Thoughts on conscience, entities, ufos plus AYAHUASCA

[Randall]

Ufology

I never thought that I would come to this point.
We asked you nicely.
You didn't stop.
I don't care about what you think anymore because you showed that if one does not agree with you you will keep going forever.

Perhaps there will be readers in the public who come across this who will care, even if you don't. Why should they not have the benefit of an alternate point of view?

Sorry, but in my country if one there is a saying:
Quando um nao quer, dois nao brigam.
When one does not want, two don't fight.

Interesting. Google translate translates it as: "When one does not want, two to tango."

I didn't want to argue with you, and I stated clearly in our private conversation.
I don't want to argue publicly either.
I just don't want to argue.
Each of us are entitled to our opinions, and we deserve respect from the ones that disagree with us if we don't feel like arguing at all.

I haven't lost any respect for you ( yet anyway ), and nobody is forcing you to argue. If you don't want to provide counterpoint. then by all means don't bother. I'm not demanding it from you. You're completely free not to discuss any aspect of this any time you don't feel like it.

I stopped reading your posts days ago.
Now it is time for you to move on.
I am the OP and don't want pointless arguments anymore.
If you can't do that, I have asked Goggs Mackay to erase your posts.

So just to be clear, your solution is, just agree with you or face censorship? If that's the way the Paracast chooses to handle content, then maybe my time here really has run its course.

This is a public forum, and I would like people to feel welcoming even if they disagree, or want to show another point of view. But it seems you have a duracell battery that keeps on going even after we acknowledge your point of view. And that is not fair to the rest of us.

OK let's talk about what's fair: If one person acknowledges my point of view, and then they or another poster follows that up with another point or challenge. How is it fair to deny them my response or to deny me the right to respond? I seem to be virtually alone in trying to bring some balance to this pro-drug culture discussion, and if my content is censored then what? Do you really just want a mutual admiration society?

have a nice day

Same.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

[Perhaps psychedelics are able (w/ careful intention exercised in a proper setting, of course *sigh* ) to give the experiencer a insightful glimpse of our reality "hologram?" —chris]

New Experiment Will Answer Some Mind-Bending Questions On Whether We Live In a Hologram

The Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory is completing a unique experiment called the Holometer which has recently started collecting data to answer some mind-bending questions about our universe--including whether we live in a hologram.

Much like characters on a television show would not know that their seemingly 3-D world exists only on a 2-D screen, we could be clueless that our 3-D space is just an illusion. The information about everything in our universe could actually be encoded in tiny packets in two dimensions.

Take a look around you. The walls, the chair you're sitting in, your own body - they all seem real and solid. Yet there is a possibility that everything we see in the universe - including you and me - may be nothing more than a hologram.

All physical matter, everything we have around us is the result of a frequency. If the frequency is amplified, the structure of the matter will change. [my emphasis] This self-contained system is a hologram. Change any one aspect of the hologram, and you change the entire system.

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.

Get close enough to your TV screen and you’ll see pixels, small points of data that make a seamless image if you stand back. Scientists think that the universe’s information may be contained in the same way, and that the natural “pixel size” of space is roughly 10 trillion trillion times smaller than an atom, a distance that physicists refer to as the Planck scale.

Theoretical physicists Leonard Susskind and Gerard 't Hooft in the past decided to explain the idea: if a three-dimensional star could be encoded on a black hole's 2D event horizon, maybe the same could be true of the whole universe. The universe does, after all, have a horizon 42 billion light years away, beyond which point light would not have had time to reach us since the big bang. Susskind and 't Hooft suggested that this 2D "surface" may encode the entire 3D universe that we experience - much like the 3D hologram that is projected from your credit card.

Theoretical physicists have long suspected that space-time is pixelated, or grainy. Since a 2D surface cannot store sufficient information to render a 3D object perfectly, these pixels would be bigger in a hologram. "Being in the [holographic] universe is like being in a 3D movie," says Craig Hogan of Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois. "On a large scale, it looks smooth and three-dimensional, but if you get close to the screen, you can tell that it is flat and pixelated."

