Hacker News Reader

Comment by cnp | Hacker News Reader

One thing that always surprises me about the search for ET is how often the purely psychological / consciousness aspect is disregarded. As anyone who has worked with DMT or Ayahuasca can tell you, you don't need to travel far to reach the outer limits of space or even have contact experiences, and this is very easy to test should the anti-scientific legal mechanisms preventing such a study be overcome.

Its like, Fermi's Paradox is almost completely irrelevant if you come from the position that any sufficiently advanced civilization is aware of the possible non-local properties of consciousness.

View on HN

> As anyone who has worked with DMT or Ayahuasca can tell you, you don't need to travel far to reach the outer limits of space or even have contact experiences

The effects of drug-induced illusions are scientifically interesting to a number of research fields, including biochemistry and neurobiology. It may also be valuable for self-discovery and personal actualization. However, if you claim to be able to discern cosmological facts from these experiences, we are now firmly in the realm of religion.

> and this is very easy to test should the completely anti-scientific legal mechanisms preventing such a study be overcome

There have been a lot of studies testing supernatural powers, with and without the influence of drugs, in the sixties and seventies. None of these have ever yielded anything. But if it's very easy to test, as you claim, then go ahead and test it. The James Randi foundation offers a sizable prize for you if you can show this works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_...

I'm not claiming anything, I'm saying: its possible that there is more to consciousness than it appears and that the barriers to studying the relationships between certain tryptamine compounds and the human psyche is a worthy scientific endeavor to overcome. All I can speak to are my own personal experiences, and those who participated in Rick Strassman's DMT study between 1990 and 1995 at the University of New Mexico.

If you don't mind me asking, how is this not clear?

> I'm not claiming anything, I'm saying: its possible that there is more to consciousness than it appears

That is not correct. In the post above you said, literally, "you don't need to travel far to reach the outer limits of space or even have contact experiences [...] Its like, Fermi's Paradox is almost completely irrelevant if you come from the position that any sufficiently advanced civilization is aware of the possible non-local properties of consciousness". That's a claim.

I think it's fair to conclude you are not assigning an extremely low probability to there being "more to consciousness than it appears".

> studying the relationships between certain tryptamine compounds and the human psyche

This is a purely biological endeavor. The reason why I responded to your earlier post, and also the reason why this even shows up in a thread about planet formation, is that you claim to be able to explore the cosmos by ingesting mind-altering substances.

> All I can speak to are my own personal experiences.

For what it's worth, nobody is disputing you had these experiences. What is in dispute is the claim that these experiences yield scientific facts by virtue of remote viewing.

Ok let me clarify my position completely so that there is no dispute, and then I need to get back to work:

Formal and informal study participants have noted that when you ingest N,N-Dimethyltryptamine certain strange contact-like phenomena tend to occur within the biological-psychological interface known as Consciousness, and that these experiences -- which have an internal consistency -- seem to be inexplicably independent of culture, background or time. These contact experiences were so shocking that the lead investigator, Rick Strassman, discontinued his study. Meanwhile, nearly 20 years later, there are still legal barriers in place for the further study of these results due to the War on Drugs. My position is: the phenomena -- based upon my own personal experience -- is deeply strange, and in when put within the context of Fermi's Paradox, the Drake equation, etc, it might be time to approach the subject of consciousness from a different angle. Its so simple, its merely to investigate.

> when you ingest N,N-Dimethyltryptamine certain strange contact-like phenomena tend to occur

That's not in question.

> occur within the biological-psychological interface known as Consciousness

This sentence includes a little submarine-like assumption, namely that our brains are merely the interface to a larger paranormal consciousness, as opposed to being the hardware that actually generates "consciousness". At this point, there is no scientific reason to believe this assumption which you smuggled in there has any factual validity.

> These contact experiences were so shocking that the lead investigator, Rick Strassman, discontinued his study.

Scientific efforts don't get discontinued because they are "shocking". While an individual researcher might move on, for whatever reason, it's not correct to imply that certain outcomes are so disconcerting the scientific community would shy away from them. Otherwise, large swaths of physics and biology would have been abandoned a long time ago.

> My position is: the phenomena [...] is deeply strange, and [...] it might be time to approach the subject of consciousness from a different angle.

Yes, I think that position was understood from your first comment.

> these experiences -- which have an internal consistency -- seem to be inexplicably independent of culture, background or time

You've repeated this point in your other comments. Why would these experiences not simply be a result of the interactions between this chemical and typical human physiology? Alcohol has predictable effects when consumed -- I'm sure ancient Egyptians had equally impaired motor control as 21st century Australians. Why would DMT be any different?

I agree with you that these things are interesting, and these studies will probably reveal some really interesting stuff about human consciousness, and our brain's chemical make-up. But it's a really huge leap to hope really hard that it'll also reveal the secret to contacting aliens.

