Pages:
Author

Topic: Breakthrough in understanding reality (The Farsight Institute) - page 2. (Read 5424 times)

donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
Awwww water that can talk to each other .... so cute:P

So if i musicanize my water with some dark heavy metal  i could probably kill someone with negative impact ?
  

No, you'll kill them with heavy metal toxicity.

oh jes thats what i meant!

Or you could kill them with heavy metal poisoning, which might be much worse.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 500
Awwww water that can talk to each other .... so cute:P

So if i musicanize my water with some dark heavy metal  i could probably kill someone with negative impact ?
 

No, you'll kill them with heavy metal toxicity.

oh jes thats what i meant!
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
Awwww water that can talk to each other .... so cute:P

So if i musicanize my water with some dark heavy metal  i could probably kill someone with negative impact ?
 

No, you'll kill them with heavy metal toxicity.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 500
Awwww water that can talk to each other .... so cute:P

So if i musicanize my water with some dark heavy metal  i could probably kill someone with negative impact ?
 
hero member
Activity: 496
Merit: 500
Here is another shred of evidence on the topic, let's see if somebody manages to find any overlap with the video in OP and the video in my previous post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlvjKaGEnas
Oh, and it has the word NASA written there somewhere, so it must be true  Grin
hero member
Activity: 496
Merit: 500
As far as I can tell, you're taking the word of a less respected poorly paid scientist. Is that your definition of "truth"?

The Farsight Institute is a non-profit organization, so there is no reason to reduce the weight of this source of information as any less independent than any other.
I took the word "truth" in quotes every time I mentioned it, because what we call truth is not the final destination. It's a process, a running state so to speak. Something stays true until it is replaced with more advanced version of what is true, and the secret is that there is no final destination.

As all versions of reality already exist simultaneously, that what you define true for you would alter your frequency pattern in a such a way that you would gravitate towards a version of reality where what you believe is true is actually true. Don't be fooled though, changing your core belief systems is much harder than changing your thought patterns or immediate desires, but that would be a good start. Think of yourself as very complex and very powerful gyroscope which is very hard to knock off the axis, but it's not impossible if you're willing to relax some of what you believe is true.

I preferred it when you were posting some interesting (although in my opinion likely highly flawed) experimental results.

While still highly controversial and not accepted by many ordinary people as anything even remotely close to being true, I would recommend you read the story of John Titor, where he confirms that Everett-Wheeler-Graham or "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct and that time travel is possible even though it's not quite what we think it is.
http://yesalover.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/the-original-post-of-john-titor/

While not knowing anything about the validity of the source above you should be able to see how the information presented there forms a meaningful pattern with those pieces of information that have already been presented in this thread. Regardless of what you will be willing to make out of this, I can add from myself that reading that story was at least entertaining.

anyone else here tried hemisync?

Provided that brain is a receiver of consciousness as opposed to a common belief of it being a generator of some sort, it comes as no surprise that subjecting your brain to different vibratory sources might alter and enhance its ability to receive those frequency bands of reality that would otherwise be insensible to it.

Going as deep as gamma state might even allow one to tap into a so called akashic fabric that contains total information of the holographic structure of existence (video below at 0:20).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmHH5-9cn5E
I don't expect anything of this to make any sense to many of you, but it's always a matter of making a first step for those who are willing to learn, so by not sharing this information I would have achieved nothing.
legendary
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1004
anyone else here tried hemisync?
hero member
Activity: 496
Merit: 500
It has a Wiki Page so it must be right ...



What is your source of the "truth"?
Watching TV? Reading glossy paper magazines?
If a glossy paper magazine says that a group of highly-respected,
well-known scientists discovered the "truth", would you just accept it?
Wouldn't it concern you that they all get paid with that very paper money we've all learned to distrust?

Honestly, and I'm not trying to pick a fight, but that's the pot calling the kettle black. Have you performed the experiments you mentioned? As far as I can tell, you're taking the word of a less respected poorly paid scientist. Is that your definition of "truth"?

I preferred it when you were posting some interesting (although in my opinion likely highly flawed) experimental results. Please leave out the strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks. You know BR0KK was just baiting you, right?


I'm sorry I have disappointed you.
I was just politely asking what people would consider a reliable source of the "truth".
What makes you think I wasn't baiting BR0KK? Oh, I know I forgot the smiley Smiley, my bad.

I can explain the method that works for me and I'm not expecting it would work for everyone due to the difference in conditions. My method is to connect to as many sources of information as possible and to listen to as much of what people say and see what pieces of information start to form into a meaningful patterns and see what sources those pieces are coming from thus giving them more weight. The information that doesn't fit into any pattern just stays in the memory until it does or eventually gets discarded as irrelevant.

This method requires a lot of time and motivation to process information and a lot of memory to work with it to search for patterns. I have a privilege to have both: a lot of time and a very good memory, so I can't possibly expect others to follow my method and I don't blame them. But I'm not being a coward and keep everything that I have figured to myself, instead I came to this forum to share what I know.

donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
It has a Wiki Page so it must be right ...



