The Believing Brain and C's clues...

[sedenion]

2) The source of this STS "future" is seeded in us. We could even see it as a time loop, 4d STS wouldn't exist without us and we wouldn't exist without them. Same for STO, so where is the split? Subjectivity-wishful thinking -> STS Objecivitity -> STO , Both products of intelligence and consciousness.
Psychopaths could be what they need to protect- serving a purpose to push us into subjectivity.
Psychopaths bring the conditions that make people feel like they have less and less control, like the quote from the book "Locus of control is also mediated by levels of certainty or uncertainty in physical and social environments. "
If things below the surface are strange, like quantum theory shows, it makes sense why "they" would want to control consciousness by keeping us "dreaming" of subjective reality (improbable possibilities?). Of course from our level of STS existence, what we see as probable are the cycles of destruction and rebirth that we some how want to overcome. Maybe objectivity is accepting this happened, happens, and will happen? So STS could be born of the fear of this loop, which makes them create time/space loops in order to "fix it" (but it is not broken!).

I found this is a very interesting thinking, especially the last part where i can see some pretty insights. In the first part, i found the way to describe STS vs STO too simple and maybe erroneous (in a general way, i find that focusing on this STS vs STO dichotomy is dangerous, that leads to some hard inside conflicts that does not really helps). To me, the error is this brutal dichotomy between "subjective" and "objective" wich can lead to some other illusions. Being "wishful thinking" is one feature of the self-contentment logic, wich does not mean this is THE key feature. Respecting what you write above, what happen if you take the "reach for objectivity" as an ultimate goal ? Then you are never satisfied, and you allways want more knowledge, you try reach some "ultimate knowledge" and you enter in a kind of infinite loop (especially if you create your own reality). And what if being "objective" is to understand you can't be it, admiting you only can be subjective with maybe, some better view than the one who is purely in a self-made (or made by another) dream ? Lets go further: If you observe how our current world works, with its propaganda and social ingeniering process, what is the goal of some "powerfull" people ? Answer: Make you enter in THEIR "dream", in their "false world", so you are like in "The Matrix": the "Matrix" they built, for you, where they control your believes, your will, what you are supposed to want, to like, or dislike => "yes, you want this fabulous car, this car is what you need !" => "yes, you want to go in 4th density STO, this is what you need !" (controversial example, done on purpose).

Anyway, before thinking about some world destruction by comets, and maybe some "density switching", i would advise to first begin to see the potentiality of an global economic collapse, which mechanically will not affect only the "elits", and maybe, even "elits" will deliberatly provoke him, to achieve their NWO agenda: they have power... you, no. What can happen is such situation (think about people beg for some fresh water, food, etc.) ? What to do to prevent the worse ? What to do to keep your freedome ?

 

[Divide by Zero]

Shermer had a chapter on Conspiracy that made points to prove his belief. IRONIC!
He didn't mention that belief in authority is the same thing that he puts down when it comes to "god" and religion.
As many skeptics do, he picked the simplistic conspiracies to shoot down and defended the official story of melting steel, etc.
I was gritting my teeth on some of his condescension , haha.

But thankfully the chapter was over and there were some more interesting things regarding psychology.

In 1620, a staunch challenge to Aristotle’s deductive methodology was proffered by the English philosopher Francis Bacon in his book Novum Organum. This “new instrument” was the empirical or observational method. Rejecting both the unempirical tradition of scholasticism and the Renaissance quest to recover and preserve ancient wisdom, Bacon sought a blend of sensory data and reasoned theory, with emphasis on data and caution about theory. Ideally, he proposed, one should begin with observations then formulate a general theory from which logical predictions could be made. Bacon outlined how the mind works in this regard:

There are and can be only two ways of searching into and discovering truth. The one flies from the senses and particulars to the most general axioms, and from these principles, the truth of which it takes for settled and immovable, proceeds to judgment and to the discovery of middle axioms. The other derives axioms from the senses and particulars, rising by a gradual and unbroken ascent, so that it arrives at the most general axioms last of all. This is the true way, but as yet untried.

Impeding Bacon’s goal, however, were psychological barriers that colored clear judgment of the facts, of which he identified four types: idols of the cave (individual peculiarities), idols of the marketplace (limits of language), idols of the theater (preexisting beliefs), and idols of the tribe (inherited foibles of human thought): “Idols are the profoundest fallacies of the mind of man. Nor do they deceive in particulars … but from a corrupt and crookedly-set predisposition of the mind; which doth, as it were, wrest and infect all the anticipations of the understanding.” The power of beliefs to drive our observations and conclusions is profound: “The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion … draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises … in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.” This is a superb example of the confirmation bias, which we saw in the previous chapter is where we look for and find confirmatory evidence for what we already believe and either ignore or rationalize disconfirming evidence. Everyone does it.
What is the answer to the problem of the idols? Science.

The way to objective truth is Science.
No wonder why Science is so controlled. It's best not to let it lead into the unknown, instead keep it as superstition and fear. Before, it was religion that kept people blind, now it's our own academia.

