@Fore: Check your inbox (your email, not the PM inbox here).
@Fore: Check your inbox (your email, not the PM inbox here).
I just cleaned out my inbox on Theoutpostforum. I'll check the gmail account right now.
For every action, there is a corresponding over-reaction. -- Anonymous
As for collaboration, how could I have forgotten this?
Google Sites
http://sites.google.com
Granted, it's not a wiki but it's free, has collaboration features and it's more "closed" than a wiki. Using a wiki may be overkill anyway since making a separate page for every small term would fragment the narrative of the document. Also, IIRC Google Sites offers a simple way to back up a site.
Plus there are no ads.
The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence
For every action, there is a corresponding over-reaction. -- Anonymous
Commentary on "The Extended Mind"
Based on this video's contents alone, I doubt that there needs to be a supernatural explanation for "the sense of being stared at." Other things discussed in the video are of course a different thing. But there are still lots of phenomena that are physiological but don't have sufficiently complete scientific explanations at the moment. Examples: the functioning of the human vomeronasal organ, female ejaculation (nope, not going to link specific examples of this), the famous G-spot (no examples for this either), alien hand syndrome, etc. and the sense of being stared at may have a physiological root cause.
(But of course, it's also prudent to remember that only a few decades ago lucid dreaming itself was not thought scientifically feasible whereas nowadays it's commonly known and practiced. What's more, in the 19th century some scientist, I can't recall his name at the moment, thought that all dreaming actually happens in the moment right before you wake up.)
@12:55, "By the age of about 9--10 or 11, the average child learns the correct view which is that thoughts and images are invisible things located inside the head. We've all been brought up with the correct view in spite of the fact there's actually no evidence for it. No one's ever seen or thought of an image inside their head."
Maybe I'm just dense (not maybe, that's actually more than likely) but does he mean there is no empirical evidence for mental imagery? There is. In fact, here's a paper on how the reported vividness of an individual's mental images correlates with said individual's visual cortex activity. There's also the Journal of Mental Imagery but you have to be a subscriber to read that. And, mental images are not "invisible", most people have mental images that "significantly" (I'm quoting Wikipedia) resemble the image quality their eyes provide.
@13:44, "Jim Corbett who was a famous wild--tiger shooter in--during the British Raj in India, author of books like, "Man Eaters of Kumaon," said that his life had been saved on many occasion by feeling the look of a hidden tiger."
Disregarding the fact that anecdotal evidence is fundamentally unscientific (or if I wanted to be really snarky, I could say "Yeah, it's evidence, except it isn't."), I'd suspect in this case the explanation was sensory cues. Maybe subliminal (=below conscious awareness) so he didn't even realize them. Slight changes in ambient temperature, air currents, noises he didn't consciously notice but his brain did process and evaluate nevertheless. (Just using Occam's Razor -- I'm saying this without having read the book mentioned.)
And of course, while sometimes the person being stared at (without their knowing) stares back, a lot of the time, they don't. So, confirmation bias. And probably a bad example to use for trying to support the existence of telepathy.
@15:44, "Here you see a flock of starlings. The flock can fly together, they can turn immensely quickly without bumping into each other. Here are some other pictures of flocks of birds of starlings and the astonishing maneuvers that they make. Some of you who are familiar with animation--computer animations of bird flocks like Craig Reynolds classic Boids Model from the '80s, which seem to show you--and just to explain it by Nearest Neighbor Sensations. Actually you can't, those nobles--those models are biologically naive. They assumed that birds look at their nearest neighbor, process the information, adjust their flight and change direction. That takes a lot of time, nervous systems work slowly compared with computers."
Who said a bird in a flock can't actively communicate its motions to its neighbors, maybe through sounds? Also, they're "slower"? Think again, the common house fly can process visual data way more quickly than a human which is why you have to use a flyswatter and good timing if you want to terminate it.
@18:01, "Another way of thinking about this is through Quantum Entanglement and Dean Radin, who gave a talk here at Google sometime ago, a few months ago, has written a book called "Entangled Minds" suggesting that when people have close social relationships and interactions, their minds become entangled. So that when they separate, there's still an entanglement between them so a change in one--is reflected by a change in another."
Yes... or maybe people who "have close social relationships and interactions" just get to know each other better and reciprocally adopt habits and idiosyncrasies. Duh.
@20:10, "But for me, the plural of anecdote is data."
