DMT in Rat Brain? Implications?

[chuck.drake]

Basically, yes. If they hear about something called "Near Death Experiences", they will eventually come across descriptions of experiences which include those elements. Whether or not they regard their own experience as an NDE will depend upon whether their experience has anything in common with those descriptions.

If you read Sartori's book, you will remember that she interviewed people about their experiences in the ICU, and many more accounts were given than the handful that were eventually labelled NDE. And those which were labelled NDE did not differ from the other accounts except that they included at least one element from that list (and received a minimum score on the Greyson Scale).

Weird experience which includes something from that list = NDE
Weird experience which doesn't include something from that list /= NDE

That's why you can't draw conclusions about what people experience at the time of critical events (with respect to whether they are DMT-like) by looking a small sample of experiences which may have been selected on the basis of whether DMT-like experiences are absent (some kinds of hallucinatory experiences are excluded from consideration as "NDE").



That isn't the point, though. Looking only at the information which was included doesn't tell you anything about the far, far, far larger pool of information which wasn't (except under conditions of random sampling).



I'm saying that people are more inclined to include those elements they remember. And that providing the list will make it much easier to remember elements which are NDE elements over non-NDE elements.



Providing a long, detailed report takes more time and attention than a short report with little detail. A short report with less detail is more likely to include information perceived as most relevant.



A selected sample is one where the characteristics of the sample differ from the characteristics of the population from which it is drawn. If your population is "anyone with internet access", a miniscule sample of "the stories told by people who happen to come across the NDERF site and have the time an inclination to tell a story" will differ from stories told through random sampling or by interviewing a cohort (when the cohort is formed in a way which is unrelated to the characteristics of interest).



What about the appendixes with all the interviews which weren't labelled as NDEs and were not "fairly standard"? Did you read them?

Linda

Thanks for responding. I do agree that I'm sure people have all kinds of experiences, most of them seemingly quite banal, when "near death." I think that is what you are saying in a nutshell--that all kinds of things are experienced and some of them we label as an NDE and some we don't. I can't disagree with that if that is what you are saying. That is mostly what I found to be the case in the appendix of Sartori's book, which made if very difficult reading. Most people's experiences near death were quite boring and few memories of any interest were retained in lots of cases.

Even given that, I don't see how that necessarily detracts from the many very rich experiences near death that we can cleanly label as NDEs because these rich experiences do include some of the classic elements--a life review, for example, or meeting a deceased relative, or reaching the turning point. There is a reason why we call these common elements of the NDE and it is because they are common to a specific subset of people who have been "near death." And these experiences are raised to the level of being common elements because they are repeated again and again in people's narrations.

Obviously everyone who comes near death has had a, lower case, near death experience, but not everyone has had what we have chosen to label as an NDE, which in my mind we have chosen to label in order to separate these rich experiences from the others.

Anyway. I appreciate your taking the time to clarify your position. I'm not terribly well read or even especially interested in the NDE. The original topic was really just to stimulate discussion on what kind of implications finding DMT in the human brain might have on ideas about OBEs, NDEs, abductions and really any other liminal experience.

I don't really see a lot of cross-over with the experiences recorded in DMT trips say, and the NDE experiences that we do have recorded. Maybe there is another class of, lower case, near death experiences, that involve hallucinations of neon colored geometrics and alien type beings who present themselves as guides, etc. But we don't have a lot of data on it. And I actually tend toward the belief that if there were a common experience, for instance, visualizing neon colored geometrics, that happened commonly near death, then it would probably appear on the NDE elements list simply due to the fact that it was commonly experienced.

 

[JCearley]

The original topic was really just to stimulate discussion on what kind of implications finding DMT in the human brain might have on ideas about OBEs, NDEs, abductions and really any other liminal experience.

There is a prickly catch-22 being used in this arena, though not by you. If everyone takes the drug and reports a different experience, then the drug is deemed to cause a hallucination. If everyone takes the drug and many people report similar experiences, then the drug is deemed to evoke a hallucination wired in to the biology. So it appears to me that a skeptic is allowed to claim differences as a victory, while simultaneously claiming similarities as a victory but for a different reason.