Knowledge protects, ignorance endangers. Keep people anticipating instead of knowing why/how and you have control over their free will, whatever is left of it. More lies and externalization of choice means less free will- which was eaten by STS. Depressing!

 

[Archaea]

Mainstream science defines objectivity to be the physical reality, so the physical is objective and the emotional and the intellectual are subjective according to the scientific 'dogma.' But if reality splits and mergers are a real thing and if quantum theory as it stands is an accurate description of reality, then perhaps it would be possible for two observers to measure a quantum state and get two different results.

The act of measuring in this case would correspond to a reality split, and the quantum state returning to a superposition would correspond to a reality merger. But, the physical measurements of the quantum doodad wouldn't be objective, they would be subjective, so in this case physical reality is no longer completely objective.

Recently, I've been reading UFOs and the national security state. In chapter 3 there's a UFO story where 4 planes were sent to intercept a radar sighting. Two of the pilots saw a silvery disc, while the other two saw a metal looking plane with highly swept back wings. So, in this case what the UFO looked like wasn't completely objective, it was somewhat subjective. However, like the quantum doodad, the UFO was there, so there was something objective about it.

Here's another thought experiment: Again assuming that beliefs are the core of reality, let's say two people are looking at a painting on the wall, and the image evokes the same emotion in both of them. Furthermore, these people believe that emotions aren't subjective, but are instead objective. Does the picture now objectively contain the emotion? So if a third person walks by could the painting evoke the same emotion in this person as it did in the other two?

If the painting could contain emotions and if physical measurements can be subjective, then it's possible that the third guy would see a completely different picture than either of the other two, but it would still evoke the same emotion. So now the emotional is objective and the physical is subjective, which means the axioms of mainstream science are only relevant for certain beliefs and in certain realities.

If the dividing line between objectivity and subjectivity is itself subjective, then the only possibility for true objectivity is at the extreme limit. So we can say that existence exists, i.e. that there really is something instead of nothing, but we can't say much else.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Interesting ideas.

So when it comes to the painting eliciting an objective emotion, we have many factors that could do this.

I think of the idea that some things we see, like 2 dots on a circle as eyes, will make a baby laugh and smile.

How can we tell whether the painting is just setting off a mental switch that connects to something that most human brains respond to or whether it has something more?

The UFO sightings are perplexing too. We hear a lot of sightings from very credible witnesses such as pilots, but it's ever so hard to find a detailed video of such. Are the pilots sucked into a subjective bleed through, or is the object really there?

The biggest issue I have with all of this high strangeness is relying on our own minds. We cannot trust them, so whatever happens strange, is still an unknown.

 

[Richs]

The biggest issue I have with all of this high strangeness is relying on our own minds. We cannot trust them, so whatever happens strange, is still an unknown.

I think this applies to many areas of our thoughts about reality and about what is possible and what is not. Here is an example:

What would your BS detector, your 'smell test', tell you if I stated that sometimes the second Law of Thermodynamics could be violated? OK, I'm making that assertion right now. What do you think? It has been 'proven' over and over and over countless times to be true has it not? Why would I say such a thing?

It is because even though in almost every circumstance this law is true and accurate, there can be exceptions to it. Check out the following article to see such an exception:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1028220616493488320

(excerpt)
"To do that, his colleague, Edith Sevick, floated latex beads 6 microns (millionths of a meter) across in water. Then she used "optical tweezers," an infrared laser whose light pressure confines a bead between two beams, to drag one bead at a time through the water.

The beads turned Second Law scofflaws. Water molecules in random ("Brownian") motion knocked into each bead, transferring energy to it for as long as two seconds. It was the micro version of a refrigerator sucking up the energy in that tub of water and leaving behind ice. So, although the Second Law bars that, it seems to let a nanomachine run on the Brownian motion in a drop of water, at least briefly.

The second law formally applies only to collections of zillions of particles -- a refrigerator, a closet, a living creature. "The Law does not preclude fluctuations on small scales and short times such as these," says physicist David Harris of the American Physical Society, which is reminiscent of the way quantum laws apply to the microworld but apparently not to the macroworld."

It illustrates that even when we "know" something to be true, it is possible it is not true in some cases or even not true at all. We always need to be aware that there is an awful lot we do not know about the entirety of reality and the necessity of accepting new information when, and if, it arrives.

Just some thoughts. I do agree with most of what is previously said in this thread though.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Unfortunately the site doesn't let me log in to read the article despite signing up. I will just go by what you posted.

The law is not definite. We know that. What we have to go by are observations that can be impartial and subject to a network.

In this case, not just those scientists, but others should be able to replicate the experiment. I assume it is so, but you never know.
There have been cases where it could not be replicated. The other scientists were blamed to be biased and sabotaging and so on. Sometimes that is true, sometimes they find out the original experiment was in itself a "magic trick".

As we all know from sott, Science can lie to us, when there are agendas involved.

So what matters is the proof of concept.

For example, you can write formulas all day explaining why dark matter and dark energy exist, but later on you find out that those only existed because you couldn't see what else was going on and you were trying to justify your "old way" of thinking.

