Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds UK
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | Next >
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: stareatclouds] * 2
    #28604006 - 12/30/23 11:23 PM (28 days, 9 hours ago)

Here is a more elaborate presentation of the nature of this situation from my perspective:

Quote:

stareatclouds said:He's saying what is revealed in the laser is always there, but without considering that our default brains aren't capable of seeing it, we're limiting our understanding.




That claim is undermined by the fact that not everyone who attempts the laser thing using the same methods has the same results.

If the code is actually present and is something seen with the eyes then it can be photographed. If it is a thing that happens in the brain then it will never be able to be photographed.

Because of the effect of visual transformation of objects, which is a very well known aspect of the psychedelic experience, as doses increase things become unrecognizable. People become unable to recognize objects and surroundings as everything is transformed into unrecognizable patterns and still the brain needs to make sense of it through reference.  So in doing just that the brain makes whatever correlations it can, this is the reason that apophenia is so prominent in psychedelic states. It is part of the biological operation of the brain as an organ, it strives to correlate sensory stimulus with known references to allow recognition. This is even how language works, we hear a sound and then process it to see if we can recognize it. Sight works the same way.

When the brain is not given enough information, or when it is given too much, it still tries to make connections and recognize what is happening as a way to orient and organize perception during the experience. We can even hear what we see, see what we feel and hear and feel what we see, etc, because of the mixing of the senses known as synaesthesia. 

The state where we are no longer able to recognize our surroundings has been given the name of hyperspace, which makes it seem like a location rather than a sensory experience. This has led to numerous misconceptions about the nature of what we perceive in this state and leads to those perceptions being conflated with objects in a location. They are then no longer considered perceptions during a state and instead become viewed as things in a location. This makes them seem as real as any object and makes the state seem like a location as real as any room or place. It can be very convincing, but it is still a trick of the mind.

When a person is told that the state of perception is them traveling to an alternate dimension it has suggestive value that creates expectations which affect and shape the experience. This is a big deal because psychedelics make people far more vulnerable to suggestion, which is why they are used with things like MKultra and psychotherapy.

The reality is that despite how it seems the very nature and experience of what is called hyperspace can be explained in terms of biology, chemistry and psychology. However those aren't things that most younger white males of a specific age range are familiar with, which is the majority of DMT users. Joe Rogan, on the other hand, is much more likely to be something they are familiar with.

The claim from individuals that most of users of psychedelic believe to be knowledgeable and who are viewed as authorities upon the subject; is that DMT allows a person to access a special dimension with supernatural properties, where strange beings reside. Beliefs and experiences are shaped by the information available from people viewed as authorities, peers and role models.

This is no different that when children are young and lack quality information about who brings their presents on Christmas. The people they trust include other children with the same beliefs, this reinforces the idea that what is believed is true. Likewise the people they consider more knowledgeable than them, who are seen as role models, keep providing them bad information. This type of situation doesn't go away as people age. Most people base their beliefs on their group identity, rather than forming them individually through careful consideration. This is why things like religions are so successful, they rely heavily upon peer pressure.

The peer pressure concerning beliefs about hyperspace and entities in the psychedelic community is immense. Many people's expectations of these things are such that they believe that anything that fails to meet those expectations must then be false, they won't even consider such information and they often attack or denounce those who present it. There is often no standard of truth or evidence being used other than consensus and the emotional perception of things feeling true, as it were. 

This is all akin to staring at an object, which undergoes psychedelic visual transformation, say a piece of clothing on a bed is stared at and it looks like an animal of some type. At that level most people retain awareness that it is not an animal, it just looks like one. Yet at some point many people seem to lose, refuse, or lack the ability to consider things in that way. They no longer see a blanket that looks like an animal, rather they see the animal and consider it so real that they believe it to exist, in that special location that was actually a state of perception after they are no longer tripping balls. The see tripping balls not so much as a thing they were doing but rather as a place they were in and so they believe it to still exist.

In spite of all of this we really can provide a reasonable and logically consistent explanation of hyperspace, entities and things like complex pattern perception by using psychology, chemistry and biology. However the knowledge of those things is not widely available, Joe Rogan doesn't know shit about these things for example and Terrence McKenna though brilliant is a source of an incredible amount of complete bullshit, like his Timewave zero theory and his prediction of an apocalypse on December 21 2012 and much much more.