 

[Arouet]

There is a prickly catch-22 being used in this arena, though not by you. If everyone takes the drug and reports a different experience, then the drug is deemed to cause a hallucination. If everyone takes the drug and many people report similar experiences, then the drug is deemed to evoke a hallucination wired in to the biology. So it appears to me that a skeptic is allowed to claim differences as a victory, while simultaneously claiming similarities as a victory but for a different reason.

It's not about claiming victory! There's no prize for being right. We're just all trying to figure this stuff out. It is so counter-productive to treat all of this like a contest!

Skeptics are constantly being told that they are trying to distract by bringing up methodological issues but the real distraction is driving the conversation away from the research towards mutual name calling and accusation flying.

 

[JCearley]

It is so counter-productive to treat all of this like a contest!

I think I'll deal with this in PM, to prevent thread-murder from happening.

 

[fls]

Thanks for responding. I do agree that I'm sure people have all kinds of experiences, most of them seemingly quite banal, when "near death." I think that is what you are saying in a nutshell--that all kinds of things are experienced and some of them we label as an NDE and some we don't. I can't disagree with that if that is what you are saying. That is mostly what I found to be the case in the appendix of Sartori's book, which made if very difficult reading. Most people's experiences near death were quite boring and few memories of any interest were retained in lots of cases.

Even given that, I don't see how that necessarily detracts from the many very rich experiences near death that we can cleanly label as NDEs because these rich experiences do include some of the classic elements--a life review, for example, or meeting a deceased relative, or reaching the turning point. There is a reason why we call these common elements of the NDE and it is because they are common to a specific subset of people who have been "near death." And these experiences are raised to the level of being common elements because they are repeated again and again in people's narrations.

Obviously everyone who comes near death has had a, lower case, near death experience, but not everyone has had what we have chosen to label as an NDE, which in my mind we have chosen to label in order to separate these rich experiences from the others.

I agree with all this. Pointing out that people have a variety of experiences is not meant to take away from the set of experiences which have richness and meaning. I only raised this point in response to claims DMT "would not explain the similarities and consistency between a majority of the NDE´s."

Anyway. I appreciate your taking the time to clarify your position. I'm not terribly well read or even especially interested in the NDE. The original topic was really just to stimulate discussion on what kind of implications finding DMT in the human brain might have on ideas about OBEs, NDEs, abductions and really any other liminal experience.

I don't really see a lot of cross-over with the experiences recorded in DMT trips say, and the NDE experiences that we do have recorded. Maybe there is another class of, lower case, near death experiences, that involve hallucinations of neon colored geometrics and alien type beings who present themselves as guides, etc. But we don't have a lot of data on it. And I actually tend toward the belief that if there were a common experience, for instance, visualizing neon colored geometrics, that happened commonly near death, then it would probably appear on the NDE elements list simply due to the fact that it was commonly experienced.

I don't think we have the data to draw conclusions one way or the other. We expect hallucinations to be bizarre, so part of the problem is that aliens and crazy patterns will be dismissed as an hallucination. And NDEs are about experiences which don't seem like an hallucination to the experiencers.

Linda

 

[steve001]

If a patient who is clinically dead on an operating table during a brain surgery can recite conversations between surgeons and nurses whilst in a state where it would have been physically impossible for her to be able to see or hear... that is a piece of evidence. Yes it's anecdotal but there were multiple witnesses to this and all with high credibility.. not an individual NDE.

If, that's a most important word. Are there any records that parapsychologists could all agree passes muster indicating a valid case of a dead person remembering conversations?

So just because materialist science does not have an explanation for what occured doesn't mean we automatically file it under the "It was more than likely the non-objective interpretive narrative longings of a human being" or in this case "several human beings" and disregard it.

Beleivers are far to quick to explain with a paranormal explanation.

Nearly all new scientific discoveries were found exactly the same way... you observe something which cannot be explained by what we currently understand and then take 100 years for dogmatic scientists to fight it tooth and nail until finally it is accepted as truth and then future generations look back on the skeptic science community shaking their head at how they could not have believed doctors washing their hands prior to delivering babies reduced the risk of the babies dying from infection.

100 years is a bit of an exaggeration and you know it is.