“We want to find out whether spacetime is a quantum system just like matter is,” said Hogan. “If we see something, it will completely change ideas about space we’ve used for thousands of years.” REST OF ARTICLE HERE

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Lest we all forget:

"Before you judge others or claim any absolute truth, consider that you can only see less than %1 of the electromagnetic spectrum and hear less than 1% of the acoustic spectrum. As you read this, you are traveling at 220K per second through the galaxy. 90% of the cells in your body carry their own microbial DND and are not "you." The atoms in your body are 99.9999999999999999% empty space and none are them are the ones you were born with, but they all originated in the belly of star. Humans have 46 chromosomes, 2 less than a potato. The existence of a rainbow depends on the conical photoreceptors in your eyes; to animals without cones, the rainbow does not exist. So you don't just look at a rainbow, you create it. All the beautiful colors you can perceive represent less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum."

Hallucinogens may provide an expanded view of a small part of the vast reality that is normally beyond our normal, mundane perception. I am firmly convinced that the effects of psychedelic compounds may provide a small window-sized conduit into this normally hidden energetic realm. Don't even attempt to convince me I am wrong. I have done more than my fair share of inner-exploration and speak from a place of authority. Having said this…

*disclaimer* I AM NOT drug-addled, deluded, or suggesting to anyone my particular process of exploration should be emulated by anyone, at any time for any reason.

 

[Randall]

[Perhaps psychedelics are able (w/ careful intention exercised in a proper setting, of course *sigh* ) to give the experiencer a insightful glimpse of our reality "hologram?" —chris]

It's reasonable to suggest that psychedelics could give the experiencer an insightful glimpse into the workings of our subjective "reality hologram", the one that our brain creates, because it's the very pathways that are responsible for processing our perceptual experience that are being affected by the drugs. So by getting feedback from users about the way that psychedelics affect perception should, in theory, provide insights into the workings of the brain. However at the same time, we already know a lot about the brain, all the way down to the molecular level, to the point of modeling it synapse by synapse on supercomputers, so although it might still be an amazing experience for the user, I'm not sure how much new information could be gained by that approach.

On the idea that psychedelics can give us insights into objective reality, I don't entirely dismiss the possibility that the experience of perceiving the external world via drug modified brain chemistry can lead to perceptions and insights that are otherwise not normally available to us, and that upon "coming down" some of these insights might be carried forward into our daily lives. If I'm not mistaken, I believe you posted another article at some point in the past about how some Silicon Valley nerds acquired some insights along these lines. However I don't think we should confuse those types of insights with any direct perception into objective realities ( alternate universes etc. ) as proposed in some other posts.

 

[Tyger]

Ufology

I never thought that I would come to this point.
We asked you nicely.
You didn't stop.
I don't care about what you think anymore because you showed that if one does not agree with you you will keep going forever.
Sorry, but in my country if one there is a saying:
Quando um nao quer, dois nao brigam.
When one does not want, two don't fight.
I didn't want to argue with you, and I stated clearly in our private conversation.
I don't want to argue publicly either.
I just don't want to argue.
Each of us are entitled to our opinions, and we deserve respect from the ones that disagree with us if we don't feel like arguing at all.
I stopped reading your posts days ago.
Now it is time for you to move on.
I am the OP and don't want pointless arguments anymore.
If you can't do that, I have asked Goggs Mackay to erase your posts.
This is a public forum, and I would like people to feel welcoming even if they disagree, or want to show another point of view. But it seems you have a duracell battery that keeps on going even after we acknowledge your point of view. And that is not fair to the rest of us.

have a nice day

Good post. Whether said poster will 'move on' remains to be seen - but those who matter will pay attention where it matters.

I look forward to more of your experiences.