    > how is this not clear

You started off by saying "this is very easy to test". You were right, and no evidence has been found yet.

We could continue searching for Russell's teapot too, but why would we?

Also, cnp's post has been edited to add that rhetorical "how is it not clear" and the reference to the Strassmann study after I already replied to it, otherwise it would have been addressed.

Udo, this is an honest, sincere question because I really didn't expect this strict of a response to my words from the community. It was meant from the get go to be a discussion, not an argument for or against the reality of this thing or that. So I'm trying to learn. How should one approach highly speculative questions like this, scientifically? The reason why I originally posted was simply to put forth a possibility based upon the fact that we don't yet understand what consciousness is. I'm simply trying to understand -- from your perspective, is it possible to even posit this possibility of a non-local consciousness, or some kind of "external" relationship that exists entirely within the interior of the mind that may be influenced by the ingestion of certain types of drugs? If you have a wide variety of informal testimony that claims that something strange is going on, should one investigate? Isn't that the role of science? We've already learned so much from research into psychedelics from the 50's and the 60's; don't you think there is quite a bit more we could still discover? We obviously don't have the experimental evidence yet to say things are this way or that, so where does one begin? Or is the sort of strict responses that I've received due to my delivery?

I'm planning on doing a Kickstarter to fund research into non-local consciousness. I'm not actually going to use the money to do research. I'm going to buy a car. Either way the results will probably be the same: "Nope, we didn't find nothin' guys."

> Udo, this is an honest, sincere question because I really didn't expect this strict of a response to my words from the community

I pointed it out because I was surprised to see it had been added to the post when we actually had an exchange in order to clarify why it's not clear. On a more general note, the honest answer is I challenged your comments since nobody else was doing it, so I didn't want to let those claims slide unopposed. There may be a cultural component, too, because I'm from a culture where supernatural claims are often openly questioned whereas, for example, in the US those beliefs are generally not publicly challenged. I also want to make it clear that it's not personal, it's only about the subject at hand.

> I really didn't expect this strict of a response to my words from the community

It's not the community, so please don't feel ganged up on. Opposition is mostly coming from me at this point.

> How should one approach highly speculative questions like this, scientifically?

Not presupposing a model of the world that significantly differs from observable reality would be a start. I'm not saying this to be a dick, it's just to address the fact that you are basing your whole argument on a stack of flawed assumptions.

> from your perspective, is it possible to even posit this possibility of a non-local consciousness

It is possible to posit anything, but if you want to make an acceptable factual claim, you're going to need some extraordinary evidence to back that up. We're talking about evidence that would radically change scientific understanding and would require discarding a large part of all observations made to this day - just to give you an idea of the magnitude. You're basically going to have to demonstrate we're living in the Matrix.

> don't you think there is quite a bit more we could still discover?

I do, but as I said many times in my responses: these discoveries would be about neurobiology.

> We obviously don't have the experimental evidence yet to say things are this way or that

We do have a ton of experimental evidence that does not point to any of the supernatural phenomena you're talking about. We don't have, at this moment, any evidence in support of your hypothesis.

> so where does one begin?

A start would be, when you go on a drug trip next time, bring back some scientific data we can verify that you couldn't have gotten otherwise. There are a lot of these you could do while you're out there in space, starting from exoplanets, to geological observations about our own solar system, the composition of the galaxy, you name it.

> Or is the sort of strict responses that I've received due to my delivery?

Strict is not the right word, and it's not your delivery. It all comes back to your original claim that consciousness is a paranormal phenomenon and that you can take drugs in order to explore the universe. You have to understand this is an extraordinary claim, right? So go out and get us some actual data from your trips, until then, prepare to encounter skeptics.

Understood. Thank you for your thoughtful responses

Sorry, I was still editing my text, but I think I preserved the original meaning. Just in the interest of openness.

Are you implying that people are making actual contact with extra-terrestrial life via hallucinogens, and not just interpreting the internal experience of altered brain chemistry?

Without a doubt, there is something highly mysterious going on that should be explored. What that is, I'm not sure. The only way we can know is to explore it scientifically and without bias, accepting the accounts from those participating "as if" true and then working backwards systematically towards a theory or direction.

I cannot emphasize enough, what you encounter in the DMT or Aya state can be totally alien and extradimensional, and the themes you find within seem to be consistent across highly disparate cultures as well as time.

The only way we can know is to explore it scientifically and without bias, accepting the accounts from those participating "as if" true and then working backwards systematically towards a theory or direction.

DMT is weird fun and all, but I am pretty sure this isn't science. Working "as if" true and working backwards is bias.

