What the Bleep do we know

[CFTraveler]

Ok, Celeborn, you're right- I guess I liked the movie more for it's artyness than anything else, and I thought that it made one think about the fluid nature of reality, and that's what I liked about it. But I still agree with Dr. Emoto's theory, and I don't know if it really can ever be scientifically proven- Do crystals ever form in a consistent way? (a question) but there are many groups doing more of these experiments as we speak. (I'm not sure but I think IONS was looking into some of the questions it raised.)

[pmlonline]

Is there a record of the same effect when a car or cycle or train was first seen and what would they have seen, a silhouette of the unknown object or it is transparent perhaps?

I suppose the mind also works on multiple levels of sensory perception, so for example if it hears something it automatically logically thinks that there must be an object orientated with that sound. For example, movement along train tracks, causing it to see a train there. Or the ripples across the water, causing the ships to become visible.

Tho it has been prooven that the brain delete's any incomming sensory data that doesnt match your beliefs of what is true / is happening / is important to you.

These are interesting comments. I would be very interested in the exact data of the experiments because the above examples do not match my viewpoint of the average person. Perhaps the above posters could clarify their examples because I might be misunderstanding the statements. Personally I find it difficult to believe that an average person of even several thousand years ago would see a train as a silhouette or transparent. I agree they would not know what it is.

Another comment about a person imagining a train just from the sound of a train sounds unlikely for the average person. Am I understanding the train example??? I can only speak from personal experience. I've spent decades with a video camera. On weekends I like to travel around videoing for my parents, family, and friends. Never in this time have I ever seen any material object that was not backed up by the videotape. For example, what if a person heard a noise that sounded exactly like a train coming and then turned around and saw a train. What if this person filmed it and then later on viewed the tape. Yet when viewing the tape they saw no train. Don't you think that person would think they are going insane? I would very very much question myself, but to date I have never seen any contradictions on my Hi-8 videotapes.

And the comment about the brain deleting incoming sensory data that doesn't match one's beliefs also seems unlikely for the average person. I agree that people put up blocks / defense mechanisms. For example, a person in a forum discussion may suddenly feel the urge (from emotions) to stop viewing a thread if concrete logical data is posted that will collapse their belief system.

Paul

[Sachiel]

Thoughts are everything...all this energy work is thought, right?

[Planet_Jeroen]

Tho it has been prooven that the brain delete's any incomming sensory data that doesnt match your beliefs of what is true / is happening / is important to you.

These are interesting comments. I would be very interested in the exact data of the experiments because the above examples do not match my viewpoint of the average person. Perhaps the above posters could clarify their examples because I might be misunderstanding the statements.

.....

And the comment about the brain deleting incoming sensory data that doesn't match one's beliefs also seems unlikely for the average person. I agree that people put up blocks / defense mechanisms. For example, a person in a forum discussion may suddenly feel the urge (from emotions) to stop viewing a thread if concrete logical data is posted that will collapse their belief system.

Paul

Not only that; aside from more official sources, Braniacs did a show where they asked the viewers to watch 2 breadboxes switch hands while a group of people was walking in a very small space, which made it hard to track the boxes. After the 'dance' was over, I knew exactly how many times each box had switched hands... then they showed that they also had a guy walk from screen to screen and back in a huge bird suit. I never saw it the first time.

They changed the clothes of the host a few times during the show..radically. Never saw that either.

It draws on the idear that the human brain is only able to process an 'X' ammount of data in the consious mind per second. So we only consiously see / percieve, that which we pay attention to.

On top of that, like in my quote and like you said, if someone doesnt want something to be true, they will ignore it till it smashes into them.

So, if someone 'knows' that everybody hates him/her, and he/she is only looking for proof of that, the'll only find proof of it. In the mean time they miss the other 70% of the people that ARE nice to them.

Or draw a strange figure on a paper, and tell people it's a figure made by a famous artist.. let them guess what the artist ment to make... the more people the more fun this is. There's only the strange thing you drew, but one sees a duck in it, the other a playing cat, another an office machine, etc. Yet, they all look at the same picture.

So what we hold true, what we think we see, what we think we know, is all subject to what you belief or hold true at your core level. Everything that doesnt match up, will shake your belief system and force you to reevaluate, which could be cause for a change in the system, which leads to new things that could be true and others that turn out false, due to the new rule set.


Regards,

Jeroen

[mick]

On top of that, like in my quote and like you said, if someone doesnt want something to be true, they will ignore it till it smashes into them.

I thought of the following article when reading the above. The effect of top down processing overiding the raw data is I think related.
Source: The New York Times - USA

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/scien ... .html?8dpc

11-22-2005

This Is Your Brain Under Hypnosis
By Sandra Blakeslee
Below is a section of it.
---------------------------------------
Now, Dr. Posner and others said, new research on hypnosis and
suggestion is providing a new view into the cogs and wheels of
normal brain function.