 

[fastwalker]

If you have experiences to share in either side of the materialistic/spiritual spectrum, be welcome to post. That is for you @@fastwalker! If you want to shae your experiences, we will read them with respect for your courage to share them. ufocurios

.
First of all I want to say I want each of us to follow our own paths and my post was to only to let you know my own experience was not so great so be careful. I will not pollute your path with my experiences which was mostly with acid and shrooms, I was going to start peyote but things were getting out of control time to stop. I will share a light hearted experience the only one I had. I was spending the day at the lake with other friends dropping acid and I kept hearing voices from the lake that somehow seemed like a ocean now so I went swimming to hear the voices better (incredibly stupid swimming on acid) turns out they were the 'Blue people' who were very dolphin like in their appearance, they told me all sorts of wonderful things especially when to surface and breathe, eventually they told me to swim back to shore and talk to the 'Ant people' who somehow shrunk me down to their size and took me on a fabulous adventure in their world...It was almost a cartoon like experience, one of my earliest ones that pressed me forward. Enough said, peace and good journey to all of you, no matter what path you choose...

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

.
First of all I want to say I want each of us to follow our own paths… no matter what path you choose...

Slow down "fastwalker," smell the coffee and then give us your appraisals of the roses. Thanx 4 your admonishment & 4 sharing your experience (?) You do not pollute our path w/ your truly heart-felt, real experiences—unless that is what you wish (?) Only you know how these "experiences" truly unfolded, and, if so, who are we to judge(?)

 

[Psychedelic_Alchemist]

Correct.
Exactly so.

You've got it in a nutshell. Such nit-picking takes up needless posting space. You will also notice that Randall absolutely never answers one's own directed questions to him, though he posts endless questions in his own posts and berates the targeted poster if they do not answer his queries. He will claim 'evasion' - while yet that is all Randall does is evade.

Exactly so. You have identified what Randall does endlessly. He very much wants a long drawn out argument.

Please do not leave, however. Do bring your concern to the attention of a moderator @Goggs Mackay

I won't let anyone with limited intellect drive me from the boards. I enjoy engaging people on the forums. And I have no issue whatsoever with anyone who happens to disagree with anything I say. But there's a manner in which people can debate and discuss issues and topics, and agree to disagree whenever the situation arises. Certain individuals seem to have difficulty grasping this. I'll just avoid reading or responding to posts from a certain forum member from now on.

 

[Psychedelic_Alchemist]

I think we need to define what a drug actually is. How do we do this? If a drug is defined as a substance that causes a psychological or a physiological effect then we would have to agree that foods too are a drug, or that music is a drug, or that life itself is a drug. If we don't agree with this, then what is a drug?

The word drug is a broad term and typically conjures up ideas of people recklessly seeking some kind of 'buzz' or 'high'. Whilst this is true of some substances I don't believe this to be the case with entheogens, or plant medicines. The vast majority of people interested in entheogens ingest them for purposes of healing or because they are seeking greater truths and insights about this construct we call reality. The experiences they induce rise far above a simple 'buzz' or 'high'.
There is also absolutely no solid evidence to support claims that entheogens such as ayahuasca, psilocybin or cannabis (amongst others) are addictive, or that they destroy brain cells. In fact, in some cases, with regards to the 'destruction of brain cells', quite the opposite has been put forward.

I firmly believe that plant based entheogens are natures tools, given to us in order to expand our awareness of reality, to help raise our consciousness, to give us a kick up the backside. There are many ways to do this but most take a lot of dedication and time. With entheogens you can have an extremely powerful experience within a couple of hours, an experience that could change your perception of reality, your perspective on life, forever.
Once you are familiar with the level of awareness induced by a psychedelic experience it is much easier to reach a similar level of consciousness via another method, for example meditation. At least this is my own experience.