Same for things that violate laws that we expected to be true. Let's go back to the time when the Earth was thought to be the center of our solar system. Scientists had plenty of charts and trigonometry/mathematics to back it up. Anyone who said otherwise not only had to face proving their model, they had to unfairly disprove the status quo.
But with time, other things that did not mesh with the earth centered model gave way to the sun centered model.

Now, where I think belief can blind us is when we assume an experiment or formula is correct without putting it through the strainer of critical thinking. Science might focus on the math or physics/chemistry. Politicians/sociologists might focus on the results that could hit society. And philosophers/religions on their own ideas of reality and how this discovery could change things.

But what matters at the end of the day is seeing it in action, in 3d- measured, tested. Not a belief due to a formula or expectation but what IS. And that is where we disagree when it comes to Keshe.

 

[Richs]

Unfortunately the site doesn't let me log in to read the article despite signing up. I will just go by what you posted.

Sorry about that, the link worked for me from the search engine. Here is a different article from Scientific American:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/second-law-of-thermodynam/

 

[Divide by Zero]

"No useful amounts of energy could be extracted from the set-up, however, because the effect disappeared if the bead was moved for time intervals greater than two seconds. "

It reminds me of nuclear fusion. We have created fusion. It takes a ton of energy and releases a ton of energy, but like this- it is hard to sustain for use-able power.

If we were to apply the problems of belief here, I think there's another can of worms.

Like fusion research, it was expected that we could overcome these limits for the huge reward.

But, a lot of cheats came into the window showing tricks of fusion and so on, all of which later showed to be not sustainable.

Maybe it's relative to psychology. We can have the ideal to seek truth, but the environment and data around us can twist the search for truth into trickery. ( Sometimes it's not direct trickery, but scientists forget to be diligent and skip steps to get the result they expect sometimes.)

That's why even scientists/doctors who don't directly have a vested interest in the status quo can get quickly sucked into it.

I think these are the limitations of expectation and belief that the C's warn us about!

 

[Archaea]

How can we tell whether the painting is just setting off a mental switch that connects to something that most human brains respond to or whether it has something more?

I think that's a good question. I guess the only way we could tell is by gaining some objectivity. Because the way we each individually perceive reality is subjective we can't really know whether reality is built on beliefs in an objective way or whether our brains are just tricking us. Perhaps we could logically deduce it, but logic itself could be subject to belief.

The UFO sightings are perplexing too. We hear a lot of sightings from very credible witnesses such as pilots, but it's ever so hard to find a detailed video of such. Are the pilots sucked into a subjective bleed through, or is the object really there?

I don't know, I thought something would be there, but if UFOs are related to 4D and beliefs are the core of reality, then perhaps the existence of the object itself is subjective. Could this mean that UFOs materialize when there is a bleed through and what materializes depends on the witness, like what the C's say? Maybe that would explain why some pilots saw a saucer and others saw a fighter jet looking thing.

The biggest issue I have with all of this high strangeness is relying on our own minds. We cannot trust them, so whatever happens strange, is still an unknown.

I disagree, but again, if beliefs are the core of reality, then if we believe we can't trust our own minds then we can't, our minds will betray us and I think this'll cause us to disintegrate. If we believe we can trust our minds then we can. In fact I think we can trust ourselves completely and we can trust ourselves to do the right thing in every situation. Not only that but I think the sub-conscious is very responsive to the conscious mind, and because the mind operates the way it does, i.e. every thing's possible in the imagination, even if beliefs aren't the core of objective reality then they're the core of subjective reality and we can still trust our minds, IMO.

What would your BS detector, your 'smell test', tell you if I stated that sometimes the second Law of Thermodynamics could be violated? OK, I'm making that assertion right now. What do you think? It has been 'proven' over and over and over countless times to be true has it not? Why would I say such a thing?

Indeed, it would have been reasonable for physicists in the past to declare a law of physics that said there is no material which can have a negative index of refraction. But we know now that there are meta-materials that do have this property. Likewise with the first and second laws of thermodynamics, it was reasonable in the past but maybe not so much now or in the future.

In fact, if we are moving into 4D, then the first and second laws of thermodynamics could be severely limiting beliefs. They could mean that every time some 4D magic occurred that, due to the exceptions of the witnesses, a) the necessary energy had to come from somewhere and b) heat would need to be produced from the event.

Just as an unrelated question, have you looked into the Newman machine and the Searl effect?

It illustrates that even when we "know" something to be true, it is possible it is not true in some cases or even not true at all. We always need to be aware that there is an awful lot we do not know about the entirety of reality and the necessity of accepting new information when, and if, it arrives.

This is where I start to get a bit suspicious of using logic to determine what's objective. If beliefs are the core of reality then what people "know" to be true is true, and if two people believe two different things then they are in two different realities. What I understand from reading the Cass stuff is that if we want to respect others free will then we have to respect their beliefs, even if we disagree with them.

For example, you can write formulas all day explaining why dark matter and dark energy exist, but later on you find out that those only existed because you couldn't see what else was going on and you were trying to justify your "old way" of thinking.

