I am on drugs. What kind of logic is it that says you alter your consciousness in a way that reliably causes hallucination, yet you take hte entities as real?? Seems utterly bizarre to think they are real without further. — AmadeusD

Did the entities you encountered show any sign of intelligence? If yes, why are you discarding them as unreal? I have never used DMT, but if I had a chance, I would ask questions I don't have answers for to check whether these entities are real intelligent entities or just mere hallucinations.

I've actually had one dream where i was with Graham Hancock on a vine-covered river cruiser speaking at length about the possibility that psilocybin mushrooms graduated through ancient Welsh ceremony to the Druids. Two days later, I fell asleep and hte dream picked up in the exact same place. I was able to report hte entire conversation. This simply means my mind is agile. — AmadeusD

How do you define mind?

If yes, why are you discarding them as unreal? — MoK

Because I am intelligent, and it is occurring inside my head. There is nothing to be explained. We understand how this occurs. We create entities constantly. Taking drugs just makes it easier. I cannot understand the question, in some sense, because it seems to reverse the general course of assessment.

How do you define mind? — MoK

Mental faculties, collectively.

Because I am intelligent, and it is occurring inside my head. — AmadeusD

Are you saying what you experience is made by you, yet you are not aware of how you make these experiences? That is a very odd position.

I cannot understand the question, in some sense, because it seems to reverse the general course of assessment. — AmadeusD

I mean, if they are intelligent entities and can answer questions and continue conversations, etc., then why do you consider them to be unreal? There must be other real entities if they answer your questions, since you don't have answers to your questions. I cannot imagine how you could make these entities in your head, answering your question while you don't know the answers.

Are you saying what you experience is made by you, yet you are not aware of how you make these experiences? That is a very odd position. — MoK

This is exactly wrong. You don't know how you produce your every-day experiences, let alone hallucinations. There is simply zero reason to entertain hte idea that these entities are real beyond my mind's creation. It is not an odd position in any sense of that word.

I cannot imagine how you could make these entities in your head, answering your question while you don't know the answers. — MoK

There has never been any evidence that this has occurred. That you can access your pre-conscious when in an altered state is very well understood.

There must be other real entities if they answer your questions, since you don't have answers to your questions — MoK

Which makes this, also, exactly wrong.

This is exactly wrong. You don't know how you produce your every-day experiences, let alone hallucinations. There is simply zero reason to entertain hte idea that these entities are real beyond my mind's creation. It is not an odd position in any sense of that word. — AmadeusD

So, you are saying that you create those entities with your mind?

There has never been any evidence that this has occurred. — AmadeusD

But the guy in the video mentioned intelligence in entities he encountered.

That you can access your pre-conscious when in an altered state is very well understood. — AmadeusD

I don't know about that. Do you mind elaborating?

Which makes this, also, exactly wrong. — AmadeusD

Why?

So, you are saying that you create those entities with your mind? — MoK

Yes, and that's the general consensus because we already create entities in our minds, in waking and sleeping consciousness. There is literally zero reason to think otherwise with drug use. Particularly as most of these drugs use either neurotransmitters themselves, or analogs thereof.

But the guy in the video mentioned intelligence in entities he encountered. — MoK

I could tlel you that Jesus spoke to me in a dream and told me 9/11 would happen a week before it did. Big whoopee.

I don't know about that. Do you mind elaborating? — MoK

Psychedelics reduce blood flood in many areas including the anterior cingulate cortex and hte amygdala. These have to do with emotional processing and "pre-recorded" responses. When these are dampened, we get access to thoughts we usually don't have access to, and information we usually don't want to see. This is why they are so good for exposure therapy - it helps drag up pre-conscious thoughts and ideas which, if understood, would allow us to transmute pain and trauma into better things. Note: Salvia doesn't fucking do this lmaooo. It hits an opioid receptor.

Why? — MoK

You do have answers to your questions. That's logically deducible from the facts at hand: You are the only person around. You answer your own questions. Presto!

I could tlel you that Jesus spoke to me in a dream and told me 9/11 would happen a week before it did. Big whoopee. — AmadeusD

Really? And you think that Jesus is made in your mind, too?

You do have answers to your questions. That's logically deducible from the facts at hand: You are the only person around. You answer your own questions. Presto! — AmadeusD

I would say that you get access to the content of the subconscious mind when you are on a drug.

Really? And you think that Jesus is made in your mind, too? — MoK

It depends exactly what you're asking - Jesus was created in someone's mind (at least, the character Jesus - I am alive to the fact that there was, most likely, an historical Jesus too - lets not split hairs. I certainly didn't know that guy). When I imagine Jesus, that is a self-created image. So, in my scenario, I have created the Jesus and more than likely created everything he utters too. Its not out of the question that my mind would import actual claimed utterances of Christ given I am 30-ish years deep into being acutely aware of those claims and claimed utterances.

Did I invent Jesus? No. Do I create an image of, and fill-in the character of Jesus whenever I personally imagine that character? Yes, definitely.

I would say that you get access to the content of the subconscious mind when you are on a drug. — MoK

That does not seem possible. The subconscious is not thought to be accessible. The pre-conscious, however, is. If that's all you meant, then I agree, but the chances that you can access anything you've not, at some stage, consciously come into contact with, is next to zero. I'm open, but no one's ever been able to show that they've gained information they couldn't have had previously on psychedelics. Despite claims of such.