Good for you. Meanwhile, in Real Life™... the plural of anecdote is anecdotes.
@20:32, "For example, on our database, we have hundreds of reports from cat owners saying their cat seems to read their mind and know when they're planning to take it to the vet, the cat disappears."
Confirmation bias? Don't domestic cats like to disappear a lot anyway? There may very well have been other sensory cues for the cats besides the ones which the owners sought to eliminate (like the baskets). For instance, the owner might, unconsciously, adopt specific changes in gait, facial expressions, and fine motorics, etc. when taking the cat to the vet is on their mind. I doubt they (the owners) would notice it.
@21:22, "And the--with dogs and cats, another very common phenomenon is the animals knowing when their owners are coming home. A lot of dogs and cats wait at the door or window when the owner is on the way home, even if they come at non-routine times, even if they come by public transport, even if they're in a friend's car and even if the people at home don't know when they're coming."
The last case is the interesting one. In other cases there is no way to verify, short of installing a camera, that said animals didn't check before their owners came home. They could also learn a sort of rudimentary time table of when to check for their owners. I could relay an anecdote in which a pet dog went to the nearby bus stop every time the bus came until her owner showed up. If she (the owner) didn't, she (the dog) went back to her home. If I was her owner, I would only see that the dog came at the right time.
@23:19 he talks about a related experiment, now that sounds better than anecdotes.
@26:29, "There are vigilante organizations that have been setup to try and discredit research of this kind, there are active groups of highly motivated skeptics, they vastly outnumber researchers in this field, the total number of subscribers to skeptical magazines in the U.S. is about 100,000. The total number of full-time researchers in parapsychology is about five, so they're outnumbered about 20,000 to 1 by well organized groups of skeptics."
Citation needed.
@29:03, "Many mothers claim that they can feel when their baby needs them, a lot of nursing mothers have what's called "The milk let down reflex", that for the benefit of the men here, which is the majority, is a reflex that occurs with nursing mothers, normally when they hear the baby cry, there's a release of oxytocin from the brain that causes the breast to prepare to feed the baby. These special changes occur in the breast; the nipple starts leaking, many women experience a tingling sensation. Some women experienced that when they're away from their baby, they may be shopping in a supermarket and suddenly their milk lets down and they feel their breasts tingle. Most women, when that happens, assume that the baby needs them, they used to just go home, nowadays they call home on the cell phone and they're often right, not always but very often." (emphasis mine)
Wouldn't that rather imply that there could be a sort of cyclicality to breastfeeding? Or maybe during breastfeeding, specific chemicals could be transmitted between mother and child that could "synchronize" the time of the next instance? I don't know, this is just an uneducated guess.
@30:54-35:05, re: the "telephone telepathy" experiment, just an irrational thought on my part but 4 possible callers seems a bit small to me. Why not try it with 16, maybe more?
@36:14, "Lots of people think of someone then they get an email from them and say, "That's funny, I was just thinking about you.""
Again, anecdotes. Said phenomenon can be more simply attributed to
- confirmation bias
- said people actually erroneously thinking that they knew when they actually didn't (a.k.a. false memory; remember, memory tends to be erroneous and unreliable unless you have true photographic memory [as opposed to highly developed sensory memory] which I actually suspect to be a psychic skill, not a biological feature, at least in humans)
- subliminal sensory cues, maybe the email program did flash a notification in the corner of the screen (Outlook does this and, specifically, Outlook 2007's notification does not stand out too much) but the person didn't notice it consciously because they were focused on something else at the time
Not saying all instances are like this, just, likely, most. Hmm, maybe that's pessimism or just realism, dunno.
@50:50-52:19, on Randi's dog experiment: Oh wow.If Sheldrake's claims are true I don't even know what to say...
---
Disclaimer: I do not have any sorts of scientific credentials, just thought that Fore put up this video for discussion so there should be a bit of discussion on it. I don't have the time to finish it right now. If anyone's interested (well... anyone interested?), I'll finish it up later.
Last edited by Neuru; 08-01-2012 at 11:22 AM.
You should continue watching past 52 minutes mark. At 54 it talks about different research in different fields.
As for Randi, well...I agree with the mans comments at the 50 to 52 minute mark.
Edit: At 57mintes he is reiterating a point of research that he mentioned before. Can people figure out whether a broadcast is happening in real time or not?
His research seems to want to delve into areas of whether or not there is a back-end awareness of real world situations in groups.
