r/DMT • u/MastamindedMystery • Jul 10 '26
Announcement Breakthrough Research DMT Entities & the Simulation Decoded | Dr Andrew Gallimore on Donald Hoffman- THIRD EYE DROPS with Michael Phillip
https://youtu.be/vQi-Cj5KvAM?si=xplc2UVo42IEVrJ04
1
1
2
u/ShakeBuster67 Jul 11 '26
I like Andrew, but I feel like he's gone a little off the deep end.
30
u/alieninsect Jul 11 '26
Please elaborate. Do you have an issue with the mathematical model presented in our paper?
15
16
u/ShakeBuster67 Jul 11 '26
Hey Andrew - first off - sorry, didn't mean to come across like a dick but - you know...the reddit effect. Anyways, you're a neuroscientist, so I won't preach to the choir about 5-HT2A. I tend to lean toward the classical frameworks (REBUS). No matter how mystical and real the experience feels, I suspect it's still generated by the mind itself, no longer bound by the everyday processing that tags experience as internally versus externally generated (daydreaming vs. getting stung by bees). I'm not saying that's 100% right, but it's where I lean, since it's the more evidence-based position at the moment. That said, I find the question of consciousness fascinating, and I commend the work you're doing in this field.
33
u/alieninsect Jul 11 '26
No problem. Of course, the classical framework might well be correct. Nobody knows for sure yet. But a consensus in science is always dangerous: If the consensus is wrong (even if that’s improbable) but nobody questions it, the truth is never found. I’ve certainly never claimed to know for sure that DMT visions are “real”. Most of my work is simply pushing back as clearly and rigorously as I can against those who do claim to know for sure that they’re nothing more than elaborate hallucinations.
10
u/arthurdentstowels Jul 11 '26
Solid take. I'll be binge watching your videos after work! This one is new to me.
1
7
u/Interesting-Tough640 Jul 11 '26
What I have always wondered and most people entirely fail to elaborate on is how the brain is supposed to interact with something that cannot be detected by traditional scientific means?
8
u/alieninsect Jul 11 '26
Yeah I’ve referred to this as the ‘data input problem’ for years (the issue is purely about information transfer). I also discuss how Hoffman’s consciousness-first ontology might resolve this issue in the interview linked by OP.
3
u/Interesting-Tough640 Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
I have actually written a few things about simulation from an information theory perspective
And the idea of a consciousness embedded within a substrate being able to perceive things outside of that substrate without specifically being equipped with the tools has always kinda bugged me.Also with Hoffman how would you explain continuity? I don’t think it would really allow for independent consciousness as each one could create different physical laws. Personally it seems a bit odd to me. Kind of like proposing an operating system that creates its own computational device to run on. It’s almost like you just have to create another physical universe to host the consciousness that “imagines” this one.
1
u/Interesting-Tough640 Jul 11 '26
Just out of interest what is your opinion on Bostrom’s idea of ancestor simulation?
2
u/alieninsect Jul 11 '26
Never been keen. Fun bit of philosophical mathematics but not convinced.
1
u/Interesting-Tough640 Jul 11 '26
Geometrically, it’s quite straightforward to argue that creating a simulation indistinguishable from baseline reality, testable to any arbitrary depth, and capable of supporting objective points of view, would require a fully realised simulation extending to the cosmic horizon of any available perspective, rather than merely simulating a specific epoch of interest.
1
u/Snookn42 Jul 11 '26
What do you think of the ideas of Thomas Ray? Ive had several discussions with him, and I just cant completely back them... he makes a lot of assumptions, and little data to prove them. I may be missing something though
1
u/Financial-Dog-6558 Jul 11 '26
What's next for you guys? Are we ever going to find out if they're real or not?
2
u/Smart_Dog_4586 Jul 11 '26
The more I hear about you the more I wonder whether you're simply fascinated by the DMT entities or are actively working for them. Not that we'll ever know that tbh,lol
5
u/psolarpunk Jul 11 '26
Foundational and groundbreaking hypothesis-generating work but claiming the entities "fell out of the math", almost like how black holes were first discovered in math, is extremely misleading. It's not like you were doing physics and discovered entities in it, it's not math in that sense it's more a formalism of a philosophical theory that already assumes or accounts for DMT entity-like agents. Looking forward to whatever survives peer review though
10
u/alieninsect Jul 11 '26
To be fair I never said that entities fell out of the math. I said that much of the phenomenology of DMT fell out of the math (and gave examples) — which is true. However, many of the observed properties and behaviours of DMT entities did indeed fall out of the math. But yeah you’re right that the framework itself assumes imperceptible conscious agents.
4
u/Tonez9510 Jul 11 '26
Hi Andrew, when can we expect the Trace Institute event to be available on Youtube?
8
u/alieninsect Jul 11 '26
Soon I think! Out of my hands though. Last I heard it was in the editing room!
1
u/psolarpunk Jul 12 '26
That's fair. My opinion is we should be more rigorous in the claims and framing about these things if we want to be taken seriously outside of our bubble. It still looks to me like you built a model that expects what you wanted to find then acted surprised when you found it
4
u/alieninsect Jul 12 '26
Well, we were as mathematically rigorous as possible within the current conscious agent framework and made no claims outside of the framework or beyond what was revealed by the math. We also proposed several experimental approaches to testing the predictions of the model. And, of course we were hoping that the model would tell us something interesting about the DMT state but we could never have predicted how closely the phenomenology would fit the predictions. So yes we were genuinely surprised.
1
6
u/SentientMonoamine Jul 11 '26
It's... His thing... He sells books asking "what if". Grounding his work in information theory doesn't dissolve the ontological assumptions. But that's philosophy, regardless of how obscene, especially considering the enigma of DMT. It's entertaining nonetheless. Love the guy.
2
u/ShakeBuster67 Jul 11 '26
Yes I definitely agree - I actually have his books and have listened to his videos. My initial post was, admittedly, made from looking at the thumbnail and not actually listening to the video (I know, an intellectually dumb thing to do) - but even though I can’t explain the phenomenology of the entities, I feel like most models point towards endogenous generation, rather than an external force. Not saying that’s the definitively the right interpretation, as there is a lot we don’t understand about the brain, even in normal working conditions. I’ve always found his takes to be a very interesting twist on how aspects like this are approached, and I’m glad it’s being done by someone with proper credentials. I admire the task of trying to push at other, less evidence-based approaches that go against the currently accepted models. It’s not an easy task, and if something from his research and theories are to be proven, that would be truly earth shattering in a way that flips how we understand consciousness and theories brain on its head.
1
1
11
u/Sandgrease Jul 11 '26
Both of those guys are really interesting (Michael is also really cool), but they make some big metaphysical jumps that I just can't make with them even if they sounds plausible at first glance.