Thank you for this profound exploration, Andrew! I wonder if we could interpret this through the lens of esoteric traditions, where the veil of ordinary perception is lifted to reveal the underlying fabric of existence?
I have dense freckles on my arms. When I first started traveling I noticed that patterns would immediately form over the grid of freckles and jump out like a hologram. Same thing if you sprinkle pepper on a white sheet of paper. I think the laser speckles are key here.
Thanks to Andrew for his evaluation of the hypothesis that all of reality is generated by a single (even if unlimited) set of linguistic patterns. It's hard to believe that the almost infinite number of galaxies (which surely exist beyond our perception) can be accounted for in this way (not to mention the unlimited possibilities of what is revealed in psychedelic experience). But, as the Chinese sage said, Perseverance furthers.
Captivating read, thanks Andrew! Great follow on from the previous voice discussion.
Hopefully some stringent and repeatable tests will shine some more light on this. Laser colour and surface texture variation, along with several people observing simultaneously, are trivial things to set up.
Very kind of you to write this thoughtful reply. One of the aspects of high dose DMT, perhaps exclusive to using with harmala, is the seperation of the Cartesian ego from the senses and most alarmingly the affective capacity - feelings and emotions . There is a handy analogy from neurology in the fotm of Capgras syndrome. Ramachandran writes about this in his great book. Basically it appears clinically in patients who believe their relatives are imposters. Ramachandran cleverly diagnosed the root of the problem in a damaged connection between the PFC and the limbic system. So we recognize familiar faces but don't receive the emotional warmth accompanying them. In an interesting demonstration of the hierarchy of human cognition, sufferers become convinced that the loved one is an imposter.
In a quite startling and existentially terrifying way, high dose DMT can mimick this experience and for the love of the gods temporarily. Solipsistic ideas are very strongly enforced during these periods, but only during these periods in my experience. As the restoration of these connections tend to give the world a new meaning and gratitude for the old wiring harness.
I'm not surprised at all that emulation theories emerge during these experiences, in fact I'm amazed it's not not more common.
I loved your reference to the elves as well because until the time you see them, you may think you have an idea . Then you appreciate Terrence the poet for a moment and can still agree it's dead wrong as well. He also mentioned they were made of syntax, which no one seems to include, but may be apropos here quite. Love you buddy!
All this seems to me, good reason to suppose, not a structure, or code, behind reality but a structuring effect and no evidence to suggest that this is anything other than the human mind at work.
Terrific piece, Andrew. I was able to catch a bit of your Space w/ Danny a few weeks back, and was impressed by the amiable, respectful exchange. His claims don't really make sense to me, and I find your hypothesis in this article compelling. Still, it's great to see you engage with the ideas of others in this fashion, and remain scientifically open-minded. This is the kind of skepticism we need more of (and less "debunking").
One thing I'll mention: There's a case to be made that our reality is, indeed, computed. Not in the sense of our own computing machines, but through physics itself (and the resulting chemistry). I worked for a synthetic biology startup working on DNA-based data storage and computing technology a few years back, and the highly-pedigreed young scientists in the firm absolutely see DNA's coding of proteins as a computational process, of sorts.
Could be, computation is totally inherent to how reality is constructed. This doesn't seem too far off from the notion of Maya, the "illusionary" informational realm we inhabit. While "the code" doesn't appear to relate to this more general perspective, we may do well to remain open to notions of computational reality, broadly. You may of course already be open to this (not trying to assert that you're not, to be clear).
I'm ABSOLUTELY convinced I've cracked some cosmic communication code while tripping on nightingale songs during a DMT journey. Try it you will hear it too, I promise. Would you dedicate me an article too?
The project's trailer is hilariously dramatic - they make it feel like they've discovered the meaning of life itself and the mind-blowing revelation that, gasp... DMT produces awe-inspiring experiences 😂
humans who have only inculcated, neuronically, western linear linguistic structures, are hampered in this perception, I believe. It would be interesting to see more data. my interest in the development of middle egyptian, the democratization of the afterlife and bicameral anatomy informs this statement, of course. interesting article.