Right, but when the wave hits, maybe these physicists will finally find dark matter and dark energy, in which case good for them :). I think it comes down to perspective, if there's more than one way to think about something, then to reach for true objectivity we need to get as many different perspectives as we can, and we can't judge them as right or wrong and we can't get locked into just one perspective because they're all ultimately subjective on their own.

Same for things that violate laws that we expected to be true. Let's go back to the time when the Earth was thought to be the center of our solar system. Scientists had plenty of charts and trigonometry/mathematics to back it up. Anyone who said otherwise not only had to face proving their model, they had to unfairly disprove the status quo.
But with time, other things that did not mesh with the earth centered model gave way to the sun centered model.

Case in point, here's a picture of the epicycles from Wikipedia:

To someone whose been trained in the sun centered model this picture could look cluttered and over-complicated, but to the people who formulated these epicycles and maybe even an artist this picture could look quite beautiful, and because it's so beautiful it must be true, which it kind of is if you think about the Earth being the center of our subjective universe.

I even think there's a lot to be learned from epicycles in terms of the electric universe. If the orbits of the planets were just random then the above would be a complete mess.

It reminds me of nuclear fusion. We have created fusion. It takes a ton of energy and releases a ton of energy, but like this- it is hard to sustain for use-able power.

If we were to apply the problems of belief here, I think there's another can of worms.

Like fusion research, it was expected that we could overcome these limits for the huge reward.

But, a lot of cheats came into the window showing tricks of fusion and so on, all of which later showed to be not sustainable.

It could be that fusion is somehow related to 4D, so it doesn't work for some scientists, but does for others.

I think these are the limitations of expectation and belief that the C's warn us about!

I believe that there aren't limitations of expectations and beliefs, but I do believe in beliefs and expectations of limitations.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Hmm, interesting that they saw different objects. What if a bleed through is tuning into a 4d STS "frequency"? Maybe tuning into 4d STO would be less simple as we as "educated 3d people" wouldn't go around screaming that god doesn't exist to the religious :)

I disagree, but again, if beliefs are the core of reality, then if we believe we can't trust our own minds then we can't, our minds will betray us and I think this'll cause us to disintegrate. If we believe we can trust our minds then we can. In fact I think we can trust ourselves completely and we can trust ourselves to do the right thing in every situation. Not only that but I think the sub-conscious is very responsive to the conscious mind, and because the mind operates the way it does, i.e. every thing's possible in the imagination, even if beliefs aren't the core of objective reality then they're the core of subjective reality and we can still trust our minds, IMO.

From what I've read in psychology and this book, the subconscious does whatever it wants even if our conscious mind wants something. Some of the best examples come from the PTSD and abusive relationships. Our conscious mind will make up a story and reason for the subconscious, as in the split brain experiments- The guy who was told to walk, was asked why he did- he said he wanted to get a coke.

That's how I see why the Pennebaker writing exercises work so well, our conscious mind first needs the story on paper before we can really process the subconscious "recording".

I guess it comes down to intent. I am kind of seeing that sometimes choice isn't free will, but accepting responsibility and "paying the piper" is the only real free will we have?!

(Thanks for bringing this idea up, it helps me see more into how things relate to the things I've read. I'm not trying to battle your ideas but try to see what could very well be closest to the truth here.)

Just as an unrelated question, have you looked into the Newman machine and the Searl effect?

Yeah, I just rewatched the video on it. Sorry, but it doesn't really prove anything to spin something. There has to also be work done.
For example... you can take a bicycle wheel hold the shaft and spin it and it will take a minute to stop. Friction is the only work acting upon the spinning and eventually it takes away the momentum. But if you had the wheel turning a motor, it would stop fast without input.
Another anology is in space, you can travel a constant 10,000 mph- without rockets- just momentum. But to change speed up or down, requires work.

This machine in the videos is just spinning itself. That's my problem with these machines... if you wanted to be scientifically objective with an open mind, you would measure energy in and energy out. Energy in may be almost zero, but energy out is almost zero.
Am I missing something here??

Right, but when the wave hits, maybe these physicists will finally find dark matter and dark energy, in which case good for them :). I think it comes down to perspective, if there's more than one way to think about something, then to reach for true objectivity we need to get as many different perspectives as we can, and we can't judge them as right or wrong and we can't get locked into just one perspective because they're all ultimately subjective on their own.

Yes, this whole book and reading psychology is what drove me to post this, that almost nothing is objective! But I'm far from that nihilism or post modernism crap where you create your reason or purpose. Nahh, that's also a feedback loop it seems, a self justification as much as a blind belief, Haha.

So where can we draw some sort of truth? I think of Plato's allegory of the cave. In physical terms, the shadows were real, but turned out to be images of the real physical objects. Now if we applied that to thought, our thoughts may be shadows of what is real. The only objective thing is to know that deep down our view is so blurred and twisted that we cannot fully trust it.

The chart of earth center is interesting. But I think the only way to resolve multiple explanations of what we observe is to pick the one that requires the least explanation- Occam's Razor. So let's say it took 100 formulas/constants to say the Earth is center and 8 to say the Sun is center. The sun being center would be the most scientific requiring the least assumptions.