If people were listening to folks like Keeper Trout, David Nichols and Dennis McKenna then things would be different. But sadly, the peers and role models in the psychedelic community are not those who have the best information... rather they are those who are the most entertaining. 

And lets face it, magical aliens in another dimension sounds a lot cooler than suggestion, pareidolia and apophenia.

The struggle is real.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblestareatclouds
star eat clouds?
 Unread Journal User Gallery


Registered: 09/29/14
Posts: 9,886
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #28604028 - 12/31/23 12:07 AM (28 days, 8 hours ago)

Using nothing but straw man arguments, refusing to acknowledge counterarguments that invalidate your point, disingenuously using your own interpretations of words/terms, egotistically insisting that you're explaining something you haven't experienced, rudely calling someone FOS and demanding they do basic research for you (after ignoring research they'd already done for them), etc. These are all much more offensive to me than name-calling and I don't respect people who repeatedly employ these tactics. I prefer to be direct and clear about this and let them know they're acting moronic.

You respect Nillion's condescending posts like, "Hey, you're passionate about this and I love that about you?" Even without the condescending attitude, that's weirdo shit to me. As I've said a few times now, I find it extremely annoying when people are condescending while confidently incorrect about something. I feel I've refuted enough of his dumb arguments enough times that a rational person arguing in good faith would recognize it. So he's either acting in bad faith or just too stupid to understand simple things. It is what it is.

I made an easily verifiable statement about DMT making folks believe in a higher power. He insulted me by saying it was only in my imagination. I responded by posting multiple studies, articles, and personal accounts backing it up. I mentioned multiple people seeing what appear to be Hindu Gods and he tells me I'm talking out of my ass, bitching at me to find examples for him. It's odd to me that you'd somehow view these as normal interactions on his end, but me rightfully calling him a clown in response is a big no-no.

But as I've said, we're all entitled to have our own red flags. No reason why yours need to be the same as mine. We may just identify disrespect in different ways.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblestareatclouds
star eat clouds?
 Unread Journal User Gallery


Registered: 09/29/14
Posts: 9,886
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: stareatclouds]
    #28604046 - 12/31/23 12:51 AM (28 days, 7 hours ago)

And for the record, I think the only people I've been annoyed at for rejecting the possibility of the laser producing the effects were redgreenvines and The Blind Ass (more so TBA). The reasons were because they'd both discussed seeing codes at random prior and being fascinated by them. RVG had mentioned a specific feature of them that my buddy saw in the laser that I found peculiar, but isn't widely discussed. I wanted to see if they were the same. TBA had some really cool posts on randomly seeing code, too (although I don't think his is the exact same as the laser code). He described so many features of the code he saw randomly with what is revealed in the laser, seemingly blown away by it. I thought they'd both be interested and wanted them to try, but both of them in different ways called it bullshit, heh.

It's just odd to me to know that certain visuals can happen sporadically, but outright reject someone claiming they've found a way to induce them reliably. If you already know your brain + psychedelics are capable of producing visual phenomena that you find fascinating, why would you instinctively think it's horseshit that someone figured out a way to reveal it consistently? Especially someone like RGV who outlines what he thinks is causing it through our neurochemistry. It's obvious we have the hardware to produce it given that it happens on occasion. Shouldn't it be fascinating if someone found a way to repeat it consistently?

I'm glad I at least got TBA to try it out and confirm it isn't bullshit. Maybe RGV will give it a shot at some point. Hoping the folks I sent the lasers to will keep trying, too.


Edited by stareatclouds (12/31/23 01:02 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKiwi89
Stranger
Registered: 06/16/20
Posts: 648
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: stareatclouds]
    #28604053 - 12/31/23 01:17 AM (28 days, 7 hours ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblestareatclouds
star eat clouds?
 Unread Journal User Gallery


Registered: 09/29/14
Posts: 9,886
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: Kiwi89]
    #28604062 - 12/31/23 01:47 AM (28 days, 6 hours ago)

Not all 8 links discuss that study as some are just personal accounts and discussion, which are entirely relevant to the claim. The point was to show you that you can just look yourself on social platforms, probably including Shroomery, and find multiple people confirming it happens. Yes, others are sources discussing the same study with different quotes from the authors and other anecdotes from others validating the initial claim. There are links to 2 studies total, which have some of the same authors; this doesn't invalidate the results. I also included an abstract which is a rebuttal to someone's response challenging the results of these studies.

