NDEs and DMT

Yeah, that's where most of that debate lies as far as known substances and NDE similarities go. In the parts of the experience you can't really verify, the subjective aspect. If it did emulate the veridical elements, I think we wouldn't be talking about NDEs here anymore. And probably would've been a settled topic a long time ago

Yeah, that's where most of that debate lies as far as known substances and NDE similarities go. In the parts of the experience you can't really verify, the subjective aspect. If it did emulate the veridical elements, I think we wouldn't be talking about NDEs here anymore. And probably would've been a settled topic a long time ago

I see what you mean. I'd suggest if the veridical component was achieved, it wouldn't really be appropriate to consider it an emulation, it would be an actual something.

Yeah, that's where most of that debate lies as far as known substances and NDE similarities go. In the parts of the experience you can't really verify, the subjective aspect. If it did emulate the veridical elements, I think we wouldn't be talking about NDEs here anymore. And probably would've been a settled topic a long time ago

The people that have taken "substances" don't believe they've been to heaven* (apologies for that naughty word* but that's what most of them say). Not from what I've read, anyway. This debate about DMT/Ketamine/Ayahuasca/ (whatever substance anyone cares to name) being the cause of near death experiences (although interesting) is just revisiting old ground and continues only because the explanation that properly fits the data, is the only one that mainstream science refuses to consider. 

We all have a 'soul' (our psyche/mind) and it's quite clearly immaterial because brain surgeons can't see it when they're slicing through the jelly of the brain...and they don't see it under a microscope either...and yet we know it's there. For some reason it's considered impossible for said immaterial mind to separate from the physical matter of the brain, even though it's been adequately noted to have done so many times (veridical OBE/NDE/apparitions/reincarnation/astral projection etc etc) 

I see it like a game of 'lets pretend', where dishonest scientists keep searching for something in the wrong place.

The people that have taken "substances" don't believe they've been to heaven* (apologies for that naughty word* but that's what most of them say). Not from what I've read, anyway. This debate about DMT/Ketamine/Ayahuasca/ (whatever substance anyone cares to name) being the cause of near death experiences (although interesting) is just revisiting old ground and continues only because the explanation that properly fits the data, is the only one that mainstream science refuses to consider. 

We all have a 'soul' (our psyche/mind) and it's quite clearly immaterial because brain surgeons can't see it when they're slicing through the jelly of the brain...and they don't see it under a microscope either...and yet we know it's there. For some reason it's considered impossible for said immaterial mind to separate from the physical matter of the brain, even though it's been adequately noted to have done so many times (veridical OBE/NDE/apparitions/reincarnation/astral projection etc etc) 

I see it like a game of 'lets pretend', where dishonest scientists keep searching for something in the wrong place.

No no, it definitely is old ground. As in all the way back to the late 70s when Ray Moody put out his first on the subject old 

Although I don't personally believe the substances explain NDEs in any way and are at best a correlation with the experience at best, I guess people will go in circles anyways.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31249368/

N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT), a psychedelic compound identified endogenously in mammals, is biosynthesized by aromatic-L-amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) and indolethylamine-N-methyltransferase (INMT). Whether DMT is biosynthesized in the mammalian brain is unknown. We investigated brain expression of INMT transcript in rats and humans, co-expression of INMT and AADC mRNA in rat brain and periphery, and brain concentrations of DMT in rats. INMT transcripts were identified in the cerebral cortex, pineal gland, and choroid plexus of both rats and humans via in situ hybridization. Notably, INMT mRNA was colocalized with AADC transcript in rat brain tissues, in contrast to rat peripheral tissues where there existed little overlapping expression of INMT with AADC transcripts. Additionally, extracellular concentrations of DMT in the cerebral cortex of normal behaving rats, with or without the pineal gland, were similar to those of canonical monoamine neurotransmitters including serotonin. A significant increase of DMT levels in the rat visual cortex was observed following induction of experimental cardiac arrest, a finding independent of an intact pineal gland. These results show for the first time that the rat brain is capable of synthesizing and releasing DMT at concentrations comparable to known monoamine neurotransmitters and raise the possibility that this phenomenon may occur similarly in human brains.

DMT explanation back on the menu?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31249368/




DMT explanation back on the menu?

