let's try a new idea on for size.
I'm reminded by this report, especially the parts about turning off the light and stereo, of being able to do physical things while in that mindset of being "away or out of the body".
WTF is that? If we're out of body then finding a stereo button in the dark is a no-go, right?
So, something else is going on.
I'm sold on the idea that "I" get seriously relocated on a good high dose. Love It and often live for it. At times the body isn't even part of the headspace of the trip.
So how is it so easily possible to get the body to do minute and precise actions like finding a postage stamp size button in the dark.
New Idea: the brain is partitioned like a hard drive and the drugs only affect one sector at a time, but all the other sectors are available if needed, and very quickly because, well, high speed processor......
The more I learn about brains and computers the more metaphors can be found.
Anyhow, great trip report, thanks for sharing.
I'm getting close to an Aya journey. Will share then. It's been FIVE years since I've done anything of that import. It's time.
I might've been out of my body in some sense (so to speak), but my body was still laying there in the room and was taking actions it had taken many times before. If I'd been in an unfamiliar setting, my body probably would've had a much harder time finding anything (after all, I was having trouble finding the floor there for a while), and I didn't "find" any buttons so much as make a physical gesture in the general direction that I'd made similar gestures before and I got lucky. That might be why I couldn't find the switch to the fan (which I normally do not have running), but was familiar enough with fans to know that pulling the cord (which I did find after some groping around) would achieve the same result.
It does seem obvious to me that "I" am really a "we." And I suspect that our minds are organized a lot like how computers are designed, at least at the user-interface level (layer by layer, we'll get to the 'bottom' of this! Unless "we" are the sum of the layers, that is...). That's why an operating system that might be highly logical and perfectly functional and works great on a computer can still be baffling and difficult for a human to use while an OP designed with a buggy but more "intuitive" UI is much easier to learn and put to use. Which explains Microsoft's initial success and rapid market dominance in the PC market (never mind that they ripped the idea of Windows from Apple who ripped it from Xerox).
But what makes an interface "intuitive?"
IMO it seem to be a function of how closely it mimics the way our minds work, and specifically the way our subconscious and our self-aware waking consciousness interact. I guess my take on the analogy is that our minds are like operating systems and our brains are sort of like arrays of numerous interconnected hard drives rather than a single drive with many partitions; that allows them to all be interconnected with all of the others (so they're not merely connected in series, or even in parallel). And that in turn allows our mind to utilize them all simultaneously, even if one is not consciously-aware of some or even most of what's going on, much like how operating systems generally have various programs or apps running in the "background."
Well, that's probably the case unless something alters the usual arrangement, that is...