So well written!! Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, I couldn't agree more. It's strange how much traction this laser thing has gotten. It seems silly on a number of levels, although I do want to try it at some point.
I have seen a similar code to what you describe here whilst journeying with aya. It was being created inside a big spinning helix-shaped thing that seemed to have some kind of higher intelligence that was both digital and divine, and the code was being crunched and churned out from within it as it spun around. Later when I was sharing this with someone else there they said they had also seen the same/a similar thing. I do not think we will ever fully understand what lies beyond from our human perspective. But it is fun trying. Thanks Andrew!
So nothing new from your video, which unfortunately was a letdown. Unnecessarily long with so much emphasis on other visual affects or hallucinations that are nothing like the code. It's evident that you're not coming from an unbiased lens, either. When this is pointed out, you paint those highlighting your poor analysis as cultists, heavily invested in some laser God -- "attacking anyone who questions them" lol [citation needed].
The reddit guy you're highlighting is performing the experiment obviously incorrectly with a "beam" like 3" wide. It's a dot. His follow-up post: "After watching more videos I'm realizing that a larger laser aperture and darkness to improve the laser clarity was not how he's doing this. Will repeat again soon in conditions more in line with what he's describing."
“Whatever unrecognizable characters I saw flowing down were unlike any I’ve ever seen before or after. They weren’t katakana or kanji or anything I recognized.”
Perhaps he said it elsewhere, but this statement does not actually deny "the characters had any similarity to katakana." The statement simply says they weren't katakana or kanji, which Dan also says. Any chance your friend is willing to share details on WHAT the characters resembled?
I find it curious that he specified it wasn't katakana or kanji, but didn't mention the actual resemblance they had to something. So, did they resemble something close to those languages? Surely if they looked like Wingdings or Comic Sans or binary code, you'd have a 4 paragraph entry, no?
Regarding your friend seeing what look to be Allyson's characters, this actually is reported in the laser from a comment Dan left years back:
"But there are structures that one can see in the laser that I can see how people would think they are Allyson’s letters, but when you look closer you realize they are geometrical shapes that are contrived of much smaller characters, and these characters look like Japanese Katakana"
Maybe your friend can perform the experiment again and report back?
"If, on the other hand, the code is dependent on the laser speckle, then it makes perfect sense."
It really doesn't. Terms like “soft” and “rough” are subjective and don’t directly correlate with speckle behavior, which depends on microscopic irregularities, not macroscopic texture. A rough wall might scatter light diffusely, reducing speckle, while a soft but uneven surface could enhance it. The user noted character density varying with surface texture but didn’t link this variation to speckle scaling, you did via assumption. Your conclusion assumes causation without sufficient evidence. For what it's worth, I think there's clearly something about the pattern and our focus on it, but not speckle itself.
The cymatic forms that look nothing like what is seen, more form constants again, etc. Ping me if you ever try the experiment or manage to probe your friends who have seen the code into providing more information. Dan has a post-experiment questionnaire on the site. Can you please suggest they complete it?
Your hypothesis seems to just be describing the observation, not explaining it.
The article wasn't a follow up to the video but rather my current thinking. I presented hypotheses that are refutable, so please test them and show that they fail.
You present refuted hypotheses on something you’ve still not done yourself, citing a Reddit comment from someone else who didn’t do it either, all to make further leaps with speckle. Now it’s not exactly speckle but linked to or triggered by or reliant on, throw in some scaffolding, boom, classic MacGuffin. You appeal to someone else’s expertise to sell their explanation, but they’re also just guessing without knowing what they're actually talking about. Perhaps update the article to include that Dan actually pointed out their misinterpretation to them, which you must've missed: https://x.com/GolerDanny/status/1865637529086746836
Anyway, again, can you clarify what the "unrecognizable characters" that weren't kanji or katakana actually resembled? It's an important data point. It does indeed sound like he saw the code, especially if with Danny. I've not yet heard of the code taking on such a radically different appearance to be nothing like katakana, from Danny or any others in the wild. Given he identified them as "characters" and not "patterns", there must be enough distinction to describe them.