I didn't say, "There are 50 independent studies on this experience and result, all concluding the same thing." I said DMT is known for turning atheists into believers and I provided studies and personal accounts affirming as much. Sorry, am I supposed to do more research for other people now? Especially the kind of people who incorrectly believe a study using self-reporting is methodologically flawed? Google yourself instead of bitching and you can find more than enough evidence.

This is what I mean when I say you are going out of your way to be contrarian. I responded with links to someone rudely calling me FOS. This is the difference between us.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBardy
Male

Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 8 hours, 36 minutes
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: stareatclouds]
    #28604101 - 12/31/23 03:39 AM (28 days, 4 hours ago)

Quote:

stareatclouds said:
And for the record, I think the only people I've been annoyed at for rejecting the possibility of the laser producing the effects were redgreenvines and The Blind Ass (more so TBA). The reasons were because they'd both discussed seeing codes at random prior and being fascinated by them. RVG had mentioned a specific feature of them that my buddy saw in the laser that I found peculiar, but isn't widely discussed. I wanted to see if they were the same. TBA had some really cool posts on randomly seeing code, too (although I don't think his is the exact same as the laser code). He described so many features of the code he saw randomly with what is revealed in the laser, seemingly blown away by it. I thought they'd both be interested and wanted them to try, but both of them in different ways called it bullshit, heh.

It's just odd to me to know that certain visuals can happen sporadically, but outright reject someone claiming they've found a way to induce them reliably. If you already know your brain + psychedelics are capable of producing visual phenomena that you find fascinating, why would you instinctively think it's horseshit that someone figured out a way to reveal it consistently? Especially someone like RGV who outlines what he thinks is causing it through our neurochemistry. It's obvious we have the hardware to produce it given that it happens on occasion. Shouldn't it be fascinating if someone found a way to repeat it consistently?

I'm glad I at least got TBA to try it out and confirm it isn't bullshit. Maybe RGV will give it a shot at some point. Hoping the folks I sent the lasers to will keep trying, too.




I can get the same visuals reliably on acid when I look at the ocean. It doesn’t mean that it’s based in objective reality, it just means that on the same dose of acid when I’m looking at the same type of thing, my brain seems to reliably create the same morphing and breathing visuals.

I can reveal this to myself consistently, and it is super interesting and beautiful and entertaining.

I watched those two videos that you linked in your thread and the guy honestly seems like a bit of a rambling maniac to me. He constantly goes on tangents that don’t directly relate to the points I think he’s trying to make and babbles on and on about how science needs to change to be able to understand things better when he obviously isn’t a scientist himself. He’s a smart dude, and very creative (kind of an L. Ron Hubbard type or something), but at the end of the day he’s just smoking a load of DMT and staring at a wall.

I do not understand how that is in any way revolutionary or novel.

I know you’re saying the reliability of the code is what is interesting, but like I said, I can also reliably produce the same visuals looking at the same thing. And he even said in the video that it took 2 hours for one person to see ā€œthe codeā€ā€¦ come on man, why would it take 2 hours for someone to see something that is literally there? This unreliability across the population, the fact that different people take different amounts of time to see it, the fact that some do not see it at all is what should be making you think that this might be bullshit.

Your bullshit sensors need a recalibration IMO.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBardy
Male

Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 8 hours, 36 minutes
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: Bardy]
    #28604133 - 12/31/23 04:32 AM (28 days, 4 hours ago)

Saying that you see code in a laser on DMT reliably is equally insightful as saying you see the same thing every time you look at your car when you’re sober.

I can reliably produce the same visual every time I look at my car whilst operating on a healthy dose of endogenous neurotransmitters.

Old mate Dan can seemingly reliably produce the same visuals looking at a laser on DMT.

I cannot figure out why that second statement should be anymore profound than the first.

He’s literally just talking about consciousness the way people have for centuries. It’s the way your brain interprets the sense data.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblestareatclouds
star eat clouds?
 Unread Journal User Gallery


Registered: 09/29/14
Posts: 9,886
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: Bardy]
    #28604135 - 12/31/23 04:41 AM (28 days, 3 hours ago)

Quote:

I can get the same visuals reliably on acid when I look at the ocean. It doesn’t mean that it’s based in objective reality, it just means that on the same dose of acid when I’m looking at the same type of thing, my brain seems to reliably create the same morphing and breathing visuals.




