Egosum

If God cannot be known (because being is prior to knowing), how can you become directly conscious of it? Isn't being directly conscious of God also a form of knowing? Aren't they really the same thing?

I think they work by inhibiting brain activity (that's what the evidence seems to suggest [1]), thereby "simulating" the death process. (I say simulate, but really there's no difference.) I don't think they "increase" consciousness, but rather make it more fluid by unlocking or uncoupling it from the rigid, limited or confined configuration it's normally in. 1. http://jcn.cognethic.org/jcnv4i3_Kastrup.pdf "Psychedelic substances have been known to induce powerful self-transcending experiences (Strassman 2001; Griffiths et al. 2006; Strassman et al. 2008). It had been assumed that they did so by exciting parts of the brain. Yet, recent neuroimaging studies have shown that psychedelics do largely the opposite (Carhart-Harris et al. 2012; Palhano-Fontes et al. 2015; Carhart-Harris et al. 2016). In an article he wrote for Scientific American Mind, neuroscientist Christof Koch (2012) expressed his surprise at these results. Carhart-Harris (2012, 2138), for instance, reported “only decreases in cerebral blood flow” under the influence of a psychedelic. Perhaps even more significantly, “the magnitude of this decrease [in brain activity] predicted the intensity of the subjective effects” of the psychedelic (Ibid.). As such, the significant self-transcending experiences that follow psychedelic intake are—counterintuitively—accompanied by reductions of brain activity."

I would love to see an updated video on the nature of love because it's such an immensely important topic. The original video on this topic is 4 years old, so I think it's time for an update as I'm sure Leo's understanding has grown tremendously since then.

Happy birthday, Leo

(Serious ego gratification shit.) So, after contemplating my experience for a long time, I became directly conscious that there is no ground to my experience, nothing "behind the scenes", and that, as Leo says, it's all imagination. That I, God, am creating my experience. And that, due to the singular nature of God, there is only me. So really, making this post doesn't make any sense, because I'm basically just asking myself. For I am the one creating all the responses, as a way to delude myself into believing in otherness and spin all kinds of stories. Because without delusion, there is only the oneness of God and there really isn't anything to do (other than to create more falsehood). I've experienced this previously, but then I reacted with immense fear and a desire to return to delusion, because it undermined my entire existence. But this time, since my life is pretty far in the shitter and because I've accustomed to this truth through numerous exposures, I didn't really care that much, and it even brought with it a sense of comfort to realize this existential aloneness (another perspective: total togetherness). But I'm not experiencing this right now. When I did I became aware of the absurdity of making a post like this, but now I'm pretty well immersed into delusion again so I don't see it as clearly as I did. So, it was kind of like seeing clearly that God spins delusion because there really isn't any alternative. The alternative is just for God to rest as God.

What InfinitePotential said is exactly right, but because I've been doing some research on this topic, I just want to elaborate a bit. Yes, this breathing technique, which is basically a form of voluntary hyperventilation, increases the level of circulating oxygen, but because it also leads to a loss of carbon dioxide, it actually reduces oxygen transport to the tissues. This is because of the Bohr effect, which states that the oxygen binding affinity of hemoglobin (the protein that carries oxygen) is inversely related to the aciditiy of the blood. And because the loss of carbon dioxide leads to increased blood alkalinity (higher pH), less oxygen is released from hemoglobin, resulting in decreased oxygentation of the tissues. (This is precisely how the technique works: by interfering with normal oxygen uptake in the brain, you induce a sort of "expansion" of ordinary awareness (this is of course counterintuitive from the perspective of materialism/physicalism, which believes the brain generates consciousness). See this paper by Bernardo Kastrup: http://jcn.cognethic.org/jcnv4i3_Kastrup.pdf Or this essay based on the same paper: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/transcending-the-brain/) So how do you increase oxygenation? As InfinitePotential said, you want to breath less. By breathing less you retain more carbon dioxide, leading to increased blood aciditiy (lower pH) and thus increased oxygen delivery to the tissues. So, to sum it up: - Increased breathing rate (hyperventilation) = loss of CO2 = higher blood pH = more oxygen bound to hemoglobin = less oxygen to the tissues - Decreased breathing rate (hypoventilation) = increased retention of CO2 = lower blood pH = less oxygen bound to hemoglobin = more oxygen to the tissues