These are what comments from real humans down to test these hypotheses resemble. I'd prefer clarification on things that he can provide, especially if he's suggesting hypotheses that won't provide evidence for what he thinks. And I am happy to be corrected. I have a blue, green, and red laser on hand, but would prefer to actually hammer down what specific results will mean when I don't find his explanations convincing, re: speckle. It's "chill," dude.
Appreciate this - resonates. The go-to 'speculative' accounts ['optics', 'neuro-construct', 'cultural coding', 'subjectively variable', 'hallucination'...please...etc, etc..] not only beyond tiring at this point, but just lazy and reliant upon paradigms so incoherent and unstable they require daily reiteration across multiple fields lest cracks might show - frequently in the name of "posiibilities". Yeah, no, not really not today thankyou. Perhaps we might consider these, collectively, at a push, as good-faith 'cultural coding' even if it amounts - effectively at least to the same same.
I wrote a fictionalized, descriptive account of a 'laser code' experience I had around 2008 - part of a creative writing component fir an FA PhD - though no lasers involved - or DMT. Curiously, the broader text was punctuated by a repeating line "in the glow of the red light, beneath the low table..." - something like that, but just a recurring motif - a bit of cyber-cliche comedy matrix relief.
First off-- complaints about length are very tiresome. The world is complex and there is nuance. Not everything can be reduced to memes, and researchers are not in the business of rewarding the intellectual laziness of people who want just want simple, digestible information without exposition.
Second, it is possible for someone to disagree with your beliefs and your reasoning without them also dismissing you as a human. This is what I see in this article. It presents articulated reasoning and thoughtful questions and observations that attempt to dissect and make sense of the available data and how it connects to known facts. I see absolutely nothing that here that presents a definitive conclusion, nor do I see anything here that is thoughtlessly dismissive of others' observations, nor anything personally insulting. I see theories and hypotheses presented as possible explanations, but not claims of "answers."
You should not consider this article a personal affront to you simply because an alternate viewpoint is proposed. True researchers cannot be personally offended that someone did not reach a similar conclusion as them, especially when someone has clearly shown their work and has taken the effort to link it to existing theories. What exactly is the issue? This is a conversation about understanding something poorly understood; "winning" the debate is not the goal.
I appreciate your support. I've tried to remain positive, diplomatic, and constructive, but it's hard to have a sensible discussion with someone who seems to think that suggesting that the effect might be due to laser speckle is a bigger leap than claiming that it's some kind of fundamental reality code.
Thank you as well! I just finished your book a few days ago, and I very much appreciate the thoughtfulness, rigor, and well-- I guess the word is courage, that it took to put those ideas to paper. I'm pretty well read on a variety of disciplines that circle this topic, but I confess that if I worked at a bookstore, I would likely still have to shelve it in the "I'm not sure I am ready for this" section. I mean that in the best way; I can't imagine too many people coming to the end and feeling like they were expecting this all along.
Of course as I allude to, whether or not I'm ready for it, or whether it is consistent with my previous thoughts or contemporary views are immaterial; it's a matter of how the thesis is argued and how well the pieces are put together. Your thesis is shocking and but also compelling and well-articulated; and like any good book, it has given me a lot to think about regardless of whether it is "right" or not. The important thing is that it proposes something and builds a worthwhile argument towards it.
I would not expect a definitive conclusion at this stage, but your work is an excellent contribution to the conversation and literature on this subject, and I am appreciative of the years of research and the thoroughness that went into constructing it. What you have laid out is not something I can easily ignore or look past. Please continue the great work on this important topic!
Thank you for this profound exploration, Andrew! I wonder if we could interpret this through the lens of esoteric traditions, where the veil of ordinary perception is lifted to reveal the underlying fabric of existence?
Possibly, but the esoteric traditions are not my field! I'll leave that to someone else!