(See creationism and intelligent design)

When I say "as if" true, what I mean is: don't approach the study with the assumption that it's merely a psychological phenomena derived from culture or experience (typical approach), and then dismiss the High Weirdness that each participant encounters as simply a manifestation of said psychology. Collect the data first, find the commonalities between each participant, and then begin discussing the possibilities that emerge from the open minded exploration of a phenomena that has been studied far less than it should.

> When I say "as if" true, what I mean is: don't approach the study with the assumption that it's merely a psychological phenomena derived from culture or experience (typical approach)

Which is literally saying don't use science. Because that is what any scientists would use as the null hypothesis in these scenarios because it is the most likely explanation.

> Collect the data first, find the commonalities between each participant, and then begin discussing the possibilities that emerge from the open minded exploration of a phenomena that has been studied far less than it should.

That's called religion. Science requires evidence, and personal experiences while on drugs are evidence of nothing more than psychological phenomena. There is no reason at all to think they're anything more than that.

To be sure, all of science could reorient itself around your mystical drug experiences, but that could take a really long time. Wouldn't it be easier for you to ask those beings the two prime factors of a really big number? That would settle the question quickly enough.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/21/universal-love-said-the...

That's only a fair test if ETs have the means of doing so. If they're as stumped by this problem as we are, they'll shrug their tentacles and tell us they're not willing to spend 20 years building a supercomputer capable of factoring large numbers for anything less than a ton of gold-pressed latinum.

> Without a doubt

That's a claim that can't be substantiated; there is in fact nothing but doubt since there's no evidence to lead to the conclusion that hallucinations in your mind have any connection to the outside world.

> accepting the accounts from those participating "as if" true and then working backwards systematically towards a theory or direction.

No, that isn't how science works; that's religion. Science doesn't accept claims as if they're true without evidence they are.

> I cannot emphasize enough, what you encounter in the DMT or Aya state can be totally alien and extradimensional, and the themes you find within seem to be consistent across highly disparate cultures as well as time.

Because it's a drug that affects humans the same way and gives you hallucinations and ego death; not because it in any way connects to extra dimensional reality.

>As anyone who has worked with DMT or Ayahuasca can tell you, you don't need to travel far to reach the outer limits of space or even have contact experiences

Well, with DMT etc. you don't need to travel far to BELIEVE you've reached "the outer limits of space or have contact experiences" -- which is not the same as actually reaching it and meeting anyone...

There's a reason they're called "hallucinations".

>Its like, Fermi's Paradox is almost completely irrelevant if you come from the position that any sufficiently advanced civilization is aware of the possible non-local properties of consciousness.

Also if you believe in magic and teleportation.

Not sure why you've been downvoted, but I think this is very much on point.

I was curious of this as well, but not surprised. For the skeptics, all I ask is that you self experiment. Its easy and cheap, requiring only a simple extraction performed on the Arcacia Confusa plant, which you can order online.

But a sample size of one is worthless, especially when the person running the experiment is high :)

On a more serious note, I have no idea how you'd actually test this. How would you prove or disprove that someone experimenting with hallucinogens is actually communicating with something else?

The only thing I can think of is having two people under the influence being able to communicate with each other, with absolutely no other way of doing so. Subjects A and B have never met, and don't have any way of passing messages during their experience. Subject A is told to pass some randomly generated string to subject B, either directly or via some alien intermediary. If Subject B can guess Subject A's string, then that might be evidence of something interesting and objectively external happening.

Self-experimentation as I suggest -- an age old tradition in the scientific sphere -- is simply meant to reorient the person towards a broader understanding of the dimensions possible within the tryptamine-consciousness experience. I would never claim that personal experience alone is enough to quantify anything beyond mere opinion; that's where a formal control-based study steps in. But what it can do is quite dramatically open the mind to possibilities that were previously thought impossible or inconceivable -- a valuable practice.

>Self-experimentation as I suggest -- an age old tradition in the scientific sphere -- is simply meant to reorient the person towards a broader understanding of the dimensions possible within the tryptamine-consciousness experience.

That's what some people call mumbo jumbo. Either you really contact some aliens while high or not. If you do, you can pass some message/knowledge that only they could know to prove it.

Else it's just some experience you have.

Such drugs do open the mind; often too far. Drugs are subjective psychological experiences, you are not seeing reality when you are tripping, you are not learning anything about the physical universe when you are tripping. You are having an experience in your own head that has no connection to the physical universe.

The experience you are having in your head is your reality, reality is always (inter-)subjective. Of course you are learning something about the physical universe when you're tripping, you're learning how certain psycho-active interact with brain chemistry to alter your perception of the world. There is no `you' on the one hand and `objective observable reality' on the other. And, no, I'm not arguing for solipsism.

I would highly advise against taking anything which may have a long term impact on one's ability to discern between reality and fantasy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com