If anyone is curious about how this technique works, I recommend reading this paper by Bernardo Kastrup: http://jcn.cognethic.org/jcnv4i3_Kastrup.pdf Here's the most relevant part (under "Cerebral Hypoxia"): "Fainting or near-fainting caused by restrictions of oxygen supply to the brain is known to induce liberating feelings of self-transcendence. For instance, the potentially fatal ‘choking game’ played by teenagers worldwide (Macnab 2009) is an attempt to induce such feelings through partial strangulation (Neal 2008, 310–315). The psychotherapeutic technique of holotropic breathwork (Rhinewine & Williams 2007), as well as more traditional yogic breathing practices, use hyperventilation to achieve similar effects: by increasing blood alkalinity levels, they interfere with normal oxygen uptake in the brain and ultimately lead to what is described as an expansion of ordinary awareness (Taylor 1994). Even straightforward hyperventilation outside a therapeutic context can lead to self-transcending experiences, such as described in this anecdotal—though representative—report: One of us stood against a tree and breathed deeply for a while and then took a very deep breath. Another pushed down hard on his ribcage ... This rendered the subject immediately unconscious ... When I tried it, I didn’t think it would work, but then suddenly I was in a meadow which glowed in yellow and red, everything was extremely beautiful and funny. This seemed to last for ages. I must say that I have never felt such bliss ever again. (Retz 2007)" And this is from Kastrup's book "Dreamed Up Reality" (p. 37): «The main causal element in the efficacy of Holotropic Breathwork seems to be the intensified breathing, or voluntary hyperventilation. Hyperventilation is known to raise the alkalinity level of the blood and cause constriction of blood vessels in the brain. This, naturally, perturbs ordinary brain function and is a reason why lightheadedness and fainting are sometimes observed in association with hyperventilation. Interestingly, in an article published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, it has been suggested that, through a process related to psychological dissociation, Holotropic Breathwork may reduce the efficacy of certain brain filters, «resulting in disinhibition of previously avoided or suppressed internal stimuli.[27]»