I've got no doubt 100 years from now the same will happen with consciousness. They'll look back on the materialist scientists today fighting tooth and nail to discredit and write off evidence as "just humans wanting to believe". I prefer to be in the "Lets find an answer" camp not the "Let's find an answer that fits my beliefs and current science" camp that most materialists are stuck in.

One of the most profound paradigm changing theories in a little over 100 years was the Theory of Relativity. It only took one observation in 1919 of a solar eclipse confirm Einstein was on to something.
The underlined is good, but the bold applies to believers just as much as you say it does to materialists

Not an overstatement at all. Most scientists will tell you they have absolutely no evidence at all for how consciousness is generated... otherwise known as "The hard problem".

Yup it is a hard problem. But what you 'll never see are ad hoc explanations like you see among believers to explain how consciousness it created. What you will hear neuroscientists saying is we don't know how. I rarely hear such capitulation among believers

They have a bunch of hypothesis which some people seemingly accept and pass off as fact even though there is a multitude of evidence that points to it being unlikely that consciousness is generated solely by the brain.

I can't imagine why the brain would only create partial consciousness? If you reply to this, please, no ad hoc explanations. Just say you don't know.

If it was as easy as inventing an X-Ray machine for the soul and conciousness and seeing the answer that would be all good and well... but maybe we are using a materialistic way of looking for something that isn't materialistic and that is our problem.

The bold is an example of ad hoc explanation. Just say you don't know.

It's a pity because Materialist scientists have had access to the one physical item they say drives conciousness... the brain... and they have continually failed to find anything.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak aren't you. One reason it's been difficult is because it takes high technology which is still being refined to look at small objects such as synapses working in real time. To use your words; it's a pity that parapsychologists have had over a century without being able to prove in a clear cut way life after death, consciousness is non-local...

Any normal person would think maybe our fishing rod is in a pond instead of the river and that's why we can't find anything.

Perhaps the river is dry. Have you considered that?

 

[JCearley]

Perhaps the river is dry. Have you considered that?

It would help if people would stop blocking research in to the same substances shaman used for centuries. It isn't a novel problem either, a decent number of researchers have had to move overseas because getting a research permit is intentionally obtuse and prohibitive. But I guess an artificially dry river is still a dry river.

 

[steve001]

It would help if people would stop blocking research in to the same substances shaman used for centuries. It isn't a novel problem either, a decent number of researchers have had to move overseas because getting a research permit is intentionally obtuse and prohibitive. But I guess an artificially dry river is still a dry river.

There's already a thread on why parapsychology is ignored.

 

[LoneShaman]

DMT is not the cause of NDE, the consistencies in my opinion are because they both reveal aspects of the true nature of reality.

 

[Haruhi]

Why are under the impression that most experiences near death have those features? Interviews of people who have been in critical situations reveals a broader variety of experiences than the NDE.

Okay, but I think we are under the impression that most near death experiences have those features because most near death experiences have those features.

 

[steve001]

There is a prickly catch-22 being used in this arena, though not by you. If everyone takes the drug [strike]and reports a different experience[/strike], then the drug is deemed to cause a hallucination. If everyone takes the drug and many people report similar experiences, then the drug is deemed to evoke a hallucination [strike]wired in to the biology[/strike]. So it appears to me that a skeptic is allowed to claim differences as a victory, while simultaneously claiming similarities as a victory but for a different reason.

There is a prickly catch-22 being used in this arena, though not by you. If everyone takes the drug, then the drug is deemed to cause a hallucination. If everyone takes the drug , then the drug is deemed to evoke a hallucination. So it appears to me that a skeptic is allowed to claim differences as a victory, while simultaneously claiming similarities as a victory but for a different reason.

You've created a false dichotomy so I've removed a portion from each sentence. The only observation that is correct is drugs cause hallucinations. Why one person has different hallucinations than someone else is I think still an unknown.

 

[steve001]

It would help if people would stop blocking research in to the same substances shaman used for centuries.

What are you suggesting here?

 

[David Bailey]

It's not about claiming victory! There's no prize for being right. We're just all trying to figure this stuff out. It is so counter-productive to treat all of this like a contest!

Skeptics are constantly being told that they are trying to distract by bringing up methodological issues but the real distraction is driving the conversation away from the research towards mutual name calling and accusation flying.