What is your source of the "truth"?
Watching TV? Reading glossy paper magazines?
If a glossy paper magazine says that a group of highly-respected,
well-known scientists discovered the "truth", would you just accept it?
Wouldn't it concern you that they all get paid with that very paper money we've all learned to distrust?

Honestly, and I'm not trying to pick a fight, but that's the pot calling the kettle black. Have you performed the experiments you mentioned? As far as I can tell, you're taking the word of a less respected poorly paid scientist. Is that your definition of "truth"?

I preferred it when you were posting some interesting (although in my opinion likely highly flawed) experimental results. Please leave out the strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks. You know BR0KK was just baiting you, right?


hero member
Activity: 496
Merit: 500
It has a Wiki Page so it must be right ...



What is your source of the "truth"?
Watching TV? Reading glossy paper magazines?
If a glossy paper magazine says that a group of highly-respected,
well-known scientists discovered the "truth", would you just accept it?
Wouldn't it concern you that they all get paid with that very paper money we've all learned to distrust?
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 500
It has a Wiki Page so it must be right ...

hero member
Activity: 496
Merit: 500
No, the evidence is that the converging result of the sessions matches the target in case if it's physically accessible after the fact. And of course you want to train yourself and demonstrate results on "easy" targets first.

I mostly gathered what I know from videos, so I cannot recommend any literature at the moment.
Will post later if I find something interesting.

A keen enquiring mind is a good thing to have. However, keep in mind that converging results in experiments are only as strong as the experiment itself. If variables are not controlled for, you can end up with a false positive (or negative) result. This has occurred in every experiment I know in psychic abilities the had a positive result.

My guess is there is some such variable or some misunderstanding of statistics occurring here. I could be wrong so I look forward to your next posts on the subject.

Please keep in mind that consciousness is the last frontier not fully grasped by science, partly because consciousness is what created science in the first place, funny huh? Smiley

You cannot prove to anyone that you have consciousness and likewise nobody can prove to you that they have consciousness, so relaxing some expectations about hard evidence might be a good start to tackle this question. The only thing that you can really prove is that you have an experience and you can only prove it to yourself, the rest is just a speculation. Remote viewing is a phenomenon closely related to consciousness so studying it might require new methods and new agreements on what is considered as evidence.

I would recommend this video first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE

...

life on mars ... ..... secret war weapons in irak .. oh.... they an be false sometime but letz get in there anyway cause were 'mericanns are always true.... energy on mars .... artificial structures .... pictures of the inside ot that structure....  Black military projects..... flights that i personally don't know jack about it must be some sort of secret black mars mission..... Why isn't anybody telling me anything Sad ima a proper scientist ;::Sad

I know how it sounds and I would gladly join you in ridiculing of what has been said to fully share your joy, but knowing what I know I can't. Smiley

The video implies some knowledge of quantum physics and some understanding of wave-functions, but the concepts explained in the presentation itself are quite easy to grasp.
Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm5L8z34sNg

Clicking on the link is cheating. I recommend remotely-viewing the video. It's excellent! But a word of warning: it is DEFINITELY not safe for work - there is a surprising amount of nudity (although it's never gratuitous and always advances the narrative).   Oh, and Jennifer Lawrence does a great job as narrator. Wink

Cheesy LOLOL

I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.


I haven't watched this video but you should know that Controlled Remote Viewing has been confirmed in environments by Ingo Swann and others at the Stanford Research Institute during the 1970s if i recall correctly.

edit:  just read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann

+1


and with time they developed a protocol for Controlled Remote Viewing that was used by the military for training...

I like to keep an open mind but this leads me to believe it's totally bogus like most other military spending. 

There is other evidence of non-locality of consciousness which is not explained by today's science, which very well fits into the new model that is being proposed.

For example, the research into influence of people's emotions on water conducted by Dr. Masaru Emoto from Tokyo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAvzsjcBtx8
or similar research into water memory by an institute in Stuttgart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILSyt_Hhbjg
legendary
Activity: 1264
Merit: 1008

and with time they developed a protocol for Controlled Remote Viewing that was used by the military for training...

I like to keep an open mind but this leads me to believe it's totally bogus like most other military spending. 
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 500
I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.

If you watch some of his other videos he invites everybody to review the data and duplicate the experiment.
He is definitely not alone and not the first one to perform remote viewing.

In fact even a "single" remote viewing experiment consists of multiple sessions performed by several individuals and each session is given a weight based on the clarity of the results.
The overall outcome of the experiment is determined as success only if enough sessions independently demonstrate the same result. So it sounds like scientific method to me.

nope he's explicitly excluding all major sciences. Cause its toooo "new age" to discus wuff .. quack quack.....

Quote
It's not about rewriting the current science.
It's more about resolving something that current science doesn't have an answer for.

Ohhhh suddenly someone claims to have the answer to everything and anything.... Stop all acknowledged sience efforts.... he's serious so he must have a point .... lets head that way.... And don't forget your torches, pickaxes and pitchforks !