I don't consider classic breathing visuals overlaid or within our base reality to be the same as the laser experiment. I even used that as an example of the kind of simple and known visual effect of psychedelics that is NOT similar to the laser. You aren't revealing something that isn't otherwise seen; you're describing one of the most common and well-known hallmarks of psychedelic trips.

I posted a list of all the features of the experiment that make it a novel visual phenomena earlier. Go through them and see how many apply to you watching the ocean breathe. I'd love to hear your protocol to "reveal" this, too. I assume it involves eating acid and then pointing your eyeballs toward the ocean?


Quote:

He constantly goes on tangents that don’t directly relate to the points I think he’s trying to make




Such as? I don't think he rambles at all. He's quite coherent and explains himself very well. Perhaps he just confused you with big words or something? It seems like a safe bet given how you think, "I stare at my car while on drugs and it's still my car!" is analogous. :lol:


Quote:

Your bullshit sensors need a recalibration IMO.




Sorry, what are you calling bullshit? You're falling into the kettle logic others have. You are arguing that it's actually really easy to reliably induce a specific visual effect on psychedelics, but calling this bullshit. What are you disputing?

I yet again don't think your points are worthwhile or relevant. Why would it matter how long it takes people to see it as long as they see it? It's not like you staring at the ocean and seeing a classic psychedelic effect. It's definitely not like you staring at your car and still seeing your car. :lol:

It takes the right dosage to get there and then you can't seem to unsee it once you're there. It's like your brain needs to hit some threshold to lock onto it. It's not totally understood why yet, but I consider this a great point toward why it's so novel and interesting. Unlike your car or the ocean, there isn't a base visual already there. And when you see it, it's not like the laser beam or wall it's on morphs and breathes. It's a completely foreign thing from your starting point. And even the object you're seeing it in doesn't even seem to be causing it because you can move the laser without the code moving with it.

Regardless, I've seen it along with a friend (who saw it immediately). So have multiple others I've sent lasers to or told about it. So it's a little hard for me to consider something bullshit that I've already independently verified with others. But I get it, man. You think it's dumb and you're really smart for realizing it's horseshit. I'm really stupid and gullible for believing it's there, even after seeing it myself. You're right. It's the exact same as staring at your car sober. Great stuff.


Quote:

I cannot figure out why that second statement should be anymore profound than the first.




I know, buddy. I know. And you know what? It's okay. It's totally fine that you don't get why this is cool or unique or interesting. I am not here to make you find it interesting, either. Maybe it's best you just acknowledge it isn't for you and leave it be?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBardy
Male

Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 8 hours, 36 minutes
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: stareatclouds]
    #28604172 - 12/31/23 05:41 AM (28 days, 2 hours ago)

Regardless of what you’re seeing, it’s all visual phenomena though. Whether you see a shrinking car, a breathing ocean, some code in lasers or abstract shapes on a black screen replacing all of ā€œrealityā€, it’s all visual phenomena. No matter if it is reliably created, or has a parallax effect and a seemingly fixed position in space or whatever, it’s still just visual phenomena which we know is created within our consciousness. If it reveals anything about the universe, it only reveals facts about consciousness or the way our brains work.

This guy claims this proves things about ā€œsimulationsā€ among other things. I can’t be bothered trying to explain all the tangents, contradictions and seeming misunderstandings of the way things work that this guy says. At some point I might try… but he just rambles so much shit in his videos that I can’t be bothered to go through it all with a fine tooth comb. He’s not good at going slow and explaining things clearly because I don’t think he truly understands what he’s saying half the time.

It was painful to watch two full videos of his all the way through, honestly, lol.

There is nothing different or novel about this code phenomenon. You’ve yet to point out anything to me that actually makes it any different in my mind, and I’ve read every comment of yours as far as I know.

In your first post on your original thread you said ā€œmaybe me and my friend are just gullibleā€, and since making that statement you haven’t entertained the idea that this may be true at all. I’m not trying to cause offence here at all, just saying that it’s still an option that you seem to have forgotten about in this thread. We’re all gullible at times, there’s no shame in it.

But, I’m still open to the idea that I’ve missed something here… I just haven’t seen what I’ve missed yet, and I feel like I’ve considered all of the points that I think he’s trying to make.