Speaking of experiences. This is not one of my own but of the late comedian Bill Hicks, who ate a healthy dose of psilocybin mushrooms with a couple of friends. He reported that at one point during his experience he was taken inside a spacecraft wherein it was explained to him by 'entities' of some kind that death does not exist and that we are all one. (An extremely common theme). Afterwards Bill and his friends were discussing their 'trips' and were amazed to find that they had had exactly the same experience.
Some will say that the visual aspect of a psychedelic experience such as this is an hallucination, or the imagination. If this is true then what is an hallucination? What is the imagination? The imagination is too often dismissed and yet everything you see before you came from it.

I'd like to say to Ufology that your lack of experience with any of the entheogens mentioned in this thread renders your input invalid whether you accept that or not.
It is akin to joining an in depth discussion on a movie you have never seen. Until you've had the experience of watching the movie any opinion you have on it holds little to no weight whatsoever.

Also, although I suspect you would be the first to admit this, I think your comments about the Shamanic culture being primitive to be extremely arrogant and narrow minded. Primitive in relation to what exactly? Our own super advanced culture?


'...psychedelics are simply instruments, like microscopes, telescopes and telephones. The biologist does not sit with eye permanently glued to the microscope, he goes away and works on what he has seen' - Alan Watts

Very good post. It's clear that people who throw the word 'primitive' around are clearly lacking cultural awareness.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Tell it to the parents of the young man who flew to Peru to find their 18 year old buried on the property of someone with "shamanic tendencies". Had he lived a few more years he probably would have matured just fine and learned how to "face his inner demons" without mind altering drugs. For that matter, maybe you would have turned out just fine without them too. And I'm pretty much certain that @Ufocurious' brain in ten years would be in better shape if she gets out of it now rather than going into it for who knows how long.

But ya sure Chris, "to each their own", and that also means I can express any concerns I might have for those embarking on this path. Surely you realize that your support for this could encourage some reader of the forum to get on a plane and fly to South America where they could end up in all kinds of trouble, and I don't see that as a responsible thing for a representative of the Paracast to be doing. But hey, it's your's and @Gene Steinberg's show.

Bottom line: I'm sure it's possible that drugs can have some therapeutic effect, and my personal view is that most of it should be legalized and regulated, but that doesn't mean I think it's good for people, and I still encourage people to stay off the happy pills, or whatever jungle juice version of the same they're tempted to explore, and deal with reality "up close and personal" without the drugs.

This will always be a contentious issue and I realise Randall that you were not advocating alcohol, nor were you referring to the legal status but I would point out that alcohol is far worse than most illegal drugs.

As for saying that you wish to preserve your brain for as long as possible, that is entirely sensible but I would point out that humans do many things we do not need to do that have very high associated risks. How often do people die climbing mountains or die in car crashes in journeys that were not necessary?
The one thing about ayahuasca is that it is by no means 'fun' or 'a buzz' and it physically does not work if used day after day - a tolerance develops almost immediately, because of this it cannot be addictive due the the diminishing returns. As for the teenager who died, there could be many reasons why he died and I am sure the lack of care was a huge factor. People get injured and die due to a huge range of activities so rare deaths are not a reason to refrain. People die horse-riding and no-one would die from it if no-one rode horses so should we refrain from riding horses to prevent horse-riding deaths?

Bottom line for me is if you are not directly harming others it should be up to an adult to decide what to do with themselves.

Terence McKenna believed that hallucinogens may even have been a major agent of human evolution and I am utterly convinced this is the case.

 

[Tyger]

As for saying that you wish to preserve your brain for as long as possible, that is entirely sensible but I would point out that humans do many things we do not need to do that have very high associated risks. How often do people die climbing mountains or die in car crashes in journeys that were not necessary?

Not to mention modern medicine's drug therapy. I was just recently obliged to take a series of very powerful synthetic antibiotics. One of the potential side-effects - among many that were disquieting - was blindness. Yes, I was for sure cured, but by the end of the 2-week regimen it was clear that I had damaged aspects of my biology that I have had to recover from. The pay-off was that I had beaten back the infection which is a good thing, but I may be living with the fall-out from using the drugs for a while, perhaps always.