Hey @BjarkeT , maybe this will help: “The scientific method allows us to study and model the observable patterns and regularities of nature. For instance, the observation that objects consistently fall when dropped – a regularity observed anywhere on the surface of the planet – allows us to infer the law of gravity. The observation that crystals form according to symmetrical shapes allows us to infer specific patterns of crystallization for different materials. Modelling the observable patterns and regularities of nature is all that science is about, because it is all that it can be about. Nothing else can be falsified by direct comparison with nature, therefore nothing else can be considered scientific. By observing the consistency of these patterns and regularities, scientists can create mathematical models to capture them, run such models as computer simulations, and then predict how similar phenomena will unfold in the future. Such an ability to predict the phenomena of nature lies at the heart of the technological prowess of our civilisation and represents the main social value-add of science. But our ability to model the patterns and regularities of reality tells us little about the underlying nature of things. Scientific modelling is useful for informing us how one thing or phenomenon relates to another thing or phenomenon – this being precisely what mathematical equations do – but it cannot tell us what these things or phenomena fundamentally are in and by themselves. The reason is simple: science can only explain one thing in terms of another thing; it can only characterise a certain phenomenon in terms of its relative differences with respect to another phenomenon. [3] For instance, it only makes sense to characterise a positive electric charge relative to a negative electric charge; positive charges are defined in terms of their differences of behaviour when compared to the behaviour of negative charges, and the other way around. Another example: science can explain a body in terms of tissues; tissues in terms of cells; cells in terms of molecules; molecules in terms of atoms; and atoms in terms of subatomic particles. But then it can only explain one subatomic particle in terms of another, by highlighting their relative differences. Science cannot explain the fundamental nature of what a subatomic particle is in itself, since all scientific explanations need a frame of reference to provide contrasts. [4] Capturing the observable patterns and regularities of the elements of reality, relative to each other, is an empirical and scientific question. But pondering about the fundamental nature of these elements is not; it is a metaphysical question. The problem is that, in recent decades, scientists who have little or no understanding of philosophy have begun to believe that science can be a metaphysics. [5] This dangerous combination of ignorance and hubris has done our culture an enormous disservice. Childishly emboldened by the technological success achieved by our civilisation, many scientists have begun to believe that the scientific method suffices to provide us with a complete account of the nature of existence. In doing so, they have failed to see that they are simply assuming a certain metaphysics – namely, materialism – without giving it due thought. They have failed to see that the ability to predict how things behave with respect to one another says little about what things fundamentally are. The notion that technological prowess is proof of some deep scientific understanding of the underlying nature of reality is simply equivocated. Let us put this in context with an analogy: one needs to know nothing about computer architecture or software in order to play a computer game well and even win; just watch a five-year-old kid. Playing a computer game only requires an ability to understand and predict how the elements of the game behave relative to one another: if your character shoots that spot, it scores points; if your character touches that wall, it dies; etc. It requires no understanding whatsoever of the underlying machine and code upon which the game runs. You can be a champion player without having a clue about Central Processing Units (CPU), Random-Access Memories (RAM), Universal Serial Buses (USB), or any of the esoteric computer engineering that makes the game possible. All this engineering transcends the “reality” accessible empirically from within the game. Yet, the scientific method limits itself to what is empirically and ordinarily observed from within the “game” of reality. Scientific modelling requires little or no understanding of the underlying nature of reality in exactly the same way that a gamer needs little or no understanding of the computer’s underlying architecture in order to win the game. It only requires an understanding of how the elements of the “game,” accessed empirically from within the “game” itself, unfold relative to one another. On the other hand, to infer things about what underlies the “game” – in other words, to construct a metaphysics about the fundamental nature of reality – demands more than the empirical methods of science. Indeed, it demands a kind of disciplined introspection that critically assesses not only the elements observed, but also the observer, the process of observation, and the interplay between the three in a holistic manner; an introspection that, as such, seeks to see through the “game.”” From: http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/the-fairytale-of-materialism-how-fundamentalists-hijacked-science

Great review. It's truly a fantastic book. Kastrup is probably my favorite writer and philosopher at the moment; his work has revolutionized my understanding of consciousness, reality, the brain, psychedelics, and on and on. His other books, especially Brief Peeks Beyond and More Than Allegory, are also very good reads. I would also strongly recommend reading his technical papers: http://www.bernardokastrup.com/p/philosophy.html Here's a great quote from the abstract for the paper "The Idealist View of Consciousness After Death": "If idealism is correct, the implication is that, instead of disappearing, conscious inner life expands upon bodily death, a prediction that finds circumstantial but significant confirmation in reports of near-death experiences and psychedelic trances, both of which can be construed as glimpses into the early stages of the death process."