One area that it may have illuminated is the processing of
sensory data. Information from the eyes, ears and body is
carried to primary sensory regions in the brain. From there, it
is carried to so-called higher regions where interpretation
occurs.

For example, photons bouncing off a flower first reach the eye,
where they are turned into a pattern that is sent to the primary
visual cortex. There, the rough shape of the flower is
recognized. The pattern is next sent to a higher - in terms of
function - region, where color is recognized, and then to a
higher region, where the flower's identity is encoded along with
other knowledge about the particular bloom.

The same processing stream, from lower to higher regions, exists
for sounds, touch and other sensory information. Researchers
call this direction of flow feedforward. As raw sensory data is
carried to a part of the brain that creates a comprehensible,
conscious impression, the data is moving from bottom to top.

Bundles of nerve cells dedicated to each sense carry sensory
information. The surprise is the amount of traffic the other
way, from top to bottom, called feedback. There are 10 times as
many nerve fibers carrying information down as there are
carrying it up.

These extensive feedback circuits mean that consciousness, what
people see, hear, feel and believe, is based on what
neuroscientists call "top down processing." What you see is not
always what you get, because what you see depends on a framework
built by experience that stands ready to interpret the raw
information - as a flower or a hammer or a face.

The top-down structure explains a lot. If the construction of
reality has so much top-down processing, that would make sense
of the powers of placebos (a sugar pill will make you feel
better), nocebos (a witch doctor will make you ill), talk
therapy and meditation. If the top is convinced, the bottom
level of data will be overruled.

This brain structure would also explain hypnosis, which is all
about creating such formidable top-down processing that
suggestions overcome reality.

[pmlonline]

Planet_Jeroen,

From your last post, I think we're on the same page for the most part. There is a big difference between not seeing and seeing something. It is difficult for the mind to focus on multiple things that are happening. I agree that if numerous things are happening then a person may not see everything.
Also people have different interpretations of data, but if my eyes clearly see a square UFO and a square UFO doesn't match my beliefs then there is no way my brain is going to delete that sensory data. Therefore, perhaps we disagree ->

Tho it has been prooven that the brain delete's any incomming sensory data that doesnt match your beliefs of what is true / is happening / is important to you.

As mentioned, I cannot speak for other people, but I have never seen any such deleting of data in nearly 20 years of videoing. I would definitely notice something like that.
I think the part about your quote I don't agree with is the word "any." Surely everyone would agree that if numerous distracting events were happening at once then the person can't focus and see them all. Or if the object is too small, far away, moving or changing too fast, etc. Same goes with a camera. That is, if you take a picture of a fast moving object then even a common camera will record a blurred picture. As you know, in such a case of say a fast moving object, the mind may fill in the missing gaps. Lets say a fast moving insect whizzed by a persons face and just got a glimpse of it. The person saw some reddish orange colors and a huge head and narrow sharp tail. The person consciously knew the data was iffy. In the persons mind, he/she tried to recall the event and deducted that the head was the reddish orange part. The person is fairly confident that the head was the reddish orange part, but in reality it was not. In fact, the person may say, "I am 80% confident the head was reddish orange." Even though the person is 80% certain, he or she knows they are not certain and that the bug was a blur. Yet this is a totally different situation than say if a green ET with one eye, 3 mouths, antennas, one big arm coming out from the belly walked and stood right in front of a Christian. Given enough time for the Christian to focus on all the ET's parts then this data is not going to be deleted from the Christian. At least I hope not, lol. What a shock it would be for me to find this out about the average person.

Paul

[pmlonline]

mick,

I think the name of the game is amount of data. A person can glimpse at a flower or whatever and that's some weak data. The person may recall that visual experience in their mind and interpret as they wish, but the person still may know it is glimpse, not a close up analysis of the flower. If a person goes up close, views the flower from many angles, etc. then the data becomes more accurate. More time equals more accuracy.

Also we should probably acknowledge that modern material science doesn't even know what consciousness is. Consciousness of our Soul is not contained inside material brain or body. There's a difference between Brain, Mind, and Consciousness. The Mind is a complex energy system composed of matter that is in a realm far higher than the Astral realm. Consciousness is a flow of life energy that comes from the core of life / the Creative Point of All Things / God.

Paul

[mick]

mick,

I think the name of the game is amount of data. A person can glimpse at a flower or whatever and that's some weak data. The person may recall that visual experience in their mind and interpret as they wish, but the person still may know it is glimpse, not a close up analysis of the flower. If a person goes up close, views the flower from many angles, etc. then the data becomes more accurate. More time equals more accuracy.