Modern medical drug therapy has a pharmacopeia with often harrowing implications - often mood-altering to the point of warning "if you have thoughts of suicide while taking this drug, discontinue use." Some drug descriptions state openly that 'Death' is a possible 'side-effect'.

In fact, the statistics for medical induced illness is high. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but something like 30% to 40% of hospital patients (in the US I think this applies to only) suffer from illness that is a direct result of a hospital stay.

So, yes, we engage in activities - sanctioned by society - that have very high associated risks, far higher than what UFocurious is doing.

 

[SRL+]

As it is seemingly difficult to argue with success, does anyone here own an iPhone? BTW, 9/9 is fast approaching. iPhone 6: Bigger, Faster, Coming September 9

Steve Jobs Had LSD. We Have the iPhone | TIME.com

 

[Randall]

This will always be a contentious issue and I realise Randall that you were not advocating alcohol, nor were you referring to the legal status but I would point out that alcohol is far worse than most illegal drugs.

As for saying that you wish to preserve your brain for as long as possible, that is entirely sensible but I would point out that humans do many things we do not need to do that have very high associated risks. How often do people die climbing mountains or die in car crashes in journeys that were not necessary?
The one thing about ayahuasca is that it is by no means 'fun' or 'a buzz' and it physically does not work if used day after day - a tolerance develops almost immediately, because of this it cannot be addictive due the the diminishing returns. As for the teenager who died, there could be many reasons why he died and I am sure the lack of care was a huge factor. People get injured and die due to a huge range of activities so rare deaths are not a reason to refrain. People die horse-riding and no-one would die from it if no-one rode horses so should we refrain from riding horses to prevent horse-riding deaths?

Bottom line for me is if you are not directly harming others it should be up to an adult to decide what to do with themselves.

Terence McKenna believed that hallucinogens may even have been a major agent of human evolution and I am utterly convinced this is the case.

I've addressed some of the above in past posts to quote:

"Legalization is a separate issue. Whether or not these substances are good for us shouldn't necessarily have a bearing on the rights of individuals to use them. However I think it should have a bearing on the rights of individuals who choose to use them to receive medical benefits and other payouts from society at large that result from the high-risk behavior."

"I'm sure it's possible that drugs can have some therapeutic effect, and my personal view is that most of it should be legalized and regulated, but that doesn't mean I think it's good for people, and I still encourage people to stay off the happy pills, or whatever jungle juice version of the same they're tempted to explore, and deal with reality "up close and personal" without the drugs."

"Actually, I think the whole "War On Drugs" was ( is ) a waste of time and money and a drain on resources that would be better spent doing other things.

"For other people who don't mind losing their credibility and their brain cells in pursuit of the insights that may ( or may not ) come from drug induced experiences, I think that should be, at least for the most part, a choice that is theirs, and that they shouldn't be unfairly persecuted ( or prosecuted ) for it."
​

As for the role that hallucinogenics have played as an "agent of human evolution", before I would be "utterly convinced" of that, I think I'd need to see more evidence. Can you please provide links to a few papers by evolutionary experts who agree with that hypothesis? The only tangible evidence I see in action comes from tribes that have remained very primitive compared to the modern society you and I live in, so maybe its impact as an "agent" for those lines of evolution has been detrimental rather than progressive. I see no evidence that the last 6000 ( or however many years ) of use for them has made them any smarter or stronger than the rest of us. Do you?

 

[Constance]

Randall, re your request to Goggs: "Can you please provide links to a few papers by evolutionary experts who agree with that hypothesis?," I wonder what kind of 'evolutionary experts' you have in mind? My impression is that you will pay attention only to Darwinist and NeoDarwinist reductionists and ignore (if not trash) all others, from disciplines such as philosophy of mind and consciousness, anthropology and archaeology, and spiritual traditions who equally base their speculations on broad knowledge of the evolution of life on this planet but from disciplines of thought that move beyond genetics. If you continue in your established practice, you will automatically reject the contributions of all thinkers that think beyond the materialist/objectivist presuppositions of 'established science'.

