DMT (Dimethyltryptamine), a powerful, naturally occurring psychedelic compound, has been making waves in the scientific community and beyond. Known for creating immersive visual and auditory hallucinations, DMT has long been associated with altered states of consciousness and spiritual experiences. But is DMT unlocking the secrets of reality, or simply helping users escape this one?
Recent conversations around DMT have reignited old philosophical questions about the nature of reality, human consciousness, and the limits of human understanding. YouTube podcaster Shawn Ryan’s recent interview with independent researcher Danny Goler is a fascinating example of this. Goler, a 21st-century DMT pioneer, has ingested DMT thousands of times and claims that it has given him a new understanding of reality, which pales in comparison to the one DMT allows users a glimpse of.
One of the most intriguing aspects of DMT is its ability to induce experiences that users describe as visits to another reality. But is this really a new reality, or just a new way of experiencing human reality? Goler mentions that thousands of people have reportedly seen ‘code’ (like computer code or a cryptic and ancient language) in the walls using lasers while on DMT, and there’s a project underway to create a Rosetta Stone of such symbols. But can we truly codify subjective experience, or are we simply trying to impose our own understanding on something that may be fundamentally beyond our grasp?
DMT and the Simulation Hypothesis
Some DMT researchers, including Goler, have become convinced that the identification of code in the walls seen by DMT users during their trips is evidence that we’re living in a computational world; or in other words, that what we take to be reality is actually a computer simulation. But is this really the case, or are we simply seeing what we want to see? While the simulation hypothesis is a fascinating idea, it’s not clear that seeing code in the walls while on a hallucinogen is evidence of it. Why not? It seems far-fetched to believe that if we were living in a computer simulation, we would literally see computer code in the substrate around us.
The other minds problem from modern philosophy also comes into play here. How can we know that what you’re calling a ‘squiggle’ instead of a ‘squoggle’ manifests the same in my brain, i.e., that we’re actually seeing the same shape or having the same experience at all? Philosopher John Locke famously pointed out that objects cause secondary qualities (like color, smell, and taste) that could vary from person to person, so even though we both call something ‘pink’, it’s possible you’re experiencing green and I’m experiencing pink. There’s no way to disprove this. So, since we cannot make this epistemological jump of shared experience even under normal conditions, how could we possibly make this inference with any confidence when the experiencers are under the influence of a compound known to cause hallucinations?
As an aside, it would be interesting to run some DMT studies with placebos. There’s so much in the media now about people seeing code in the walls while on a DMT trip that I worry people might come to the experience with prepackaged tropes. Though such a study design with some participants receiving DMT and others receiving a placebo still runs into the other minds problem (i.e., there is no way to definitively prove what someone is experiencing with a placebo either!), this approach might begin to help researchers find consistency between seeing ‘something unusual’ and seeing ‘nothing unusual.’
Ultimately, the conversation around DMT and its implications for our understanding of reality is complex and multifaceted. While some researchers and enthusiasts are convinced that DMT is unlocking the secrets of reality, others are more skeptical. As we continue to explore the mysteries of DMT, we must remain open-minded and critical, considering multiple perspectives and the limitations of our current understanding.
