own reading materials. I can keep explaining it to you, but I can't understand it for you. I don't even know why you clowns are bringing up the laser again? There is a specific thread for it. You could even stop talking altogether, go read what has been said in it, and maybe end up asking slightly less stupid comments with just a little effort. Or don't. Again, it's not a worthwhile conversation for me to have dumb people repeatedly ask me dumb things about something I'm not even trying to talk about.
As described, the properties of the visual phenomena in the laser are 100% novel. This legitimately is not debatable. What's debatable and up for discussion is whether everybody can see them or not. And the only way to get to that point is for more people to give it a try, troubleshoot hang-ups, and report back on successes or fails. I really wish I could make your brains understand that we are a tad bit past the whole, "BUT DUDE, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE MOST OBVIOUS EXPLANATION MY 9 REMAINING BRAIN CELLS CAN'T GET PAST?" part of this.
That's all I'm trying to convey. Just pretend that I've actually spent more than the last 4-5 minutes thinking about it. That should rightfully wipe out most of what you've said so far. Signing off. Cheers.
why does it matter if people share the same opinion with us or not?
I don't even believe my own opinions, their just like, opinions dude
|
|