Again, thanks it's fascinating conversation!

 

[Archaea]

From what I've read in psychology and this book, the subconscious does whatever it wants even if our conscious mind wants something. Some of the best examples come from the PTSD and abusive relationships. Our conscious mind will make up a story and reason for the subconscious, as in the split brain experiments- The guy who was told to walk, was asked why he did- he said he wanted to get a coke.

Yeah, I don't know. I think the sub-conscious mind is a part of ourselves, maybe even a larger part than the conscious mind. If so, then what the sub-conscious mind wants is what we want. Perhaps when the conscious mind and the sub-conscious mind want two different things they are in separate realities, due to opposing beliefs, and this is somehow related to split brains. That's speculation though.

The guy wanting to get a coke is a good example of subjectivity vs objectivity I think. The people who "gave the command" to walk could easily believe that they made the guy do it. But what if the guy really wanted to get a coke, and that was the real motivation for getting up and walking, then if the people doing the experiment believed that mind control was possible they'd have fallen into the trap of wishful thinking. They'd have mistaken their subjective perspective as objective.

The third man story in the Wave says that the hypnotist told the subject that the third man had disappeared, but the subject could still see him. The hypnotist then told the subject that the third man had gone out the door, downstairs and walked off, now the subject couldn't see him. The narrative had to fit the beliefs of the subject. If the subject didn't believe that hypnotism could trick the mind, then maybe the experiment would have had different results.

What I think this means is that we have complete control over ourselves, we control our perspectives of reality with our beliefs. The guy may have wanted to get a coke, he may also have wanted covert mind control to be possible. either way I believe he was in control, not the experimenter.

That's how I see why the Pennebaker writing exercises work so well, our conscious mind first needs the story on paper before we can really process the subconscious "recording".

I think the putting the story on paper is a way of getting the conscious mind to align itself with the sub-conscious mind. So the conscious mind might be in a state of denial or something, but after putting the story on paper, it changes its beliefs and can open up to the sub-conscious. If this is true, then putting the story on paper isn't really needed, there could be many different ways to do it, but putting the story on paper is a good one.

I guess it comes down to intent. I am kind of seeing that sometimes choice isn't free will, but accepting responsibility and "paying the piper" is the only real free will we have?!

I think this might be a limiting belief, in 4D a belief like this could generate a restricted, and possibly stressful, reality. I like to think we can do anything we want, it's just at the moment we're 3D STS, so we want to be miserable and watch others be miserable. But if we're 4D STO candidates then we don't want to want that, so we're weirdos, but that's OK, we can do what we like.

(Thanks for bringing this idea up, it helps me see more into how things relate to the things I've read. I'm not trying to battle your ideas but try to see what could very well be closest to the truth here.)

I don't want to battle your ideas either, this would be a counter productive conversation if we couldn't respect each other's points of view. :)

This machine in the videos is just spinning itself. That's my problem with these machines... if you wanted to be scientifically objective with an open mind, you would measure energy in and energy out. Energy in may be almost zero, but energy out is almost zero.
Am I missing something here??

I don't know. Energy in should be less than energy out. These machines are testable though.

So where can we draw some sort of truth? I think of Plato's allegory of the cave. In physical terms, the shadows were real, but turned out to be images of the real physical objects. Now if we applied that to thought, our thoughts may be shadows of what is real. The only objective thing is to know that deep down our view is so blurred and twisted that we cannot fully trust it.

I believe that there is something objective, and if all of reality is contained within us like the C's say, then it's right up in our face, we're not disconnected from it. However, our perspective of it is subjective IMO, so to fully understand it we need to be aware of all possible perspectives of it. This means that our perspective of it can be blurred and twisted, and this is what I think society's problem is. The way out of it I guess would be to see as many different points of view as possible.

The chart of earth center is interesting. But I think the only way to resolve multiple explanations of what we observe is to pick the one that requires the least explanation- Occam's Razor. So let's say it took 100 formulas/constants to say the Earth is center and 8 to say the Sun is center. The sun being center would be the most scientific requiring the least assumptions.

Yeah, the sun centered model is much simpler. For people back in the day who thought the Earth was the center of the universe, it represents a new perspective from which they could learn a whole lot. But if beliefs are the core of reality then the previous perspective of the universe would be just as valid. I think that since we now believe that the sun is the center of the solar system, we can learn a whole lot, in a definite scientific way, from the perspective of the Earth as the center of the universe. Of course we know it's subjective, we don't think that view is objective.

Again, thanks it's fascinating conversation!

You're welcome, and thank you too. :)

 

[Divide by Zero]

The guy wanting to get a coke is a good example of subjectivity vs objectivity I think. The people who "gave the command" to walk could easily believe that they made the guy do it. But what if the guy really wanted to get a coke, and that was the real motivation for getting up and walking, then if the people doing the experiment believed that mind control was possible they'd have fallen into the trap of wishful thinking. They'd have mistaken their subjective perspective as objective.