He shouldn’t be trying to draw any conclusions before actually doing the double blinds or whatever… he didn’t need to post those videos. I think he’s just looking for attention and trying to suck people into his way of thinking.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblestareatclouds
star eat clouds?
 Unread Journal User Gallery


Registered: 09/29/14
Posts: 9,886
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: Bardy]
    #28604188 - 12/31/23 06:09 AM (28 days, 2 hours ago)

You aren't causing offense, you're mostly just embarrassing yourself. As I said, it's okay that you don't get why any of this is different or novel. I am still waiting for any similar examples that match with the properties I outlined earlier. But maybe you're right that it's just like staring at your car and all that.

I don't really find conversations with people that interesting when their entire outlook is really boring reductionism, especially when they're annoyingly rude about it. It's the kind of outlook that leads to people confidently thinking they're explaining things when they aren't. We don't even know wtf consciousness is or where it comes from, buddy. "Regardless if it does all of these things that we don't have much of an explanation for yet, it's just visual phenomena caused by this other thing we don't understand!" It's as much of a non-explanation as, "You just took a drug!" to explain anything that happened after. It's not an explanation. It's just a way for really boring, intellectually limited people to feel superior shitting on something others find interesting.

Do I think I'm gullible about WHAT? Something I have absolutely seen with others that multiple other people have seen as well? That doesn't even make any sense. Again, wtf are you even arguing?! That this is so damn common that it's uninteresting and happens with anything people look at? Then wtf am I gullible about and what are you calling bullshit? Seriously, Google "kettle logic" and realize how stupid your logic is. Please.

You don't find it interesting or unique. Again, that's fine. But you repeatedly stating the exact same thing while ignoring everything I say in response isn't as fun for me as it is for you. I am not trying to convince you of anything, man. It's been obvious since your first condescending remarks to me (that I answered in good faith) that this isn't something you'll "get." No biggie, man. Everything isn't for everybody.

Seriously, it's not for you and that's okay. But it really feels a lot more like you are trying to make me have your opinion than the other way around. I genuinely don't care if you care about this or not. You seem desperate for me to admit it's all bullshit and I didn't see what I saw or something. It doesn't seem healthy.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBardy
Male

Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 8 hours, 36 minutes
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: stareatclouds]
    #28604206 - 12/31/23 06:34 AM (28 days, 2 hours ago)

You said yourself that maybe you and your friend are just gullible in your first post about this. And since then you haven’t even entertained the idea that you’ve been influenced into seeing the code as far as I can see.

Your comebacks to our arguments thus far have mainly consisted of the following:
- ā€œyou’re all idiotsā€
- ā€œI don’t find your conversation interesting or of any valueā€

In your mind, how are you adding anything of value to the conversation by replying in this way?

There’s literally no point in talking to a person like you so I’m out. Congratulations, you’ve come no closer to truth and you’ve made a bunch of people think of you in a negative light.

Oh yeah, and that’s pretty mature of you to call me ā€œreally, really, really stupidā€ in reply to my rating. šŸ‘ superior intellect in action right there


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblestareatclouds
star eat clouds?
 Unread Journal User Gallery


Registered: 09/29/14
Posts: 9,886
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: Bardy] * 1
    #28604264 - 12/31/23 07:37 AM (28 days, 59 minutes ago)

1. When multiple people confirm seeing the same thing, everybody can't be gullible. Again, what you say makes no sense and is at odds with your other statements. If it's the exact same thing as staring at your car, why the need for gullibility? I don't have to be talked into seeing a version of my car when I eat mushrooms and look at it, do I? You're simultaneously calling me gullible + suggesting I was "influenced" into hallucinating something specific (does not make any sense), but also downplaying the laser code as expected and not really unique. These are at odds with one another. Anyway, I am not entertaining the "gullible" idea because it does not make sense.

2. I believe you when you think all I've said in response to you is that you're an idiot. My comment on your rating explains why I believe this. However, each time I have trashed your arguments, I have pointed out all the flaws I find in them. I think it's actually pretty impressive given how little you've offered in terms of substance. When I say your argument isn't worthwhile, I explain why, often asking you several questions in return. You ignore them. I've repeatedly pointed you to the list of unique properties of the laser code, asking how many apply to your ocean comparison. You ignored that, but replied with the same, "I just don't see what makes this unique!" You said Dan rambles like a maniac so I asked you for examples; you provided none, saying you couldn't be bothered. I asked you why it should matter how long it takes people to see it as long as they see it? Crickets.