I have dense freckles on my arms. When I first started traveling I noticed that patterns would immediately form over the grid of freckles and jump out like a hologram. Same thing if you sprinkle pepper on a white sheet of paper. I think the laser speckles are key here.
Thanks to Andrew for his evaluation of the hypothesis that all of reality is generated by a single (even if unlimited) set of linguistic patterns. It's hard to believe that the almost infinite number of galaxies (which surely exist beyond our perception) can be accounted for in this way (not to mention the unlimited possibilities of what is revealed in psychedelic experience). But, as the Chinese sage said, Perseverance furthers.
Captivating read, thanks Andrew! Great follow on from the previous voice discussion.
Hopefully some stringent and repeatable tests will shine some more light on this. Laser colour and surface texture variation, along with several people observing simultaneously, are trivial things to set up.
Very kind of you to write this thoughtful reply. One of the aspects of high dose DMT, perhaps exclusive to using with harmala, is the seperation of the Cartesian ego from the senses and most alarmingly the affective capacity - feelings and emotions . There is a handy analogy from neurology in the fotm of Capgras syndrome. Ramachandran writes about this in his great book. Basically it appears clinically in patients who believe their relatives are imposters. Ramachandran cleverly diagnosed the root of the problem in a damaged connection between the PFC and the limbic system. So we recognize familiar faces but don't receive the emotional warmth accompanying them. In an interesting demonstration of the hierarchy of human cognition, sufferers become convinced that the loved one is an imposter.
In a quite startling and existentially terrifying way, high dose DMT can mimick this experience and for the love of the gods temporarily. Solipsistic ideas are very strongly enforced during these periods, but only during these periods in my experience. As the restoration of these connections tend to give the world a new meaning and gratitude for the old wiring harness.
I'm not surprised at all that emulation theories emerge during these experiences, in fact I'm amazed it's not not more common.
I loved your reference to the elves as well because until the time you see them, you may think you have an idea . Then you appreciate Terrence the poet for a moment and can still agree it's dead wrong as well. He also mentioned they were made of syntax, which no one seems to include, but may be apropos here quite. Love you buddy!
All this seems to me, good reason to suppose, not a structure, or code, behind reality but a structuring effect and no evidence to suggest that this is anything other than the human mind at work.
Terrific piece, Andrew. I was able to catch a bit of your Space w/ Danny a few weeks back, and was impressed by the amiable, respectful exchange. His claims don't really make sense to me, and I find your hypothesis in this article compelling. Still, it's great to see you engage with the ideas of others in this fashion, and remain scientifically open-minded. This is the kind of skepticism we need more of (and less "debunking").
One thing I'll mention: There's a case to be made that our reality is, indeed, computed. Not in the sense of our own computing machines, but through physics itself (and the resulting chemistry). I worked for a synthetic biology startup working on DNA-based data storage and computing technology a few years back, and the highly-pedigreed young scientists in the firm absolutely see DNA's coding of proteins as a computational process, of sorts.
Could be, computation is totally inherent to how reality is constructed. This doesn't seem too far off from the notion of Maya, the "illusionary" informational realm we inhabit. While "the code" doesn't appear to relate to this more general perspective, we may do well to remain open to notions of computational reality, broadly. You may of course already be open to this (not trying to assert that you're not, to be clear).
Keep up all your wonderful work!
Interesting phenomen!
Unrelated, but, will you wright about GABAergic ligands, either agonist or antagonist that does produce hallucinations?
Thank you in advance
I might -- when I get the time...
Fascinating read!
Thank you for the article, Andrew.
Thanks for this detailed response to Danny’s hypothesis! I expected nothing less after reading your books!
I'm ABSOLUTELY convinced I've cracked some cosmic communication code while tripping on nightingale songs during a DMT journey. Try it you will hear it too, I promise. Would you dedicate me an article too?