The third man story in the Wave says that the hypnotist told the subject that the third man had disappeared, but the subject could still see him. The hypnotist then told the subject that the third man had gone out the door, downstairs and walked off, now the subject couldn't see him. The narrative had to fit the beliefs of the subject. If the subject didn't believe that hypnotism could trick the mind, then maybe the experiment would have had different results.

What I think this means is that we have complete control over ourselves, we control our perspectives of reality with our beliefs. The guy may have wanted to get a coke, he may also have wanted covert mind control to be possible. either way I believe he was in control, not the experimenter.

There's another split brain experiment which takes out the variable you pointed out, the guy's choice to get a coke.

They had one eye watch horrible things and the other nice things like puppies and such.

Some of the people felt strong nausea afterwards. The experimented asked why? They would come up with things like "the color of the room" etc. Funny because that's not really a good reason to have nausea, but the mind needed a reason to justify something it didn't have direct knowledge of!

I guess in that case you can only depend on the network. For them, they could ask, was I wrong to say it was the color of the wall? It's just cool stuff that explains why we can't trust our own "calculations"

 

[RedFox]

The UFO sightings are perplexing too. We hear a lot of sightings from very credible witnesses such as pilots, but it's ever so hard to find a detailed video of such. Are the pilots sucked into a subjective bleed through, or is the object really there?

I don't know, I thought something would be there, but if UFOs are related to 4D and beliefs are the core of reality, then perhaps the existence of the object itself is subjective. Could this mean that UFOs materialize when there is a bleed through and what materializes depends on the witness, like what the C's say? Maybe that would explain why some pilots saw a saucer and others saw a fighter jet looking thing.

fwiw this reminded me of a C's session (18 March 1995):

Q: (L) What happened to the infamous Flight 19? (T) They went to Philadelphia.

A: They are still trying to get their bearings.

Q: (L) Ooooh! (J) Oh! My God! Oh, how horrible! They are still out there trying to get back. (T) They are in a parallel reality... (L) Where time doesn't exist... (T) They are in a reality that holds them in frozen space/time over the ocean, am I getting this right?

A: In their thought reference, like being "lost souls."

Q: (L) Oooh, bummer! Does this mean that they are "stuck" in time? (J) You got it!

A: Bingo!

Q: (L) Is there any possibility that they could fly out of this place that they are stuck in and back into our reality?

A: Absolutely, remember, the wave is approaching, and as it gets "nearer", more and more unusual events take place, witness crop circles, for example.
[..]
A: Now, some more information about Flight 19. Do you remember a few years ago that a team of researchers claimed to have found the planes, then retracted?

Q: (L) Yes, I remember. {All agree.}

A: Did you find this to be curious?

Q: (S) Yes, because the planes that they found were never reported missing. (T) Yes. (L) Is that why it was so curious? (J) Why did they retract? (S) Where did the planes come from that they found?

A: Yes, if only you knew the details, and how three of the team have required massive psychiatric aid.

Q: (L) Well, tell us the details!

A: Patience, we are, but must do so slowly so you have some hope of grasping it.

Q: (T) Three of the recovery team needed psychiatric treatment?

A: What they found were five planes matching the description, and "arranged" in a perfect geometric pattern on the bottom of the ocean, but the serial numbers did not match.

Q: (L) Is the geometric pattern itself significant?

A: Now, first mystery: There were no other instances of five Avengers disappearing at once. Second: Two of the planes had strange glowing panels with unknown "hieroglyphics" where there should have been numbers. Third: When they tried to raise one of the planes, it vanished, then reappeared, then vanished again then reappeared while attached to the guide-wire, then finally slipped off and fell to the bottom. Fourth: In one of the planes, on the bottom, live human apparitions in WWII uniforms were temporarily seen by three exploratory divers and videotaped by a guide camera. Lastly: Three of the planes have since disappeared. All of this is, naturally, being kept secret!

Q: (S) I wonder where the planes came from. (L) That is the obvious question!

A: Parallel reality, you see, when something crosses into another reality, it accesses something called, for lack of a better term, the "thought plane", and as long as that reality is misunderstood, the window remains open, thus all perceptions of possibility may manifest concretely, though only temporarily, as thought plane material is constantly fluid.

Q: (L) Does this mean that this was a "Flight 19" of a parallel reality that went through a window into our reality?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Was this part of or connected to the loss of our "Flight 19?" Did we exchange realities here?

A: It is the thought patterns that effect the reality, when that window is opened, all thought can become physical reality, though only temporarily.

Q: (L) Does this mean that the divers' and searchers' thoughts about this became reality?

A: And all others.

Q: (T) All others involved in the search?

A: All others on the planet.

Q: (T) Even those that did not believe that the searchers were going to find them?

A: Yes. Researchers found what they expected to find, but when others heard the news, other things started to happen according to which thought patterns dominated.

Q: (L) So, in other words, if somebody believed that it was Flight 19, it appeared, and if somebody did not believe it was Flight 19, it disappeared?

A: Yes.