3. I agree. There is no point in talking with someone who repeatedly points out the stupidity in your arguments. It's a problematic combo when your goal throughout the interactions has only been to shit on this person, not engage in a civil, respectful conversation. Why don't you read back how rudely you interjected your comments about the laser and rethink how much kindness I should be expected to show you? You have consistently been an annoying douche, speaking to me in a cunty, condescending tone, despite me initially answering you politely. And I'm being totally honest when I say that I'd have no problem with this if you'd ever made any relevant, thought-provoking, unique, or somewhat interesting point. But you haven't.

Instead, you've been demanding I convince you of some shit I never brought up in the first place, as if I volunteered to field stupid questions from some contrarian dickhead. I'm not on your time, dude. I don't exist on here to jump through your hoops or play jester to convince you of anything. You're acting like I'm inconveniencing you by seeing something in a laser. You're bothering me to convince you I'm not some gullible idiot in some psychedelic religious cult who foolishly believes I'm uniquely experiencing some hidden piece of the universe. That wouldn't even be a reasonable expectation if any of that were true, which it isn't. The bulk of your assumptions have been completely off the mark and involve ideas/stances I've never shared and don't actually have.

To get respect, you have to give it. If you were politely skeptic, I'd answer you differently, like I did initially -- even if I thought your arguments were dumb. If you'd found issue with things I'd actually said or believed, I would've been more chill, but you didn't. You patronizingly framed my stance as, "literally believing the code exists in another dimension; or whatever the specific words are that you choose." Do you know that saying "literally" doesn't work with, "or whatever the specific words are that you choose?" You're supposed to know what specific words I choose if you're going to shit on them and imply I'm some idiot. Otherwise you're just making some shit up that I didn't say, which is what you did.

All I've ever pointed out is that the experiment legitimately produces the visual phenomena Dan claims. And I only told others about it after I'd verified it myself. And even knowing it might not work for others, I still built and mailed out a bunch of lasers for people to try, paying for all materials and shipping myself. While I told folks I wanted them to make serious attempts at it, I also told everyone to accurately report their results, even with a failure. I've never said a single fucking thing about this being proof of a simulation or that I've got a glimpse into the universe or whatever dumb thing you've attributed to me. I have only said it can reliably produce novel visual phenomena that defies our current understanding of what's involved -- and it does, you dipshit. Google "visual phenomena" in this thread and look how many times it was initially said and by who.

Throughout our interactions, you've been incredibly rude ad insulting while having completely stupid arguments. You have not provided a single interesting thought for me to consider or dwell on. Despite saying to you that I'm not trying to convince you of anything, you've persisted, which most normal folks would also consider rude (especially in a completely unrelated thread I was already engaged in). It's been the same shit that I was already annoyed at in the actual thread: people misrepresenting my arguments, ignoring the specifics of the experiment that make it unique, and offering nothing but contrarianism via uninteresting reductionist "explanations." Please tell me what you've said that hasn't already been said prior? Nothing. Sorry, pal, go cry elsewhere.

4. I never said I was mature, nor a one-of-a-kind intellect. I'm just not a fucking idiot. And I think I have a right to be annoyed at your comments and the way you've delivered them. If people dislike me now because of it, so be it. But I have a feeling it's mostly you and the 2 others who this entire comment applies to equally.

Happy New Year. Later.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFerdinando
Male

Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,664
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #28604322 - 12/31/23 08:24 AM (28 days, 12 minutes ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
:keep on trucking:




keep on trucking
"play safe" - redgreenvines

i bow to you


--------------------
with our love with our love we could save the world


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,528
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: Ferdinando]
    #28604351 - 12/31/23 09:01 AM (27 days, 23 hours ago)

just do the yoga for yourself
I don need any bowing around me, hahaha, DMT Elf Yoga!


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblestareatclouds
star eat clouds?
 Unread Journal User Gallery


Registered: 09/29/14
Posts: 9,886
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #28604361 - 12/31/23 09:13 AM (27 days, 23 hours ago)

red,

You ever do yoga? It's extremely tough. Anywho, what do you think about these properties of the code? Provided they are accurate, can you think of any other examples of each of these qualities in any other visual phenomena?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #28604454 - 12/31/23 10:33 AM (27 days, 22 hours ago)

People who do Yoga are posers.