The project's trailer is hilariously dramatic - they make it feel like they've discovered the meaning of life itself and the mind-blowing revelation that, gasp... DMT produces awe-inspiring experiences 😂
I have it on very good authority (the director) that the trailer doesn't reflect how the entire movie will turn out... we'll see...
humans who have only inculcated, neuronically, western linear linguistic structures, are hampered in this perception, I believe. It would be interesting to see more data. my interest in the development of middle egyptian, the democratization of the afterlife and bicameral anatomy informs this statement, of course. interesting article.
So well written!! Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, I couldn't agree more. It's strange how much traction this laser thing has gotten. It seems silly on a number of levels, although I do want to try it at some point.
I have seen a similar code to what you describe here whilst journeying with aya. It was being created inside a big spinning helix-shaped thing that seemed to have some kind of higher intelligence that was both digital and divine, and the code was being crunched and churned out from within it as it spun around. Later when I was sharing this with someone else there they said they had also seen the same/a similar thing. I do not think we will ever fully understand what lies beyond from our human perspective. But it is fun trying. Thanks Andrew!
So nothing new from your video, which unfortunately was a letdown. Unnecessarily long with so much emphasis on other visual affects or hallucinations that are nothing like the code. It's evident that you're not coming from an unbiased lens, either. When this is pointed out, you paint those highlighting your poor analysis as cultists, heavily invested in some laser God -- "attacking anyone who questions them" lol [citation needed].
The reddit guy you're highlighting is performing the experiment obviously incorrectly with a "beam" like 3" wide. It's a dot. His follow-up post: "After watching more videos I'm realizing that a larger laser aperture and darkness to improve the laser clarity was not how he's doing this. Will repeat again soon in conditions more in line with what he's describing."
“Whatever unrecognizable characters I saw flowing down were unlike any I’ve ever seen before or after. They weren’t katakana or kanji or anything I recognized.”
Perhaps he said it elsewhere, but this statement does not actually deny "the characters had any similarity to katakana." The statement simply says they weren't katakana or kanji, which Dan also says. Any chance your friend is willing to share details on WHAT the characters resembled?
I find it curious that he specified it wasn't katakana or kanji, but didn't mention the actual resemblance they had to something. So, did they resemble something close to those languages? Surely if they looked like Wingdings or Comic Sans or binary code, you'd have a 4 paragraph entry, no?
Regarding your friend seeing what look to be Allyson's characters, this actually is reported in the laser from a comment Dan left years back:
"But there are structures that one can see in the laser that I can see how people would think they are Allyson’s letters, but when you look closer you realize they are geometrical shapes that are contrived of much smaller characters, and these characters look like Japanese Katakana"
Maybe your friend can perform the experiment again and report back?
"If, on the other hand, the code is dependent on the laser speckle, then it makes perfect sense."
It really doesn't. Terms like “soft” and “rough” are subjective and don’t directly correlate with speckle behavior, which depends on microscopic irregularities, not macroscopic texture. A rough wall might scatter light diffusely, reducing speckle, while a soft but uneven surface could enhance it. The user noted character density varying with surface texture but didn’t link this variation to speckle scaling, you did via assumption. Your conclusion assumes causation without sufficient evidence. For what it's worth, I think there's clearly something about the pattern and our focus on it, but not speckle itself.
The cymatic forms that look nothing like what is seen, more form constants again, etc. Ping me if you ever try the experiment or manage to probe your friends who have seen the code into providing more information. Dan has a post-experiment questionnaire on the site. Can you please suggest they complete it?
Your hypothesis seems to just be describing the observation, not explaining it.
The article wasn't a follow up to the video but rather my current thinking. I presented hypotheses that are refutable, so please test them and show that they fail.
You present refuted hypotheses on something you’ve still not done yourself, citing a Reddit comment from someone else who didn’t do it either, all to make further leaps with speckle. Now it’s not exactly speckle but linked to or triggered by or reliant on, throw in some scaffolding, boom, classic MacGuffin. You appeal to someone else’s expertise to sell their explanation, but they’re also just guessing without knowing what they're actually talking about. Perhaps update the article to include that Dan actually pointed out their misinterpretation to them, which you must've missed: https://x.com/GolerDanny/status/1865637529086746836
Anyway, again, can you clarify what the "unrecognizable characters" that weren't kanji or katakana actually resembled? It's an important data point. It does indeed sound like he saw the code, especially if with Danny. I've not yet heard of the code taking on such a radically different appearance to be nothing like katakana, from Danny or any others in the wild. Given he identified them as "characters" and not "patterns", there must be enough distinction to describe them.