Q: (J) Oh jeez! (T) Well, I didn't believe it to begin with... (L) So, I guess we won! (F) We sent some poor guys into the psychiatric ward. (T) The planes appeared because people... (L) No, I think the searchers went looking for this and because there was a window there... (T) the planes showed up exactly as they expected to see them, in a formation... But the planes would not have come down as described there, and they appeared in a formation on the bottom. That should have told the searchers something right there. When I heard that they had found those planes in a formation, that close together, that bothered me. (F) Even if something sinks to the bottom, it won't arrive there in the position it started at the top. (T) And what they did find after they started checking the records, was that there are about 200 of those planes crashed along the coast. And, there was another guy who said that he found one of those planes, only it wasn't one of Flight 19. And, while he was out there looking for it, he found parts of the shuttle...

UFO's and the occupants probably have a similar thing going on, a persons beliefs (social/collective, personal and 'engineered' by 4D themselves) will influence how you see such things osit.
Keel talked about historic UFO sightings that where seen as hot air balloons and blimps, as that was what was socially accepted at the time (the only flying devices). The closest objects that matched given the knowledge of the culture. Which is probably an example of the brain creating a story about what it's seeing.
Although in this case, it was literally shaping reality.

On internal/external locus of control (and beliefs), I read this on sott:
https://www.sott.net/article/333153-Psychics-help-psychiatrists-understand-the-voices-of-psychosis

Psychics help psychiatrists understand the voices of psychosis

People with psychosis are tormented by internal voices. In an effort to explain why a Yale team enlisted help from an unusual source: psychics and others who hear voices but are not diagnosed with a mental illness.

They found that the voices experienced by this group are similar in many ways to those reported by people with schizophrenia, with a few big differences: Psychics are much more likely to perceive the voices as positive or helpful and as experiences that can be controlled, according to a new study published Sept. 28 in the journal Schizophrenia Bulletin.

"We have known for some time that people in the general population can have the experience of hearing voices—sometimes frequently—without the need for psychiatric intervention," said Albert Powers, a psychiatry fellow and lead author of the study.

As many as one in 25 people hear voices at any given time and up to 40% may report hearing a voice at some time in their lives. Most do not meet criteria for mental illness. But finding healthy people to study who hear voices has been difficult.

"Studying psychics through the lens of voice-hearing may give us important insights into why they are able to function so well without the need for psychiatric care" Powers said.

Powers and Philip Corlett, assistant professor of psychiatry and senior author on the paper along with Yale neuroscience graduate student Megan Kelley, studied a group called clairaudient psychics, who report receiving daily auditory messages. The subjects who reported hearing voices were given tests from forensic psychiatry designed to identify those who falsely claim to be hearing voices in order to avoid criminal prosecution. Both psychics and psychosis patients had similar scores on tests meant to detect false claims of hearing voices. However, patients with schizophrenia were much more likely to report negative experiences when hearing voices or discussing the voices with other people.

By comparing the psychics' experiences with those of people with schizophrenia and a control group of healthy subjects, the authors claim to have found some clues as to what may be protecting this group of healthy voice-hearers.

"These individuals have a much higher degree of control over the voices. They also have a greater willingness to engage with and view the voices as positive or neutral to their lives,'' Corlett said. "We predict this population will teach us a lot about the neurobiology, cognitive psychology and eventually treatment of distressing voices."

Researchers say the approach may be unusual, but is justified by lack of progress in treating illnesses like schizophrenia.

"Our understanding of psychosis is limited, and we've made only incremental progress for the past 50 years," Corlett said. "The research may be unusual, but big, intractable problems require creative and sometimes unorthodox solutions."

The Yale Department of Psychiatry and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation provided primary funding for the research.

So a possible example of the difference that internal vs external locus of controls have on perception. But that is assuming cause and effect, it could be that unbalanced brain chemistry is the cause and leads to feeling powerless. Or lack of social context (a framework for 'hearing voices') is what makes the person feel powerless, a belief that hearing voices is not socially acceptable?

 

[Archaea]

They had one eye watch horrible things and the other nice things like puppies and such.

Some of the people felt strong nausea afterwards. The experimented asked why? They would come up with things like "the color of the room" etc. Funny because that's not really a good reason to have nausea, but the mind needed a reason to justify something it didn't have direct knowledge of!

How, if possible do we reconcile this with the following statement?

Q: (L) Is there any benefit to be obtained through the use of mantras?
A: Especially when the mind says there is. Remember, most all power necessary for altering reality and physicality is contained within the belief center of the mind. This is something you will understand more closely when you reach 4th density reality where physicality is no longer a prison, but is instead, your home, for you to alter as you please. In your current state, you have the misinterpretation of believing that reality is finite and therein lies your difficulty with finite physical existence.

UFO's and the occupants probably have a similar thing going on, a persons beliefs (social/collective, personal and 'engineered' by 4D themselves) will influence how you see such things osit.
Keel talked about historic UFO sightings that where seen as hot air balloons and blimps, as that was what was socially accepted at the time (the only flying devices). The closest objects that matched given the knowledge of the culture. Which is probably an example of the brain creating a story about what it's seeing.
Although in this case, it was literally shaping reality.