Ho-hum. This really is old ground; the DMT "explanation" promoted by materialist skeptics has been debunked many times over the years. The most definitive reason for dismissing it is the existence of large numbers of cases of well-investigated and confirmed veridical NDEs including cases where the experience occurs while the brain is disfunctional due to trauma or disease, such as cardiac arrest. This is aside from the fact that for the most part DMT effects are very different from the distinguishing features of NDEs. The DMT explanation proponents of necessity have to claim that all of this empirical evidence is somehow false.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31249368/




DMT explanation back on the menu?

I had a look at that paper. Neuroscience aficionados seem to be fond of using lots of oblique terms/words that sound impressive and sophisticated. 

endogenously=produced within
biosynthesized=made in the body tissues
canonical =reduced to it's basic form

I suppose they do it to dress up the end product (paper) so that it looks more dynamic and sophisticated. I can't personally find anything in there that's particularly new but there might be. Is it an explanation for NDE's? It takes some giant leap to get there with that, I would have thought and then we have the problem of the veridical OBE mentioned by nbtruthman.  

So, giving it a read over there's a couple interesting things. The basic jist of it seems to be DMT is made by the brain and we don't know why or what for or when it happens or how it relates to anything.

Apparently there is a surge of DMT productions in rats during cardiac arrest (alongside a whole bunch of other neurotransmitters), though interestingly not all rats. We don't know if it happens in humans, or if when it does happen in humams it's enough to do anything, but we've got interesting rat results.

What does this mean? Well we don't quite know. One of the interesting things that have came out lately is that when actually compared to drugs, NDEs are a lot more like ketamine then they are like DMT (and I don't think there's any studies about ketamine just being produced by the brain). And just reading reports yourself, NDEs can be quite surreal, but you don't get a lot of the fractals, incredibly shifting colours, geometric shapes and giant figures that look like snakes with human heads/giant black hole men ect like that are in DMT trips. The closest I can think of to being like that are hellish NDEs, but even they aren't as insane or wild, a lot more structured and of course, after effects are different. Big changes from DMT are the exception not the rule, not to mention DMT trip memories are treated more like dreams, you forget about them very quickly and they're hard to remember, compared to NDEs that are incredibly lucid.

But yes, this doesn't mean anything right now, maybe if they find out humans get a big pump of DMT when they die that's enough to make you trip balls we'll have something to talk about. Right now as far as we know, DMT might be waste that's made by other neurotransmiters being made, hence why there's a spike during cardiac arrest, OTHER stuff is being made a lot so we get a surge of waste. Or, it might be made during cardiac arrest to bing to cell receptors and stop them from dying due to lack of oxygen, but then that brings up a question of why it doesn't happen to everyone doesn't it? Lots of questions, but not many that relate to NDEs just yet.

I had a look at that paper. Neuroscience aficionados seem to be fond of using lots of oblique terms/words that sound impressive and sophisticated. 

endogenously=produced within
biosynthesized=made in the body tissues
canonical =reduced to it's basic form

I suppose they do it to dress up the end product (paper) so that it looks more dynamic and sophisticated. I can't personally find anything in there that's particularly new but there might be. Is it an explanation for NDE's? It takes some giant leap to get there with that, I would have thought and then we have the problem of the veridical OBE mentioned by nbtruthman.  

If you're doing a research paper or a report meant for other scientists, using professional jargon shouldn't be an issue. You could argue that in an age of easy lay access to research, the style of writing should be more accessible, but I don't think it's a matter of pretense in this context.


Though not being hip on professional jargon myself, I have no idea if what they're talking about is a drug dump in sufficient quantities to trigger a trip even in a brain not dealing with cardiac arrest.

Apparently there is a surge of DMT productions in rats during cardiac arrest (alongside a whole bunch of other neurotransmitters), though interestingly not all rats. We don't know if it happens in humans, or if when it does happen in humams it's enough to do anything, but we've got interesting rat results.

What percentage of rats?

If you're doing a research paper or a report meant for other scientists, using professional jargon shouldn't be an issue. You could argue that in an age of easy lay access to research, the style of writing should be more accessible, but I don't think it's a matter of pretense in this context.


Though not being hip on professional jargon myself, I have no idea if what they're talking about is a drug dump in sufficient quantities to trigger a trip even in a brain not dealing with cardiac arrest.


What percentage of rats?

Okay but jargon is not a good thing, is it ? I don't care for it, personally because I suspect it's simply pretentious and there to impress rather than inform.