In other words, I interpret he is venturing into research about whether or not "morphic fields" (influence fields in my lingo) can convey information to individuals without the direct aid of their bodies awareness.
Last edited by Fore; 08-01-2012 at 01:28 PM.
For every action, there is a corresponding over-reaction. -- Anonymous
@53:11, "It's a good point. And first of all, I don't think that all science requires a theory. No one knew till recently how aspirin worked. No one knew till recently and they probably still don't know how super--high temperature superconductivity worked." (emphasis mine)
To me, as a layman, yes, sounds about right but theories should emerge subsequently.Originally Posted by Wikipedia;[url
@54:08, "Telepathy should occur between people you know well much more than people you don't, for example."
That posits that, if, and only if, telepathy exists, then every single person is equally capable of it. But just think of natural attributes - dexterity, metabolism rate, peak physical strength, or if we really wanted to focus on mental capabilities, then working memory capacity (this is alleged by some to correlate with IQ), language learning rates, pattern recognition, proneness to belief, vividness of memory recall (both sensory and non-sensory) and mental imagery - there are huge differences in all these areas. Particularly with the last one (I mean both memory and imagery), if the research spearheaded by the Gallant Lab of UCB ever comes to fruition a couple decades hence, we're in for a big surprise which will leave a lasting mark on law enforcement (the considered credibility of witnesses, in particular) and education, to only mention the most likely affected ones. I only mention this particular topic (imagination and memory) because I read up on it last year and suspect that it is a key element in psi development (obviously if and only if the material allegedly taught to you is indeed legitimate) - since the higher and lower minds interface through imagination.
(Obviously this scenario does not take into account the alleged inevitability of near-future mass calamity, alien disclosure and intervention and mass human die-off.)
So, I suspect you (Fore) would say, no, it shouldn't occur between those people more, instead it should occur more between those people of whom at least one has a more elevated psychic activation level than her or his peers.
@55:54, "And that's why you see parents and streets seeing--they see a dog and he would, "Doggie," and everyone say would--so, you know, it's just looking at the same thing, pointing, seeing things, is part of normal development. People who don't do that are often autistic."
Re: autism and the lack of joint attention in the early years, he does not make clear which one is the cause and which the effect.
I think this is an interesting topic of research, it also ties into feral children. Have you (either of you, Fore or Pontificator) psychically scanned someone who is/was a feral child? If yes (or if information on this was relayed to you), how does their mental makeup differ in their mirror universe projection compared to "normally" brought up humans? (I don't know if this is really that interesting or not.)
@61:31, "[...] in consciousness studies, one of the really big debates is; how does visual perception work? Is there of actual reality display inside the head? If so, where is it? How does it work? And if it's virtual, why should it be stopped by the skull rather than go through it?" (emphasis mine)
Umm... O_o I guess he never heard of the visual cortex? Okay, granted I'm a dimwit but... really... I don't think that's what he meant... at least I hope...
@63:41, "If you're smart, you've got to be a skeptic"
Yes, that's what you've got to be... well, depending on what you mean by "smart." If you mean people who forage and hunt, and that they have superior perception and reflexes compared to city-dwelling, soft-skinned weaklings who can be compared, in this case, to coma victims on life support then they are smarter indeed. Artists are smart, too, if by "smart" you mean proficiency in an arbitrary set of skills. So are artisans, musicians, but also successful assassins, used car salesmen and politicians.
Skepticism is, AFAIK, the practice of doubting everything, which includes one's thoughts and perceptions because the human brain has a lot of flaws that impede completely rational thinking. Combine skepticism with experimentation and you get the pursuit of truth.
You (Fore) said that
Actually, I don't think so. This is closer to the skeptic's take on "extraordinary" claims and happenings, if we discount the "consensus" part since a diehard skeptic should never equate a widespread consensual idea with said idea being true at all. The default human condition is to believe when you "feel" something is right - you mentioned the feeling of "truthiness", which is a neural phenomenon and how a telepathic being can, allegedly, produce this artificially. If it wasn't, there would be no religions and no corruption. Aren't humans known to be massively guilty of credulity?
@73:11, "But now, we recognize subjectivity, consciousness is part of science and we need to think about it scientifically."
Yes, subjectivity is scientific, except it isn't. I don't think he meant to say this... but how could I know...