JClearly was pointing out the logical problem that two arguments seem to get used alternately to embrace the remarkable phenomenon of DMT and try to wrap it up in a 'safe' way. Remember how for a while NDE's were explained by concentrating on the tunnel and suggesting this was caused by oxygen starvation - totally ignoring all the rest of typical NDE's! I'm sick of explanations that seem totally contrived and fall to bits as you think about them! Honest experts would not pull out supposed explanations that don't even start to do justice to the phenomena they purport to explain, or which postulate all sorts of pointless mechanisms that could never have evolved under Darwinian selection (which is, of course, assumed by essentially all conventional experts).

DMT and the other hallucinatory drugs bind to brain receptors - nothing more. In effect they operate a switch in your brain and switch it to DMT-mode for a bit. The first point is, what the hell is that DMT-mode there for (in a Darwinian sense)? The second point is, does anyone seriously suggest that a substantial chunk of everyone's DNA is devoted to orchestrating the DMT experience?

David

 

[malf]

JClearly was pointing out the logical problem that two arguments seem to get used alternately to embrace the remarkable phenomenon of DMT and try to wrap it up in a 'safe' way. Remember how for a while NDE's were explained by concentrating on the tunnel and suggesting this was caused by oxygen starvation - totally ignoring all the rest of typical NDE's! I'm sick of explanations that seem totally contrived and fall to bits as you think about them! Honest experts would not pull out supposed explanations that don't even start to do justice to the phenomena they purport to explain, or which postulate all sorts of pointless mechanisms that could never have evolved under Darwinian selection (which is, of course, assumed by essentially all conventional experts).

DMT and the other hallucinatory drugs bind to brain receptors - nothing more. In effect they operate a switch in your brain and switch it to DMT-mode for a bit. The first point is, what the hell is that DMT-mode there for (in a Darwinian sense)? The second point is, does anyone seriously suggest that a substantial chunk of everyone's DNA is devoted to orchestrating the DMT experience?

David

I like you post, but I'm not sure the "DMT mode" has to be "there for" anything. Could just be an interesting consequence (side effect) of disrupting normal synapse function. A personal issue this, but I find people talking about their "trips" one of the most dreary tortures. :)

 

[JCearley]

You've created a false dichotomy so I've removed a portion from each sentence..

No. In the example of NDEs, the cultural differences are used as "evidence" that they are illusory (even though they issue a disagreement that the experience is obviously a hard-wired condition.) When cultural differences do not apply, the similarities are used as "evidence" that they are illusory because it must be a biological state. This is easily confirmed by spending five seconds on any comments section of a public news report, and continually reading the same argument in circles is where I base my observation on. This same argument applies to DMT, or any other mind-altering substance.

The only way we know that "this" world is the "correct" world is because other agents tell us that it is so, which means the measuring stick for veridical/illusory is the number of people who report congruent experiences. That has to be logically defined and applied unilaterally, I'm not interested in "one free miracle" arguments.

What are you suggesting here?

You've already redirected that to another thread in an earlier post, so this is irrelevant here.

 

[LoneShaman]

Ayahuasca has been likely used in the Amazon jungle for thousands of years, there are over 44, 000 different species of plants yet it is the very specific combination that allows DMT to cross the blood brain barrier through ingestion. A mystery in anthropology. Ayahuasca is much more than that though, the vine is really what Aya is about. The shamans say the plants themselves told them.

Only 1% of the plants in the Amazon have been studied for their medicinal qualities and approximate 25% of modern pharmacologicals owe source to the rainforest. I am getting figures from the documentary "The Sacred Science".

My point is the vast knowledge of the plants and their specific qualities requiring a life time of work is aquired through an altered conscious state, and as they say a communion with the forest itself, the forest speaks to them. I think people in the west would be quite astonished with what some of them can accomplish with diagnosis through Ayahuasca and the severity of the diseases they can treat and cure through knowledge gained in communion with the plants themselves. They certainly don't think of disease the same way as the western whitecoats, body, mind and spirit are considered as one, there is no distinction. Ayahuasca is a medicine first and foremost that treats body, mind and spirit. There is no doubt about it, it speaks for itself.

They other truth that can be gained during the experience is the most important of all and it is always 100% correct at all times. That is the hidden truth about yourself. Things that you are not fully consciouss of but are undeniable when they are shown to you. It is impossible to deny as the layers of the ego are peeled away and you see the most important information for you in your current point in the journey of life. This is no hallucination. And if very well be presented by an entity of one sort or another.

The mere labeling as hallucination is simply ludricrous to me and stems only of ignorance and preconditioning from a society dissconnected from spirit.

 

[JCearley]

They other truth that can be gained during the experience is the most important of all and it is always 100% correct at all times. That is the hidden truth about yourself. Things that you are not fully consciouss of but are undeniable when they are shown to you. It is impossible to deny as the layers of the ego are peeled away and you see the most important information for you in your current point in the journey of life. This is no hallucination. And if very well be presented by an entity of one sort or another.

I'm usually wary of claims that involve "100% correct."

It sounds like it would be a matter of setting up a trial where a pool of sick people were sent to see two "specialists" on their condition; one would be a standard practitioner and the second would be (insert whichever preferred title of "100% correct" aya-user here.) Then the reports and treatment plans could be looked at by an independent group of analysts. But this is all far from the opening topic regarding the implications of DMT in brains.

 

[LoneShaman]

I'm usually wary of claims that involve "100% correct."

It sounds like it would be a matter of setting up a trial where a pool of sick people were sent to see two "specialists" on their condition; one would be a standard practitioner and the second would be (insert whichever preferred title of "100% correct" aya-user here.) Then the reports and treatment plans could be looked at by an independent group of analysts. But this is all far from the opening topic regarding the implications of DMT in brains.

No, sorry you misunderstood me, the 100% proof I was referring to were inner subconcious truths that are exposed as the ego sheds. As in access to your subconcious layers, things that can only be confirmed by you. It may also unlock memories. Personal revelations. I know this can't be considered psi and I never meant it too, but it is no hallucination. It has enormous psychological health benefits and there are some studies on this and the effects on the brain.

The general gist of the rest was that they use an altered state of consciousness to get information. Some standardized studies on their abilities would be well worth while. From both a parapsychology view but also from a medicinal view that could benefit modern medicine, but that part has actually happened already. Nothing against modern medicine except it only treats the body and not the person and in many cases that is not enough.

 

[JCearley]

From both a parapsychology view but also from a medicinal view that could benefit modern medicine, but that part has actually happened already.

I'm not aware that much of this is going on; studies on psychoactives appear to be exceptions from normal publications, but I'll take a look at related papers for it if you have their names. I'm aware loosely of some standard psychologists who use excstacy under controlled conditions to facilitate personality changes within couples, and some studies on psilocybin, but not much else.

 

[LoneShaman]

I'm not aware that much of this is going on; studies on psychoactives appear to be exceptions from normal publications, but I'll take a look at related papers for it if you have their names. I'm aware loosely of some standard psychologists who use excstacy under controlled conditions to facilitate personality changes within couples, and some studies on psilocybin, but not much else.

No not much is going on unfortunately. There were highly successful treatments for alcoholism and other addictions with LSD almost from the beginning and it's intended use was to study mental conditions. There was lots of positive curiosity in the beggining as well as some not so positive stuff like project artichoke and MKultra.

It seems all tryptomines have anti addictive effects at some level. Iboga seems especially efficient even for heroin addiction. Psilocybin was used treating death anxiety, depression, cluster headaches and studies also showing nuerogenesis in the hippocampus and meditation correlation etc.. lots of other beneficial qualities from other lesser psychoactive plants as well. Cannabis and cancer for one.

There certainly is not enough done but they are out there. There are several studies done with Aya from different angles since that is related to DMT specifically, I recall long term users gaining something like a increased capacity to uptake seratonin as much as 25%, increase in neuroplasty resulting in many positive life changes. It has curative effects but it is usually the shaman taking the Aya to diagnose.

All interesting stuff, but the actual meaningful significance of the experience can't be understated. Aya does physicaly purify the body but I think the real curative effects are more psychological not because of the chemicals but because of the experience. Not nearly as fun as talking about meeting aliens I know.

But why the pineal gland is busy producing potent psychoactive molecules is another different and interesting question.