Dude, chill.
These are what comments from real humans down to test these hypotheses resemble. I'd prefer clarification on things that he can provide, especially if he's suggesting hypotheses that won't provide evidence for what he thinks. And I am happy to be corrected. I have a blue, green, and red laser on hand, but would prefer to actually hammer down what specific results will mean when I don't find his explanations convincing, re: speckle. It's "chill," dude.
exactly, amigo. its chill. now, you bore me and make me worry for the human race. ciao.
Appreciate this - resonates. The go-to 'speculative' accounts ['optics', 'neuro-construct', 'cultural coding', 'subjectively variable', 'hallucination'...please...etc, etc..] not only beyond tiring at this point, but just lazy and reliant upon paradigms so incoherent and unstable they require daily reiteration across multiple fields lest cracks might show - frequently in the name of "posiibilities". Yeah, no, not really not today thankyou. Perhaps we might consider these, collectively, at a push, as good-faith 'cultural coding' even if it amounts - effectively at least to the same same.
I wrote a fictionalized, descriptive account of a 'laser code' experience I had around 2008 - part of a creative writing component fir an FA PhD - though no lasers involved - or DMT. Curiously, the broader text was punctuated by a repeating line "in the glow of the red light, beneath the low table..." - something like that, but just a recurring motif - a bit of cyber-cliche comedy matrix relief.
First off-- complaints about length are very tiresome. The world is complex and there is nuance. Not everything can be reduced to memes, and researchers are not in the business of rewarding the intellectual laziness of people who want just want simple, digestible information without exposition.
Second, it is possible for someone to disagree with your beliefs and your reasoning without them also dismissing you as a human. This is what I see in this article. It presents articulated reasoning and thoughtful questions and observations that attempt to dissect and make sense of the available data and how it connects to known facts. I see absolutely nothing that here that presents a definitive conclusion, nor do I see anything here that is thoughtlessly dismissive of others' observations, nor anything personally insulting. I see theories and hypotheses presented as possible explanations, but not claims of "answers."
You should not consider this article a personal affront to you simply because an alternate viewpoint is proposed. True researchers cannot be personally offended that someone did not reach a similar conclusion as them, especially when someone has clearly shown their work and has taken the effort to link it to existing theories. What exactly is the issue? This is a conversation about understanding something poorly understood; "winning" the debate is not the goal.
I appreciate your support. I've tried to remain positive, diplomatic, and constructive, but it's hard to have a sensible discussion with someone who seems to think that suggesting that the effect might be due to laser speckle is a bigger leap than claiming that it's some kind of fundamental reality code.
Thank you as well! I just finished your book a few days ago, and I very much appreciate the thoughtfulness, rigor, and well-- I guess the word is courage, that it took to put those ideas to paper. I'm pretty well read on a variety of disciplines that circle this topic, but I confess that if I worked at a bookstore, I would likely still have to shelve it in the "I'm not sure I am ready for this" section. I mean that in the best way; I can't imagine too many people coming to the end and feeling like they were expecting this all along.
Of course as I allude to, whether or not I'm ready for it, or whether it is consistent with my previous thoughts or contemporary views are immaterial; it's a matter of how the thesis is argued and how well the pieces are put together. Your thesis is shocking and but also compelling and well-articulated; and like any good book, it has given me a lot to think about regardless of whether it is "right" or not. The important thing is that it proposes something and builds a worthwhile argument towards it.
I would not expect a definitive conclusion at this stage, but your work is an excellent contribution to the conversation and literature on this subject, and I am appreciative of the years of research and the thoroughness that went into constructing it. What you have laid out is not something I can easily ignore or look past. Please continue the great work on this important topic!