@80:21, "And if any positive report is there, they immediately wheel on a media skeptic like Michael Shermer to say, "It's all rubbish.""
Nice. I don't know who Michael Shermer is but I thought the terms "media" and "skepticism" are fundamentally incompatible.
@89:15, "So, then he said, "The trouble with telepathy is that people are--" then he said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It's a standard skeptical slogan." So I said, "Well, what's the extraordinary claim?" I said, "The majority of saying normal people in Britain believed they've had telepathic experiences." In that sense, it's not extraordinary, it's ordinary. Most people had it. You're making the claim that most people are deluded about their own experience."
Telepathy is extraordinary, if we take the perspective of empirical science because there is no known biological, let alone physical basis for it. Otherwise, nice dodging by Dawkins, as described (alleged) by Sheldrake. You'll have to check the credibility and general reputation of each journal the records on this incident were published in, though, before accepting it. But it's good to have things like this published.
I likely left out some things that should have been commented. Oh, on a side note... I did not watch the video, just read the transcript.
Last edited by Neuru; 08-02-2012 at 10:32 AM.
The last few days I haven't reported anything because I am not sure if it is valid to report something.
--------------------------
It was on the 28th or the 29th of July, 2012 at about 3:30pm to 4:10pm that I was compiling a picture of what the structure of my group looks like from my perspective and from everything I have been able to glean over the years. I had actually been compiling the data in my mind (with some difficulty) for two days prior to that. What became obvious after compiling the data into organized relational charts was that the number of people (ET) directly involved is larger than I had really realized when putting it all down on e-paper.
I used a website that offers free services for creating charts. I was almost complete with an organizational styled chart of the ET people immediately in charge of me within my former "ET group" structure before it was dissolved/retired.
Perhaps not unexpectedly, the power went out to all the electrical sockets connected to my various computers in the house as I was finishing up the compilation. I sat up and sighed after it happened and simply thought to myself that the hardest part was already done. I would simply redo it again after I turned on the PC and tried again. I had already memorized the structure so it would be faster this time.
I pushed the power on the PC and nothing occurred. So I went into the pantry to see if for some mysterious reason the power breaker had tripped? The circuit wasn't anywhere near overloaded. The air conditioners were on a different and dedicated circuit and this issue doesn't happen as I organized all the electronics and appliances with care to make sure that they weren't overloaded.
At the breaker box, all the breakers were on their "ON" position. Nothing had flipped? So I flipped them all OFF and then ON again. Nothing happened.I went back to the PC and looked at the extension cords and the lights indicating power was not lit on any of them. I flipped off and on each one and made sure to press the reset button in case that had tripped.
Again, nothing happened. So I assumed the fuse must have blown? I didn't know how to replace a fuse in the breaker box since these are the new types and I assume you'd have to replace the relay itself?
I called the landlord and asked him to call an electrician. He told me the obvious about flipping the switches and all that. Then after we got passed the obvious trouble shooting he told me he was going to send some workmen to work on my house anyway so the electrician would be there on Monday.
So when my family complained that the electronics didn't work I told them they'd have to wait until then. The lights still worked and so did the air conditioning. No biggie, but a bit boring for a Sunday.
I disconnected the power extensions from the walls since the workmen were going to remodel part of the sheetrock in the houses front rooms. Despite disconnecting everything there was no short anywhere and still no power.
---------------------------
I started to think to myself that the buggers above were messing with the electricity as they had done so in the past when I tried to write something they didn't want to be written about them. But then I thought to myself that I am being paranoid.
The workmen came to the house at midday on Monday. 80% of the power plugs int he house did not work. Only one small circuit was working (the air conditioning circuit and the misc kitchen circuit along with the third circuit for lights.)
When the workmen started to plan out their work I mentioned the power being out in most of the houses plugs. So they would have to run an extension from a generator or the house next door. While the landlord said the same about the plugs and the breaker box I reminded him that we already went through all of it several times even when at night.
Then, I sat down while the men brought in their tools. They started putting up scaffolds and stuff and I sat on the couch to make sure they didn't break anything or markup the furniture. The men were still discussing what panels they would work on first and where. They decided to redo the roof first and started to arrange the scaffold for it.
As if on command, while I sat on the couch wondering when the power might come back. The switch in front of me suddenly lit up green and electricity was flowing through the power plugs. No breakers had been messed with or reset before the electricity came back. It had been just about a day since the issue appeared.
