Elves....You seen them?

[restin]

ah ok. I think he meant the definition.

 

[Psyolopher]

I meant that i agree with Restin.

 

[maxfreakout]

"didnt Strassman already do that?"

No . Not realy .

Strassman studied DMT and wrote a book about it, i dont know what more could be studied beyond what he aleady did

 

[maxfreakout]

what do you mean by 'real'?

Real always means independent from the mind.

ive never heard anyone say that DMT elves are anywhere other than 'in the mind' you see them when you close your eyes, nobody claims that dmt elves exist in 3-dimensional space

but to say that this makes them 'unreal' sounds a bit strange, they certainly seem to be completely outside of the control of the person who is tripping

 

[GOD]

His book isnt a reliable source of facts and isnt a neutral objective source of information . Just because he did a "study" doesnt mean its right . Other people have other theorys and have published them .

"nobody claims that dmt elves exist in 3-dimensional space "

Read the thread again .

"but to say that this makes them 'unreal' sounds a bit strange, they certainly seem to be completely outside of the control of the person who is tripping"

What has the theory that they are "outside of the control of the person who is tripping"" got to do with weather they are real or not ?

 

[restin]

OK. But if they are in the mind, doesn't this make them a creation of your mind? Roughly speaking, your mind consists of consciousness and subconsciousness - while you are not aware of your subconsciousness resp. you cannot control it. Therefore - so is my conclusion - the different visuals/hallucinations/whatever are a creation of your mind. We, of course, may argue now about what real means and I'd really like to hear your definition, which differs from mine. We can say that "real" equals something that is. That goes already quite deep into philosophy. So, therefore: all that is OR everything that I can think of OR everything which the word "is" is added = reality.

 

[magickmumu]

It's about how the mind works.
Does it creates these hallucinations.
Or does these things already exist outside of the mind, and the mind is like a receiver for there hallucinations. :?:

 

[maxfreakout]

What has the theory that they are "outside of the control of the person who is tripping"" got to do with weather they are real or not ?

it's the central question of whether they are 'real' or not imo

restin said that to be real is to be 'independant' from mind, this means (in the specific context of dmt elves) the same as to be 'acting independantly' - ie out of the control of the person

when we ask 'are dmt elves real?' we mean are they autonomous, do they have the ability to control themselves

 

[maxfreakout]

OK. But if they are in the mind, doesn't this make them a creation of your mind?

does being a creation of the mind mean being unreal?

Roughly speaking, your mind consists of consciousness and subconsciousness - while you are not aware of your subconsciousness resp. you cannot control it. Therefore - so is my conclusion - the different visuals/hallucinations/whatever are a creation of your mind. We, of course, may argue now about what real means and I'd really like to hear your definition, which differs from mine. We can say that "real" equals something that is. That goes already quite deep into philosophy. So, therefore: all that is OR everything that I can think of OR everything which the word "is" is added = reality.

i dont think 'real' has any definition, it doesnt mean anything, nothing is real

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Are they really created by the mind? Are they really manifestations of the subconscious?
Aren't they exclusively brought into existence by flooding the nervous system with DMT?

 

[Forkbender]

^It would only be caused by DMT if everybody who takes it sees them. This is not the case, ergo they are not produced by DMT. DMT doesn't turn off the subconscious, but it channels it into a visual form, which was hitherto (finally got to use that word) unknown.

 

[maxfreakout]

isn't the world exclusively brought into existence by flooding the nervous system with serotonin?

 

[Forkbender]

no.

 

[GOD]

"does being a creation of the mind mean being unreal? "

Yes . Real was defined as being independant from mind . Real = existant , with substance in this case and not mental / fantasy .

Just brecause the mind can imagine things does that make them real . No .

If nothing is real then there is no point in you saying anything else . So lets not get into your "verbsal acrobatics" again .

 

[Forkbender]

I see thoughts and ideas as real, but not in a physical sense. I.E. if I think of pink elephants (why always pink elephants??!?), they are real in thought, I can talk about them and describe them and to deny the reality of me thinking about pink elephants sounds stupid, although this does not mean they exist materially. If you ascribe physical or etherical existance to a thought, this is projecting the thought on the outside world, while it is all inside your own mind. This is an error of categories. You take a truth and make it into the Truth as something external and true for everybody.

 

[GOD]

Playing games with the definitions words = verbal acrobatics wont get us anywhere . Maybe real wasnt the best word . Maybe fantasy is better . Are they fantasy or not ?

 

[Forkbender]

I agree that playing with definitions doesn't get us anywhere and that we should stick to the definition we already had. I merely wanted to say that with that definition of real, I wouldn't call these phenomena real.

 

[maxfreakout]

it is a pointless word game to debate about whether or not something is real yes/no

nothing is real, nobody knows what 'real' even means

 

[GOD]

Your defining and playing word games again .

"If nothing is real then there is no point in you saying anything else ."

 

[GOD]