Interesting stuff, I wonder where the form of a flying saucer came from? Perhaps at the time the collective sub-conscious was planning on building flying saucers in the future, so that's what people saw. Speculation FWIW.

So a possible example of the difference that internal vs external locus of controls have on perception. But that is assuming cause and effect, it could be that unbalanced brain chemistry is the cause and leads to feeling powerless. Or lack of social context (a framework for 'hearing voices') is what makes the person feel powerless, a belief that hearing voices is not socially acceptable?

Maybe, the locus of control depends on how much the person believes what the voices say. I think it's easy to understand why a person would go nuts if they believed even some of the things nasty voices in their mind were saying. Whereas someone might feel more in control if the they didn't believe the voices right away or if the voices said nice, helpful, constructive things.

 

[Divide by Zero]

They had one eye watch horrible things and the other nice things like puppies and such.

Some of the people felt strong nausea afterwards. The experimented asked why? They would come up with things like "the color of the room" etc. Funny because that's not really a good reason to have nausea, but the mind needed a reason to justify something it didn't have direct knowledge of!

How, if possible do we reconcile this with the following statement?

Q: (L) Is there any benefit to be obtained through the use of mantras?
A: Especially when the mind says there is. Remember, most all power necessary for altering reality and physicality is contained within the belief center of the mind. This is something you will understand more closely when you reach 4th density reality where physicality is no longer a prison, but is instead, your home, for you to alter as you please. In your current state, you have the misinterpretation of believing that reality is finite and therein lies your difficulty with finite physical existence.

I can only think about the placebo and nocebo effects which in some cases are more powerful than medicine.
The catch-22 is how can we be aware of these things and also benefit from them?
I can only guess that maybe just the idea of keeping a good intent in mind by doing a mantra, etc would cancel out or reduce the negative "ritual restricts" as the C's have said in the past.

Maybe that's the problem with these black magic mumbo jumbos (my nickname for them after seeing the Podesta/Clinton craziness) is that they depend too much on it, without trying to see that they are not really controlling anything and in fact giving away their free will to some imaginary higher power. I sometimes think the 'devil' they sacrifice to is their own weakness, their own fearful and weak predator's mind. I'm not discounting a true higher power evil, but I think on this level, like the UFOs it seems like they cannot directly step in unless we weaken our own "free will" (or frv?) to the point of having no energy of our own?

So a possible example of the difference that internal vs external locus of controls have on perception. But that is assuming cause and effect, it could be that unbalanced brain chemistry is the cause and leads to feeling powerless. Or lack of social context (a framework for 'hearing voices') is what makes the person feel powerless, a belief that hearing voices is not socially acceptable?

Maybe, the locus of control depends on how much the person believes what the voices say. I think it's easy to understand why a person would go nuts if they believed even some of the things nasty voices in their mind were saying. Whereas someone might feel more in control if the they didn't believe the voices right away or if the voices said nice, helpful, constructive things.

[/quote]

I think it's a problem when they fail to use critical thinking with those voices. Same goes for our own thoughts, even if we didn't hear voices. In that case, like the work teaches, our own thoughts are sometimes incorrect!

Here's an interesting sott article on the Bicameral Brain which also can just do voices:
https://www.sott.net/article/292451-Third-Man-Factor-The-hallucinatory-effects-of-survival#
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

In ancient times, Jaynes noted, gods were generally much more numerous and much more anthropomorphic than in modern times, and speculates that this was because each bicameral person had their own "god" who reflected their own desires and experiences.[4] He also noted that in ancient societies the corpses of the dead were often treated as though still alive (being seated, dressed and even fed) as a form of ancestor worship, and Jaynes argued that the dead bodies were presumed to be still living and the source of auditory hallucinations.[3] This adaptation to the village communities of 100 individuals or more formed the core of religion. Unlike today's hallucinations, the voices of ancient times were structured by cultural norms to produce a seamlessly functioning society. In Ancient Greek culture there is often mention of the Logos, which is a very similar concept. It was a type of guiding voice that was heard as from a seemingly external source.

Jaynes inferred that these "voices" came from the right brain counterparts of the left brain language centres—specifically, the counterparts to Wernicke's area and Broca's area. These regions are somewhat dormant in the right brains of most modern humans, but Jaynes noted that some studies show that auditory hallucinations correspond to increased activity in these areas of the brain.[3]

Jaynes notes that even in modern times[when?] there is no consensus as to the cause or origins of schizophrenia. Jaynes argues that schizophrenia is a vestige of humanity's earlier bicameral state.[3] Recent evidence shows that many schizophrenics do not just hear random voices but experience "command hallucinations" instructing their behavior or urging them to commit certain acts.[full citation needed] As support for Jaynes's argument, these command hallucinations are little different from the commands from gods which feature prominently in ancient stories.[3] Indirect evidence supporting Jaynes's theory that hallucinations once played an important role in human mentality can be found in the recent book Muses, Madmen, and Prophets: Rethinking the History, Science, and Meaning of Auditory Hallucination by Daniel Smith.[5]