I think that the experimental studiy quoted suggests somewhat of a race condition when processing incoming sensory data whether the sensory input is fleeting or otherwise. It is the line at which people discard the sensory data in favour of the minds inrush of interpretive data which varies. The article I think relates this 'line' also to those susceptible or not to hypnotism.
I think a feature of the study is the recognition of the volume of interpretive data from on high which is fed down during the process.

Also we should probably acknowledge that modern material science doesn't even know what consciousness is. Consciousness of our Soul is not contained inside material brain or body. There's a difference between Brain, Mind, and Consciousness. The Mind is a complex energy system composed of matter that is in a realm far higher than the Astral realm.

Modern science is expanding in this area and this study may well be part of that expansion, there are obviously physical processes involved for us physical types in that they can be measured (maybe what you are defining as the brain). But also I recall reading that areas of the brain are being isolated as being specific to consciousness, of course if using the label Consciousness of the Soul then this posits another adjunct to the overall scheme of things, I roll with the non locational mind idea quite frequently and indeed believe that I employ it frequently. But as to defining exactly what the whole system is I have that on hold, a bit like defining a universal God while sited in and only vaguely aware of a tiny spec of the universe...

Consciousness is a flow of life energy that comes from the core of life / the Creative Point of All Things / God.

Maybe.

[pmlonline]

One bottleneck with material science is a limitation of physical. They have no instruments that can peer into the astral and higher planes. So the scientist is trying to find consciousness and he narrows it to specific areas in the body. Yet that by no means is the end of the road. There's always a finer and more detailed picture of something. Take molecules for example. They are made of atoms. These atoms are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Then they discovered that protons and neutrons were made of yet small particles, quarks. Is there an end to all things? I suspect it's endless relative to our level of comprehension. One day they will find the particles that electron is made of, which is of such a high vibration that it is in the Etheric plane, which is part of the physical realm. Then we have even finer particles in the astral, then mental, and on and on.

Often scientists want to study an average healthy person. So they know that certain chemicals can render this average person unconscious and they see parts of the brain activity changing. So basically they may conclude this part of the brain is consciousness. Yet in reality, there are people, superhumans, that can retain consciousness regardless what chemicals they are fed.

Paul

[pmlonline]

Is there a record of the same effect when a car or cycle or train was first seen and what would they have seen, a silhouette of the unknown object or it is transparent perhaps?

I suppose the mind also works on multiple levels of sensory perception, so for example if it hears something it automatically logically thinks that there must be an object orientated with that sound. For example, movement along train tracks, causing it to see a train there. Or the ripples across the water, causing the ships to become visible.

Tho it has been prooven that the brain delete's any incomming sensory data that doesnt match your beliefs of what is true / is happening / is important to you.

I am still curious about the above quotes because I can only speak for myself as I have not experienced the above and find it difficult to believe any rational person would. Perhaps it depends on the condition. Under normal conditions, given proper time for the person to *see* the object, surely a normal persons brain would not delete incoming sensory data. If we're talking about a highly stressful situation where the person is scared to death and later on has difficulty recalling the situation then perhaps it is a change in the state of mind that causes a lack of memory recall. Such a person could have difficulty recalling anything regardless if it's an ET or an ice cream cone. Although, generally an ET causes far more shock and scare (change in consciousness) in a person than an ice cream cone, lol.

If a person is in deep meditation and obtains Soul consciousness then the memory of that experience is only stored in the Soul and above, not the physical brain, UNLESS the mind (the focusing unit) downloads the experience into the brain. The download is performed when the mind goes over / recalls the experience over and over at the moment when physical consciousness is obtained. This is why it is important for the average OBE projector to lay absolutely still when they reenter the physical body and recall the OBE experience. The moment of recall / reliving the OBE experience is what downloads to the physical brain. In that case, the person is downloading memories / experiences that are of a higher vibration and consciousness, from the astral / emotion body to the physical body. If the person has an OBE in full consciousness yet that experience is not downloaded to the physical brain then the person will have no recollection of that OBE. Yet those memories still exist. To recall the experience the person could obtain astral consciousness and should be able to recall the experience and then download to the physical. Another method is to retain both physical and astral consciousness simultaneously.

Also, I am taught that memories are always present somewhere. The question is, can the person fetch the memories. I've learned there are many types / levels of memory. We have physical memory. Then there's astral memory. Then there's permanent memory, which the Soul contains. If a person meditates and reaches Soul consciousness then they may recall their past lives. Beyond Soul consciousness is Divine consciousness from our Divine self, the Divine spark within the Soul, which is linked to all other beings and contains the memories of all things in our Omniverse.

Paul