They pose this way and they pose that way.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,528
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: stareatclouds] * 2
    #28604567 - 12/31/23 12:15 PM (27 days, 20 hours ago)

Quote:

stareatclouds said:
red,

You ever do yoga? It's extremely tough. Anywho, what do you think about these properties of the code? Provided they are accurate, can you think of any other examples of each of these qualities in any other visual phenomena?



Re Yoga: Of course I  pose now and then, but I breathe all the time.
pranayama is worth examining, and my breathing is informed by that, and my postures are informed by poses, and my exercise is informed by yoga. I could not teach yoga because I don't really do a full program of it only what my body asks me to do; and daily half lotus for my meditation pose.

As For your list of "properties" - I hope I hit the right list - my comments are quotes in line:

Quote:



Shared Experience Among Multiple Observers
Multiple people in the same room simultaneously perceive and describe the 'code' similarly.
Rating: 10/10
Quote:

describing some experience similarly to someone else when you do something that is similar is a subjective approach - the evaluation is general and subjective rather than specific and accurate, and scoring 10/10 is suspicious. test samples have to be collected and analyzed but also no leading questions must be asked, and the test subjects have to be isolated from each other throughout the entire period of experimentation




Persistence and Enhancement Over Time
Once seen, the 'code' becomes more pronounced and easier to discern in subsequent observations.
Rating: 9/10
Quote:

why this is only 9/10 is suspicious, but what this really means is also vague, are the experimenters using the equipment more properly or are they cross pollinating ideas and "conforming" to the group mind experience - the sense of doings smething important and belonging - all valid human experiences, but kind of soft for a rigorous program.



Spatial Consistency and Parallax Effect
The 'code' exhibits fixed spatial coordinates and parallax effects, behaving like real objects.
Rating: 9/10
Quote:

when a visual effect from a source image is observed at different angles we would expect some parallax and scaling to occur, but this is not a very compelling factor while in conjunction with other factors it could be a supporting factor.



Universal Surface Projection
The 'code' can be revealed on any surface, including inanimate objects and living entities.
Rating: 9/10
Quote:

projection and reflection should work like that, and some aspect of projection is involved - laser light is projected and reflected.



Visibility Across Different Psychedelics
The 'code' is visible under the influence of both DMT, ayahuasca, and psilocybin/psilocin, albeit with varying intensity.
Rating: 9/10
Quote:

I am not surprised, I see faces and script on surfaces when very stoned without laser assistance



Enhanced Clarity through Optical Refraction
The 'code' becomes clearer and more defined when the laser is shone through a glass of water.
Rating: 8/10
Quote:

how is clarity being measured, subjective reporting is subject to subjectivity



Wavelength-Specific Revelation
Different wavelengths of laser light reveal different parts of the 'code'.
Rating: 8/10
Quote:

Well if the code is being recorded and then compared, we need to see the recordings,, even if they are hand drawn, otherwise this is a very subjective retrospective consideration



Static Perception in Dynamic Visual Field
The 'code' remains stationary and consistent even as the laser moves, excluding the speckle effect.
Rating: 8/10
Quote:

this is worth more investigation



Neuroplasticity and Recognition Enhancement
After initial perception, the 'code' becomes easier to recognize during future attempts, suggesting neuroplastic adaptations.
Rating: 7/10
Quote:

any reference to neuroplasticity should be disregarded without biopsies or fluorescent chemical tracing and imaging - so this item undermines the authority by your sheer enthusiasm about the lasers



Psychedelic Requirement
The phenomenon within the laser occurs only under the influence of specific psychedelic substances.
Rating: 7/10
Quote:

and this is your main point








I would recommend rethinking the experiments, devising and using controls for each phase of the experiment, including hand drawn views of the "letters" and "words" in the script, and transcripts of detailed verbal descriptions of what was seen in each set up. Also ensure that the participants do not have any contact with each other.
Before doing the tests and asking and recording your findings, get a pro to help verify that your questions are not in any way leading the witnesses, or influencing their drawings.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFreedom
Pigment of your imagination
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,849
Last seen: 8 hours, 15 minutes
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #28604591 - 12/31/23 12:34 PM (27 days, 20 hours ago)

some interesting new research related to breathing, also has references to other breathing research i didn't know about

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43450-5

Quote:

The beneficial effect of sleep on memory consolidation relies on the precise interplay of slow oscillations and spindles. However, whether these rhythms are orchestrated by an underlying pacemaker has remained elusive. Here, we tested the relationship between respiration, which has been shown to impact brain rhythms and cognition during wake, sleep-related oscillations and memory reactivation in humans. We re-analysed an existing dataset, where scalp electroencephalography and respiration were recorded throughout an experiment in which participants (N = 20) acquired associative memories before taking a nap. Our results reveal that respiration modulates the emergence of sleep oscillations. Specifically, slow oscillations, spindles as well as their interplay (i.e., slow-oscillation_spindle complexes) systematically increase towards inhalation peaks. Moreover, the strength of respiration - slow-oscillation_spindle coupling is linked to the extent of memory reactivation (i.e., classifier evidence in favour of the previously learned stimulus category) during slow-oscillation_spindles. Our results identify a clear association between respiration and memory consolidation in humans and highlight the role of brain-body interactions during sleep.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKiwi89
Stranger
Registered: 06/16/20
Posts: 648
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #28604624 - 12/31/23 01:13 PM (27 days, 19 hours ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
As For your list of "properties" - I hope I hit the right list - my comments are quotes in line:





I think that is only honest to disclose that prompt engineering a list of properties form ChatGPT to provide some sort of credibility is to be taken with a grain of salt. ChatGPT can not even get basic mathematics correct let-alone be considered a reliable source for scientific study.

It should be considered basic courtesy to provide the prompt at least along with ChatGPT output. It is exceedingly easy to prompt ChatGPT to prove you correct under any circumstances.

To  be clear I am not talking about your reply redgreenvines but the list of properties provided.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblestareatclouds
star eat clouds?
 Unread Journal User Gallery


Registered: 09/29/14
Posts: 9,886
Re: A New Theory for the DMT Entities? [Re: Kiwi89] * 1
    #28604734 - 12/31/23 03:25 PM (27 days, 17 hours ago)

Quote:

Kiwi89 said:
I think that is only honest to disclose that prompt engineering a list of properties form ChatGPT to provide some sort of credibility is to be taken with a grain of salt. ChatGPT can not even get basic mathematics correct let-alone be considered a reliable source for scientific study.

It should be considered basic courtesy to provide the prompt at least along with ChatGPT output. It is exceedingly easy to prompt ChatGPT to prove you correct under any circumstances.

To  be clear I am not talking about your reply redgreenvines but the list of properties provided.




*eye roll*

Man, legitimately everything confuses you. I used ChatGPT to output all of the properties reported in the laser. That's it. The rating is just it's best guess as to how common or easily explained the phenomena is. You don't need to see the prompt or anything else because you already have the information. So unfortunately, you'll still be as confused now as you were 5 months ago.

red,

Sorry for any confusion. This is just a list of the specific features observed in the laser code, not any experiments I am planning or have done. The rating isn't really important, it's just whether GPT believes it to be easily explained or not. I am interested whether you've experienced any of these properties prior, as well as how you figure to explain them. The descriptions are fairly straightforward, but I'll edit and repost with more details.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | Next >

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Salvia + DMT = ?? ninjapixie 4,303 18 03/15/05 11:22 PM
by ninjapixie
* Can you get brain damage from a DMT overdose?
( 1 2 3 all )
trypyamine 45,564 50 05/04/12 06:53 PM
by dmtisnot4me
* DMT noise
( 1 2 all )
thedudenj 7,959 34 02/01/07 08:27 PM
by Feanor
* Has anyone used their vaporbrothers here for salvia, dmt or something else? darkstar45 1,850 3 08/18/09 03:53 PM
by 5544
* Oral DMT (with Moclobemide) - first time - The Realm of Shamans
( 1 2 all )
bluedolphin 12,419 22 06/26/19 01:25 PM
by ohfunkya
* Have you ever encountered an entity?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 16 17 )
NorthernerM 4,891 321 01/04/24 07:58 PM
by tree frog
* DMT - Reason behind "Alien abduction" mikeyboy 5,751 18 01/13/08 09:12 PM
by handicappedrat
* Dmt experiences - Question
( 1 2 all )
Dickhead 6,586 23 04/06/05 10:58 AM
by Fizikz

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: psilocybinjunkie, Rose, mushboy, LogicaL Chaos, Northerner, bodhisatta
2,400 topic views. 8 members, 66 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 13 queries.