The men plugged in their drills and started to do their work. I sat on the couch a bit suspicious and bewildered as to how the power came back at the opportune time.
---------------------------------
I sat back and watched them for a few hours as they worked on the house. After a while I got bored of watching them work and so I went to the computer and turned it on. A few minutes later the power plugs immediately went dead.
At first I thought it was a short somewhere since all the other plugs had been pulled. But after the computer turned off, the workers commented to each other that the plugs weren't working. And it went back on as if on command. No flipping or tripping of switches either at the extension level or the breaker panel.
They used the power plugs for 2 hours to do more work and they turned on a high volume Fan I had laying around after the room had been cleared out of most of the contents. So the load didn't seem to cause any problems.
I took my PC and opened it up to see if it was causing some sort of short. I ran tests on the power supply using a power supply tester and all was normal. Things were recently cleaned out previously so it wasn't a dust issue. I took out one fan thinking that it might be causing electrical problems. Then I commented to a family member that I had never heard of a DC fan causing a short that would knock out electricity throughout a house without either the extension or the breaker box tripping.
I put the PC back into service and waited. The power went out again after a few minutes. Workers complained blah blah.
So I unplugged the PC and instead moved a server I had and connected it. Same issue, the power went down again. So I disconnected the server and left a light and other electronics connected. Nothing went out.
I then decided at the end of the day that I should probably not mention this on the forum because I was unsure of the cause and didn't want to seem crazy for implying anything absurd. Then I decided I should cover up the incident by simply saying nothing.
--------------------------------------------
I decided that I should not compile the diagram of the ET and connected one of my laptops to one of the kitchen circuits. It worked fine.I visited the forum no probs.
Later that night I put the server in the same location away from the work area and hooked it up and turned it on like before. Things worked fine so I connected my PC to the plug as before in the same place as always and the issue mysteriously disappeared.
I guess the electrical sockets have a mind of their own based on my decision not to continue the diagram? <Shrug>
Either that or whomever is in charge is using the old tricks of the past that I was formerly accustomed to on a daily basis...
For every action, there is a corresponding over-reaction. -- Anonymous
I guess you could still draw the diagram on paper, have it scanned at a copy shop and upload it from a busy netcafé. (Busy = maybe less chance for interference since it would have many witnesses. Or a good opportunity to have a PC blown and the blame for the damage laid upon you. Dunno really.) Or better yet, hand it to someone you trust and have them upload it. I don't know how much interference that would attract.
On another side note, I see a certain new member signed up a couple days ago using the alias g2v12. Unless it's a spambot that crawled that name from the forum, I guess this is the author who kept contact with Matti Aladin whom I mentioned in this post:
http://www.theoutpostforum.com/tof/showthread.php?291-What-we-think-we-know-so-far&p=11826&viewfull=1#post11826
Maybe he lost his password for the previous account, that's none of my business anyway and I don't care either.
Some time ago I had corresponded in email with Montalk on Matti's contact experiences. I also have a half-finished writeup on some correlations I found between his case and yours. I'll dig that up in the next few days and also ask Montalk for permission to quote his observations as well. For now, I can say that based on what I've read so far I very definitely doubt that Matti's contacts are benevolent beings - if they are indeed real and not delusions or a hoax which of course is unverifiable given the lack of physical, empirical proof.
Last edited by Neuru; 08-02-2012 at 01:19 PM.
There are a few more things to share about the last 3 days.
I am thinking that I should disclose as much as possible even if it seems unimportant to me to relate it to you guys. I figured that having an excessive number of snapshot impressions being relayed and over reporting is better than continuously under-reporting.
The logic being that these "safeguards", if any exist, are likely to be strictly limited to me and not everyone else. The additional assumption being that any additional safeguards my former ET group may implement on additional people will be acts of overcompensation for issues which they may not be able to quietly control behind the curtain.
In other words, if I put it all out there assuming there are enough people with a given amount of intelligence exists and are actively watching the words as they appear...my former group will need to be ready to deal with that situation or control and manipulate the perceptions that are created as a result.
Someone like montalk might find additional answers to questions or he might be inspired. Your might find something useful in your own way Nuero. And Pontif might be able to avoid the implementation of a similar system or at the very least figure it out faster if he sees parallels in his own evolving situation long after I am not here anymore.
I hope it helps.
For every action, there is a corresponding over-reaction. -- Anonymous
Reply With Quote