 

[Randall]

Randall, re your request to Goggs: "Can you please provide links to a few papers by evolutionary experts who agree with that hypothesis?," I wonder what kind of 'evolutionary experts' you have in mind? My impression is that you will pay attention only to Darwinist and NeoDarwinist reductionists and ignore (if not trash) all others, from disciplines such as philosophy of mind and consciousness, anthropology and archaeology, and spiritual traditions who equally base their speculations on broad knowledge of the evolution of life on this planet but from disciplines of thought that move beyond genetics. If you continue in your established practice, you will automatically reject the contributions of all thinkers that think beyond the materialist/objectivist presuppositions of 'established science'.

You appear to have drawn a foregone conclusion about me based purely on an assumption. For the record, I think credentials are of secondary importance to the quality of the evidence, so although academic credentials that include some specialization in evolution ( e.g. Evolutionary Biology ), would be a good place to start, I'm open to considering all evidence from all sources. So before we draw any conclusions, I suggest that we wait and see what sources @Goggs Mackay might provide. If the evidence therein stands up to critical analysis, then it will help justify belief in the hypothesis. If not, then I doubt that I would be prepared to adopt it. At present, I neither reject nor embrace the hypothesis. I simply remain skeptical and ask for evidence.

 

[Constance]

Good. With that promise in hand, let's see what happens.

 

[Tyger]

I suggest that we wait and see what sources @Goggs Mackay might provide. If the evidence therein stands up to critical analysis, then it will help justify belief in the hypothesis. If not, then I doubt that I would be prepared to adopt it. At present, I neither reject nor embrace the hypothesis. I simply remain skeptical and ask for evidence.

Per usual you are setting parameters for a discussion. Why do you think Goggs wants to argue this point? Wants to to do a point-by-point debate on your issue? This is not what this thread is about. Why do you insist on making this thread about your questions/issue rather than the OP's ? Start another thread and leave this one to the OP, as requested.

 

[Constance]

I see your point, Tyger, having read Goggs's last post, the one to which Randall seemed to be replying as follows:

As for the role that hallucinogenics have played as an "agent of human evolution", before I would be "utterly convinced" of that, I think I'd need to see more evidence. Can you please provide links to a few papers by evolutionary experts who agree with that hypothesis?

It wasn't Goggs that Randall was quoting regarding the theory that entheogens have 'played a role in human evolution'. Whoever it was, though, I gather that several participants in this thread would be interested in that theory, so it might be worthwhile to explore it further. I for one am interested in learning more about the evidence that entheogens have influenced human evolution.

 

[boomerang]

Dear posters
First of all: this thread is not to be hijacked by people who do not believe in other realities or had had spontaneous or drug induced altered states.
If you are against it, refrain from posting. It will make the thread unreadable and tiring.

UFOcurious, I'm slow and distracted of late, so I am just now reading in detail this particular post. Please be assured that I am in no way judging the ethics or value of your journey. This life is a mystery.

I'm trying to stay neutral on the "to experience" or "not to experience" issue. I regard it as purely a matter of personal choice. I therefore take seriously what those on both sides of the fence have to say. Staying judgmentally neutral while asking questions and trading opinions about the relationship of entheogens and consciousness, as I am trying to do, can be a tricky business. But the last thing needed here is ethical judgement because it offers only heat and no light, so to speak.

So, I look forward to hearing what you have to share with us about your experiences. Good luck on your journey.

 

[Ufocurious]

Monday morning, ready to start the week.
I have done one more session last Saturday.
Again, very different from the last one.
I will tell you later because I have to go.
But one thing I can say from my experience. It is still a mystery, but for me at least, Ayahuasca is dreaming/accessing your interior self consciously.
This in itself is a great work.
In my experience up to now Ayahuasca doesn't get even close to a true spiritual experience.
But it can change