That does not seem possible. The subconscious is not thought to be accessible. The pre-conscious, however, is. If that's all you meant, then I agree, but the chances that you can access anything you've not, at some stage, consciously come into contact with, is next to zero. I'm open, but no one's ever been able to show that they've gained information they couldn't have had previously on psychedelics. Despite claims of such. — AmadeusD

When it comes to the conscious mind, preconsciousness is a term that refers to the accumulation of data in the conscious mind. If the data is proper, then a chain of thought is generated by the conscious mind. The conscious mind has an important duty: processing the delivered data very fast. The conscious mind has a very limited memory; this memory is registered for important topics only. But if you read what I wrote once more carefully, you will then realize that the conscious mind cannot do its job without a perfect intervention of the subconscious mind. You work on a topic given the limited related data, finish the job by creating a new idea, and then the conscious mind is done and stays silent. That is what you are, the conscious mind. Like it or not, without the subconscious mind, you can do very limiting things. There would be no long stream of thoughts, no long stream of words, no communication, etc. The subconscious mind is huge. It has access to all the ideas generated by the conscious mind. It also knows what kind of data might be relevant when it comes to processing the data, which might lead to the creation of a new idea. I think you at least face the subconscious mind when you are on the drug! What do you expect to find? Wonder!

I can't see this relating to my response much at all.

The preconscious and subconscious are not hte same. The subconscious cannot be made conscious, is hte position of those in the field. That is with whom you should argue that point. The preconscious does what you're describing, as best I can tell.

But, you'll note, none of this butters bread for psychonaughts trying to claim they hav retrieved previously-unknown information.

The preconscious and subconscious are not hte same. The subconscious cannot be made conscious, is hte position of those in the field. That is with whom you should argue that point. The preconscious does what you're describing, as best I can tell. — AmadeusD

I see and I agree.

But, you'll note, none of this butters bread for psychonaughts trying to claim they hav retrieved previously-unknown information. — AmadeusD

However, in this video, Terence mentioned that he had conversations with entities he encountered. He clearly mentioned that entities answered questions as well.

He spent his life trying to prove this. He could not. Dennis (his brother - a friend of mine) has been quite clear about this since Terence died.
He was never able to procure information previously unavailable to him.

That said, I, more than anyone on this forum is seems, will be sympathetic to any Terence you bring up. He was probably hte best extemporaneous speaker i've ever seen.

Oh, I see. Thanks for the information.

The subconscious cannot be made conscious — AmadeusD

It cannot, therefore ever, perhaps at least once (or even reliably and constantly), be triggered by a static and consistent means?

So, Pavlov's theory is just generational mass hysteria, then? No, of course not.

Point being, it can reliably be "drawn out" to the point it becomes clear as day to another observer, if that observer is tact enough. And if that is true, which it is, it means one can clearly, with discernment and skill, draw it out one's self. How could it not?

Otherwise, why even suggest it even exists in the first place? Why not say there's a "superconscious" that's just a giant dinosaur rampaging through the streets of New York that one can never interact with inside the mind of each and every one of us, while we're at it.

It was defined and coined for a reason, that reason being because it is in fact detectable, and so can in fact be made conscious. Perhaps it's difficult. Impossible by one's self. But that's no rhyme or reason to call a thing imperceptible.

It cannot, therefore ever, perhaps at least once (or even reliably and constantly), be triggered by a static and consistent means? — Outlander

My understanding is that it is point-blank not accessible. The pre-conscious is what you are describing. based on two Princeton MOOCs i took.



Not exhaustive, but this explains what I mean. I can't really understand the more silly aspects of this response (but I do note that was their point lol)

My understanding is that it is point-blank not accessible. — AmadeusD

Thank you for the video. I plan to watch it when I get the chance.

My question would be: How do we know it even exists, then? Specifically if, presumably it cannot ever be made conscious, doesn't that mean it can't ever be observed or proven to exist?

The point of the silly example was to ask the further question: If the unconscious is real, how do we know something deeper doesn't exist? And then something even deeper than that? How do we know there aren't layers beyond the layer we assume to be the deepest if nothing other than the conscious and pre-conscious can ever be detected or otherwise observed?

The point of the silly example was to ask the further question: If the unconscious is real, how do we know something deeper doesn't exist? And then something even deeper than that? How do we know there aren't layers beyond the layer we assume to be the deepest if nothing other than the conscious and pre-conscious can ever be detected or otherwise observed? — Outlander

I'll in reverse. Yeah, this is a good point. I think most in the field tend to seek something indicating that there is somethign further. Although essentially debunked since, Benjamin Libet's for example gave an indication that mentation must be happening prior to conscious awareness of it. That gives a logical reason to presume some mental 'area' below the level of that which is conscious. I don't think we've seen any good reason to presume something 'below' the subconscious.

To your question: My understanding is that the reason we posit a subconscious is little, otherwise-unexplainable (this isn't airtight, just hte argument as it goes) appearances of emotions, desires and behaviours that indicate same. You might slip when greeting your crush and say something slightly more flirty, and not know why you did it. It might take you a long time to realise you are crushing on this person. And that might only happen when your pre-conscious processes a memory like that slip-up and analysses it via introspection. I suppose this could be said to be an avenue for making it 'conscious' but there's a stop-gap where no contact between sub-and-actual consciousness occurs.

Again, not an analyst myself - just an understanding I have :)