@Delinkaaaa Both you and OP desperately need to read The Nature of Consciousness by Rupert Spira. Here's a 17 page sample: http://www.sahajapublications.com/assets/pdf/TheNatureofConsciousness.pdf A relevant quote from the introduction: "Our world culture is founded upon the assumption that reality consists of two essential ingredients: mind and matter. In this duality, matter is considered the primary element, giving rise to the prevailing materialistic paradigm in which it is believed that mind, or consciousness – the knowing element of mind – is derived from matter. How consciousness is supposedly derived from matter – a question known as the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ – remains a mystery, and is indeed one of the most vexing questions in science and philosophy today. Strangely, the fact that there is no evidence for this phenomenon is not deemed significant enough to dissuade most scientists and philosophers from their conviction that consciousness is a derivative of matter, although more and more are beginning to question it. Most still believe that, with advances in neurology, the neural correlates of consciousness and the means by which it is derived from the brain will sooner or later be discovered, and this belief is reinforced by the mainstream media. However, until such time, the hard problem of consciousness remains an uncomfortable dilemma for exponents of the materialist paradigm. Ironically, in all other fields of scientific research such lack of evidence would undermine the premise upon which the theory stands, but in a leap of faith that betrays the irrational nature of materialism itself, the conviction at its heart is not undermined by the lack of supporting evidence, nor indeed by compelling evidence to the contrary. In this respect, the prevailing materialistic paradigm shares many of the characteristics of religion: it is founded upon an intuition that there is a single, universal and fundamental reality, but it allows belief rather than experience to guide the exploration and, therefore, the implications of that intuition. Some contemporary philosophers go further than believing consciousness to be an epiphenomenon, or secondary function, of the brain. In an extraordinary and convoluted act of reasoning they deny the very existence of consciousness, claiming it to be an illusion created by chemical activity in the brain. In doing so, they deny the primary and most substantial element of experience – consciousness itself – and assert the existence of a substance – matter – which has never been found. In fact, it is not possible to find this substance on the terms in which it is conceived, because our knowledge of matter, and indeed all knowledge and experience, is itself an appearance within consciousness, the very medium whose existence these philosophers deny. Such an argument is tantamount to believing that an email creates the screen upon which it appears or, even worse, that the email exists in its own right, independent of the screen, whose very existence is denied."

Maybe. The research on the therapeutic potential of 5-MeO for cancer is still in the early stages, but the few studies that have been done are very promising. For instance, it has been shown to exert strong anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory effects through the modulation of innate and adaptive immune processes [1]. Its regulatory effect on the sigma-1 receptor, which plays a significant role in cancer, is especially interesting [2]. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4500993/ 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4149582/ «Classical psychedelics are psychoactive substances, which, besides their psychopharmacological activity, have also been shown to exert significant modulatory effects on immune responses by altering signaling pathways involved in inflammation, cellular proliferation, and cell survival via activating NF-κB and mitogen-activated protein kinases. Recently, several neurotransmitter receptors involved in the pharmacology of psychedelics, such as serotonin and sigma-1 receptors, have also been shown to play crucial roles in numerous immunological processes. This emerging field also offers promising treatment modalities in the therapy of various diseases including autoimmune and chronic inflammatory conditions, infections, and cancer. However, the scarcity of available review literature renders the topic unclear and obscure, mostly posing psychedelics as illicit drugs of abuse and not as physiologically relevant molecules or as possible agents of future pharmacotherapies. In this paper, the immunomodulatory potential of classical serotonergic psychedelics, including N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT), 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine (5-MeO-DMT), lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine, and 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine will be discussed from a perspective of molecular immunology and pharmacology. Special attention will be given to the functional interaction of serotonin and sigma-1 receptors and their cross-talk with toll-like and RIG-I-like pattern-recognition receptor-mediated signaling. Furthermore, novel approaches will be suggested feasible for the treatment of diseases with chronic inflammatory etiology and pathology, such as atherosclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, depression, and Alzheimer’s disease.» «Since both NF-κB and type I IFN signaling contribute to the transcriptional regulation of genes that are involved in cellular proliferation and survival, and many psychedelics exhibit in vitro anti-cancer potential through 5-HTRs, these compounds could be promising candidates in novel therapies of cancer (88–90).» «Thus, as a target for future pharmacological investigations, DMT emerges as a potent and promising candidate in novel therapies of peripheral and CNS autoimmune diseases (such as multiple sclerosis or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and cancer.» «Here we demonstrate for the first time the immunomodulatory potential of NN-DMT and 5-MeO-DMT on human moDC functions via sigmar-1 that could be harnessed for the pharmacological treatment of autoimmune diseases and chronic inflammatory conditions of the CNS or peripheral tissues. Our findings also point out a new biological role for dimethyltryptamines, which may act as systemic endogenous regulators of inflammation and immune homeostasis through the sigma-1 receptor.»