&gt; <i>I&#x27;m not claiming anything, I&#x27;m saying: its possible that there is more to consciousness than it appears</i><p>That is not correct. In the post above you said, literally, &quot;<i>you don&#x27;t need to travel far to reach the outer limits of space or even have contact experiences [...] Its like, Fermi&#x27;s Paradox is almost completely irrelevant if you come from the position that any sufficiently advanced civilization is aware of the possible non-local properties of consciousness</i>&quot;. That&#x27;s a claim.<p>I think it&#x27;s fair to conclude you are <i>not</i> assigning an extremely <i>low</i> probability to there being &quot;<i>more to consciousness than it appears</i>&quot;.<p>&gt; <i>studying the relationships between certain tryptamine compounds and the human psyche</i><p>This is a purely biological endeavor. The reason why I responded to your earlier post, and also the reason why this even shows up in a thread about planet formation, is that you claim to be able to explore the cosmos by ingesting mind-altering substances.<p>&gt; <i>All I can speak to are my own personal experiences.</i><p>For what it&#x27;s worth, nobody is disputing you had these experiences. What is in dispute is the claim that these experiences yield scientific facts by virtue of remote viewing.