There are a myriad of conjectures at the moment about the DMT effects: "visiting the spirit world of ancestors", "transfer of information from an orthogonal dimension", "direct contact with an advanced non-human species", etc. And most people who try DMT, seem to find their cosy little relatable niche in our culture: they find thought leaders, whose social media and forum posts they like, share and subscribe to, they buy their books, they quote from them, etc.

Personally, I've spent an(other) hour on harmine and DMT, and I'm still not convinced about the mystical nature of hyperspace. And I'm just so disappointed that I can't discover anywhere a relatable model for the DMT effects being discussed! I feel like my only option, if I want to talk about DMT at all, is then to argue with those who subscribe to narratives I disagree with. But I find that so exhausting.

For example, here's a recent conversation.

Me: "What do you think about hyperspace?"
Someone: "I think it's a very real place and experience."
Me: "Is this place inside, or outside your body?"
Someone: "Neither."

Now, I believe the only meaningful locations are inside and outside the body. So that's the end of that conversation, unless I choose to start arguing. On the other hand, my conversation partner is in a more comfortable situation, because for example both Dr Andrew Gallimore and Philip K Dick seem to share compatible beliefs: https://twitter.com/alie...atus/1132501390121586688

So, does anyone know where I could find my ideological brothers and sisters? Could someone point me in the right direction?

You will find your soul mates here on the Nexus.

But the discussion leads nowhere. No matter how long this subject is probed into, it has an open end. Create your own reality. If you think it is inside your body, then it is.

But more important, does it matter? Does it change your experience? Is it not the beauty of hyperspace that it remains a mystery? Nevertheless these discussions can be interesting and a good way to spend time.

Hi,

Here at the Nexus, there have been many interesting discussions on what the DMT experience may or may not be. Like Strtman said, it tends to lead to more questions than answers. It is open ended. The only thing we know for sure is that we have no idea. I try to remain open to all ideas because at the end of the day, they are only theories and can't be proven one way or the other. You may find the following threads useful:

A pragmatic approach: What is "real", and when is it actually useful to ask this?

The Improbability of Hyperspace

The Improbability of Hyperspace Pt. II

I don't really agree with the epistemological point implied in these threads. I think that dismissing all theories because they can't be 100% proven, is a non-solution. We are animated by our models of the world, they motivate our actions and our experiments, which leads to gaining more knowledge. On the other hand, without structure, we drift aimlessly and progress is stifled. It is the indiscriminate rejection of theories that doesn't lead anywhere. I think it's very sensible instead to compare theories and subscribe to the most satisfactory one, the one which keeps assumptions to a minimum and satisfies the empirical data available to us at a given point in time. Either that, or I misunderstood the idea of those threads.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, thank you for the neutral responses!

Hiya,

My approach is to treat all phenomena as unreal.
That which is real is indestructible, does not change, is not subject to time , is infinite.
All these 'things', phenomena are within me....they are ideas within consciousness but I am consciousness itself. I change not.
Identify as a 'thing' and suffer the consequences.

For someone who has not yet encountered the "mystical" power of changa, you seem to have many beliefs--who can share your beliefs, you ask? I dont know. You have not proposed anything from your experiences, just said what you dont believe in (hyperspace being inside or outside, which btw, is quite simplistic.) I think the answer Neither was quite good, as the question was limiting, and the subject is infinite.

viceversa (OP), I share your thoughts, 100%. And a lot of people does too, but perhaps, we're not the most "vocals", because once you assume that there is no exogenous "magic" and it all happens in your body and for explainable reasons, and once you accept that it won't be you who makes the breakthrough discovery of explaining exactly how psychedelics work... well, the conversation topics are quite reduced

Also, it's kind of the same that happens with religion. I don't believe in anything (I bet you're alike), but we live with religious people in our society, but we can't live confronting them. So, to each its own...

I draw the line though, when safety is involved. When you associate everything to "magical powers", you're going back in time, and people used to die quite a lot in the past...
There was a recent topic where someone was describing serious long lasting physical effects, and some people where recommending to "sing and dance" to "integrate it"

Anyway... I bet we're not alone, so let's keep the communication open

Thank you for this empathetic response, it's refreshing to read something so relatable!

If the fact is that this desirable non-mystical framework for psychedelic effects has not been formally articulated yet anywhere, then yes, exchanges sadly become difficult. The vocabulary is limited, the reference points absent, the people are stray.

I do happen to have some "notes", which I have used to structure my own thinking about the effects of DMT. I was motivated to do so mainly because, in the absence of a framework, I couldn't define a goal-oriented use of the compound. I have shared a little bit of the framework in my answer to the other thread. I know you said it's rudimentary, but I found the agonistic biochemical pattern to be sufficient in accounting specifically for how DMT's activity in the brain temporarily substitutes endogenous voluntary cognition.

I encourage you to attempt something like this too, and then it would be very interesting to compare our notes. Even at the moment, I would be interested to get feedback on what I already have. I'll try to figure out a way to do it, because doing so here, publicly would require a carefully calculated diplomatic approach, which is exhausting.



When I made this thread, I was just curious to find out if there were others committed to the non-mystical premise.

Hi Viceversa. I can relate to frustrations with many discussions around dmt (and psychedelics in general) always veering off into mystical or non-scientific directions. I'm certainly guilty of getting into debates (some veering off into arguments) over these issues. Although my obsessions around this topic have calmed down and I've accepted you can't always answer certain questions I still like to speculate on what dmt is really doing in your mind.

My opinion (based on some factual information) is that dmt is a drug and it effects parts of your brain involved in perception and consciousness. I can elaborate but would be curious to hear some of your ideas in this area.

Regards

I feel that when I smoke spice I am traveling in the universe of the soul. Albert Hoffman coined this term in his book, LSD My Problem Child. For me the description feels accurate.

If the question is simply "Where is hyperspace" I would answer that by saying we reside inside of it as equally as it resides inside of us.

A mirror facing another mirror as it were.

But I also can attest to the fact that when using any psychedelic one will have the potential to be able to choose if they wish to explore more of the "inner side" or the "outer side" of the psychedelic world, similarly to how we can simply allow ourselves to explore the inner and outer world in an ordinary state of consciousness.

The qualitative and quantitative differences being the hyper-extension of a persons ordinary perceptions through the psychedelic.

All psychedelics do at root is hyper-extend all our perceptions, and what we experience from then on in its effects is just what ever our senses lay witness to in the moment and place in time which they witness them.

The term hallucination is nothing short of a textbook misnomer in this regard.

Such a term is only properly used when speaking in terms of genuine delirium which has a steadfast and stark qualitative and quantitative divergence from what we would consider classical psychedelics in terms of tryptamines and phenythylamines.