Quote
You can watch this video as an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkr7pOWQZ0

life on mars ... ..... secret war weapons in irak .. oh.... they an be false sometime but letz get in there anyway cause were 'mericanns are always true.... energy on mars .... artificial structures .... pictures of the inside ot that structure....  Black military projects..... flights that i personally don't know jack about it must be some sort of secret black mars mission..... Why isn't anybody telling me anything Sad ima a proper scientist ;::Sad
legendary
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1004
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.



I haven't watched this video but you should know that Controlled Remote Viewing has been confirmed in environments by Ingo Swann and others at the Stanford Research Institute during the 1970s if i recall correctly.

edit:  just read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann


Yeah, but nah. It doesn't sound like an experiment to me:
Quote
Remote Viewing

If someone could alter the field simply by looking at it, that would come even closer to the premise that each of us is imbedded in the field. An intriguing proof of this was provided by a machine built by physicists at Stanford called a SQUID, or superconducting quantum interference device. It’s enough for us to know that this device, which measures the possible activity of subatomic particles, specifically quarks, is very well shielded from all outside magnetic forces. This shielding begins with layers of copper and aluminum, but to insure that no outside force can affect the mechanism, exotic metals like niobium and “mu metal” wrap the inner core.

In 1972 a SQUID was installed in the basement of a laboratory at Stanford, apparently doing nothing except tracing out the same hill-and-valley S-curve on a length of graph paper. This curve represented the constant magnetic field of the earth; if a quark passed through the field the machine would register it by changes in the pattern being drawn. A young laser physicist named Hal Puthoff (later to become a noted quantum theorist) decided that aside from its main use, the SQUID would make a perfect test of psychic powers. Very few people, including the scientists at Sanford, knew the exact inner construction of the machine.

A letter Puthoff wrote in search of a psychic who would take up the challenge was responded to by Ingo Swann, a New York artist with psychic abilities. Swann was flown to California without being told in advance about either the test or the SQUID. When he first saw it, he seemed a bit distracted and baffled. But he agree to “look” inside the machine, and as he did, the S-curve on the graph paper changed pattern — something it almost never did — only to go back to its normal functioning as soon as Swann stopped paying attention to it.

A startled Puthoff asked him to repeat this, so for 45 seconds Swann concentrated upon seeing the inside of the machine, and for exactly that interval the recoding device drew a new pattern, a long plateau on the paper instead of hills and valleys. Swann then drew a sketch of what he saw as the inner workings of the SQUID, and when these were checked with an expert, they perfectly matched the actual construction. Swann was vague about whether he had changed the magnetic input that the machine was built to measure; he offered that he thought he was affecting its niobium core. But it also turned out that if he merely thought about the SQUID, not trying to change it at all, the recording device showed alterations in the surrounding magnetic field. In the years since 1972, many other experiments in remote viewing have successfully taken place.

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the-great-afterlife-debate/

The above is not an experiment. There was no aim, no replication, no determination of extraneous variables. Just a scientist and a psychic artist futzing with a machine that at least one of them didn't understand.

legendary
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1004
I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.



I haven't watched this video but you should know that Controlled Remote Viewing has been confirmed in environments by Ingo Swann and others at the Stanford Research Institute during the 1970s if i recall correctly.

edit:  just read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann
donator
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1007
Poor impulse control.
No, the evidence is that the converging result of the sessions matches the target in case if it's physically accessible after the fact. And of course you want to train yourself and demonstrate results on "easy" targets first.

I mostly gathered what I know from videos, so I cannot recommend any literature at the moment.
Will post later if I find something interesting.

A keen enquiring mind is a good thing to have. However, keep in mind that converging results in experiments are only as strong as the experiment itself. If variables are not controlled for, you can end up with a false positive (or negative) result. This has occurred in every experiment I know in psychic abilities the had a positive result.

My guess is there is some such variable or some misunderstanding of statistics occurring here. I could be wrong so I look forward to your next posts on the subject.

sr. member
Activity: 343
Merit: 250
The video implies some knowledge of quantum physics and some understanding of wave-functions, but the concepts explained in the presentation itself are quite easy to grasp.
Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm5L8z34sNg

Clicking on the link is cheating. I recommend remotely-viewing the video. It's excellent! But a word of warning: it is DEFINITELY not safe for work - there is a surprising amount of nudity (although it's never gratuitous and always advances the narrative).   Oh, and Jennifer Lawrence does a great job as narrator. Wink
hero member
Activity: 496
Merit: 500
They use a naturally grown one, which is your body Wink

I see. So, these "studies" are just basically games of 20 questions. Gotcha.

The procedures are quite rigid, they determine the properties of the target in a binary format (yes/no).
For example, is target man-made or natural? Is it solid or liquid/gas? and so on.

So if enough number of independent sessions converge to the same results, the experiment is considered successful.

You can watch this video as an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkr7pOWQZ0

Their evidence is people agreeing with each other. Is there literature of some sort (not a book) that I can see.

No, the evidence is that the converging result of the sessions matches the target in case if it's physically accessible after the fact. And of course you want to train yourself and demonstrate results on "easy" targets first.

I mostly gathered what I know from videos, so I cannot recommend any literature at the moment.
Will post later if I find something interesting.
Pages:
Jump to: