As far as I can tell they are both talking about the same thing, but slightly differently, as is usual for such stuff. Anyway, this is outside the scope of the thread in general, and will definitely loose most readers...
"One of these new technologies was a humble looking black box known was a Random Event Generator. This used sophisticated technology to generate two numbers - a one and a zero - in a totally random sequence, rather like an electronic coin-flipper. The pattern of ones and noughts - ‘heads' and ‘tails' as it were - can then be printed out as a graph. Pure chance dictates that the generators should churn out equal numbers of ones and zeros which produces a more or less flat line on a graph. Any deviation from this shows up as a gently rising curve.
During the late 1970s, Professor Jahn hauled strangers off the street and asked them to concentrate their minds on a number generator. In effect, he was asking them to try to make it flip more heads than tails. It was a preposterous idea at the time, and to many it still is.
The results, however, were stunning and have never been satisfactorily explained. Again and again, entirely ordinary people proved that their minds could influence the machines and produce significant fluctuations on the graph. According to all of the known laws of science, this should not have happened* - but it did. And it kept on happening."
Once again-time is not linear. Electricity is not what you think it is. Matter is not what you think it is. Magnetism is not what you think it is. Your body and mind are not what you think they are.
http://www.newsmonster.co.uk/parano...covered-a-way-of-peering-into-the-future.html
But for Dr Nelson, talk of psychic machines is of far less importance than the implications of his work for ordinary people. We may all be individuals, he says, but we are also part of something far, far greater.
"We're taught to be individualistic monsters," he says. "We're driven by society to separate ourselves from each other. That's not right. We may be connected together far more intimately than we realise."
Holy sweaty batsocks, batman! Enough with the revelations already. 😛
Connected? Most of you have no idea how much and how so.
*The 'Laws of Science' are just fine. But the 'greater context' is far bigger than those puny linear effects. Those simplistic 'particle' considerations.
Note to linear thinking ground pounders: Turn And Face The Change. There's No Choice - It's coming anyway.
During the late 1970s, Professor Jahn hauled strangers off the street and asked them to concentrate their minds on a number generator. In effect, he was asking them to try to make it flip more heads than tails. It was a preposterous idea at the time, and to many it still is.
The results, however, were stunning and have never been satisfactorily explained. Again and again, entirely ordinary people proved that their minds could influence the machines and produce significant fluctuations on the graph. According to all of the known laws of science, this should not have happened* - but it did. And it kept on happening."
Once again-time is not linear. Electricity is not what you think it is. Matter is not what you think it is. Magnetism is not what you think it is. Your body and mind are not what you think they are.
http://www.newsmonster.co.uk/parano...covered-a-way-of-peering-into-the-future.html
But for Dr Nelson, talk of psychic machines is of far less importance than the implications of his work for ordinary people. We may all be individuals, he says, but we are also part of something far, far greater.
"We're taught to be individualistic monsters," he says. "We're driven by society to separate ourselves from each other. That's not right. We may be connected together far more intimately than we realise."
Holy sweaty batsocks, batman! Enough with the revelations already. 😛
Connected? Most of you have no idea how much and how so.
*The 'Laws of Science' are just fine. But the 'greater context' is far bigger than those puny linear effects. Those simplistic 'particle' considerations.
Note to linear thinking ground pounders: Turn And Face The Change. There's No Choice - It's coming anyway.
Here's something interesting http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080429/sc_livescience/absinthesmindalteringmysterysolved
True, me judging so quickly was not normal. I need to read more.
About the random number generator thing, my brother said something about that. He said that for most people, it was harder to make the number go down then it was to make it go up. I haven't read the article, maybe it's the one he found.
EDIT: That's wickedly cool, I should try it. I wonder if a transistor noise generator would work?
- keantoken
Dogs flew spaceships! The Aztecs invented the vacation! Our forefathers took drugs! Your brain is not the boss!
I don't think KBK is trying to sound as if he is 'the boss'...
I think he may be trying a bit too hard to get his point across, though... :/
- keantoken
I think he may be trying a bit too hard to get his point across, though... :/
- keantoken
SY said:
When I stepped back and looked at my first circuit layout, it reminded me of the Aztec Spaceman that was popular at the time. I knew all was well.
7n7is said:
140 proof will do it every time. One of my great cooking mentors had a weakness for the 106 proof green Chartreuse.
An interesting story. The incident that caused the ban on absinthe was a laborer that came home and murdered his family after indulging. It turned out that he had consumed 5 bottles of wine while "working" that day before the absinthe parlor.
scott wurcer said:
Some useful absinthe information.
https://www.hyperlab.info/inv/index.php?act=ST&f=18&t=28786&
SY said:
scott wurcer said:
How about some freaky tunage? Those Finns....
http://www.laikaandthecosmonauts.com/
http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/05/archer-quinn-documenting-his-free-energy-project-descent-into-m/
Keeping an eye on this guy?
Keeping an eye on this guy?
I recently found a quote by Robert M. Pirsig that I think explains the modern teen drama nowadays. I think this is something no one should be able to deny.
" I think present-day reason is an analogue of the flat earth of the medieval period. If you go too far beyond it you're presumed to fall off, into insanity. And people are very much afraid of that. I think this fear of insanity is comparable to the fear people once had of falling off the edge of the world. Or the fear of heretics. There's a very close analogue there.
***
What's happening is that each year our old flat earth of conventional reason becomes less and less adequate to handle the experiences we have and this is creating widespread feelings of topsy-turviness. As a result we're getting more and more people in irrational areas of thought... occultism, mysticism, drug changes and the like... because they feel the inadequacy of classical reason to handle what they know are real experiences."
I hear plenty of people in social conventions saying things along the line of "what's up with everyone doing drugs nowadays?" and "they can go fry their brains, I don't care."
The problem is, our present system reason so obviously does not work, and when you find something to be wrong, what is the most natural response? You go against it.
Since people are so unhappy nowadays with what the world has taught them to think, it tends to be far easier and natural for them to assume it's all carp.
" When you look directly at an insane man all you see is a reflection of your own knowledge that he's insane, which is not to see him at all. To see him you must see what he saw and when you are trying to see the vision of an insane man, an oblique route is the only way to come at it.
***
It took me more than a week to deduce from the evidence around me that everything before my waking up was a dream and everything afterward was reality. There was no basis for distinguishing the two other than the growing pile of new events that seemed to argue against the drunk experience. Little things appeared, like the locked door, the outside of which I could never remember seeing. And a slip of paper from the probate court telling me that some person was committed as insane. Did they mean me?"
When you call a man crazy, by what grounds do you do it on? Do you do it on the grounds that he believes totally in things that are too strange or outlandish for you to consider seriously?
Certain things I look at, here and there, have a perfect possibility of truth. Nothing can pin them up against the wall. But when I stop considering them because they are just too weird or seem too far 'out there' to be worth believing in, it's my own mind that I can feel being limited, not the credibility of the given criteria.
" You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt."
I've never found satisfaction in supporting something that I've never found myself to hold true beyond all reasonable doubt. These things I'm not shouting out at everyone to hear, but I'm holding all these answers within myself, as a cradle doth a baby child. This child will grow, and as he does, I will understand more about life, and all the things that really matter.
I'm really not sure whether I should say this here, but at the same time, I think it needs to be said. I don't imply anything about other members or anyone else on the net. This information is only as it stands, as it is. Is it, or is it not?
Sorry to be so cryptic, but I think you all understand.
- keantoken (quotes by Robert M. Pirsig)
" I think present-day reason is an analogue of the flat earth of the medieval period. If you go too far beyond it you're presumed to fall off, into insanity. And people are very much afraid of that. I think this fear of insanity is comparable to the fear people once had of falling off the edge of the world. Or the fear of heretics. There's a very close analogue there.
***
What's happening is that each year our old flat earth of conventional reason becomes less and less adequate to handle the experiences we have and this is creating widespread feelings of topsy-turviness. As a result we're getting more and more people in irrational areas of thought... occultism, mysticism, drug changes and the like... because they feel the inadequacy of classical reason to handle what they know are real experiences."
I hear plenty of people in social conventions saying things along the line of "what's up with everyone doing drugs nowadays?" and "they can go fry their brains, I don't care."
The problem is, our present system reason so obviously does not work, and when you find something to be wrong, what is the most natural response? You go against it.
Since people are so unhappy nowadays with what the world has taught them to think, it tends to be far easier and natural for them to assume it's all carp.
" When you look directly at an insane man all you see is a reflection of your own knowledge that he's insane, which is not to see him at all. To see him you must see what he saw and when you are trying to see the vision of an insane man, an oblique route is the only way to come at it.
***
It took me more than a week to deduce from the evidence around me that everything before my waking up was a dream and everything afterward was reality. There was no basis for distinguishing the two other than the growing pile of new events that seemed to argue against the drunk experience. Little things appeared, like the locked door, the outside of which I could never remember seeing. And a slip of paper from the probate court telling me that some person was committed as insane. Did they mean me?"
When you call a man crazy, by what grounds do you do it on? Do you do it on the grounds that he believes totally in things that are too strange or outlandish for you to consider seriously?
Certain things I look at, here and there, have a perfect possibility of truth. Nothing can pin them up against the wall. But when I stop considering them because they are just too weird or seem too far 'out there' to be worth believing in, it's my own mind that I can feel being limited, not the credibility of the given criteria.
" You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt."
I've never found satisfaction in supporting something that I've never found myself to hold true beyond all reasonable doubt. These things I'm not shouting out at everyone to hear, but I'm holding all these answers within myself, as a cradle doth a baby child. This child will grow, and as he does, I will understand more about life, and all the things that really matter.
I'm really not sure whether I should say this here, but at the same time, I think it needs to be said. I don't imply anything about other members or anyone else on the net. This information is only as it stands, as it is. Is it, or is it not?
Sorry to be so cryptic, but I think you all understand.
- keantoken (quotes by Robert M. Pirsig)
I have bowed out of the discussion to some degree in the blowtorch thread, but felt that this post, from another forum, would be useful here. 😀
Science itself is riddled with the very same point, (name). For example, within the realm of all known sciences that investigate the physics of existence, or wave/particle..this, down to and including basic math.. the vast majority of those points, over time, have been misconstrued to be something called a 'fact'. 'Laws', even. The point is, that any good scientist knows that they are merely modeling functions, with regards to attempting to define 'reality' in some fashion. All of these laws, are subject to revision upon the findings of new data that can be correlated into a new paradigm..and thus a new or revised 'model'.
"Model"
Not 'Law' or 'fact'.
All is theory....nothing more.
So we investigate openly, and attempt to define and correlate our observations --- which is the very Raison d'être (reason for being) of science itself.
If you mentally shut the door on that, you deny science itself.
A point is that we have deeply investigated the particle function of science but are only now beginning to understand (meaning:look toward) the wave aspect, with regards to it existing. Our basic sciences, including the idea of organization, values and numbers, even basic math, all rest on the idea of the particle function. The wave aspect, can seemingly make mockery of even those points. Yet, we are forced to 'realize' that the wave function exists..and is an unexplored consideration..which may always defy categorization and or valuation.
Valuation itself may suffer revision, as well as basic methodology of human function with regards to such, before any semblance of understanding the wave function exists in the 'human particle function/aspect' arena.
For example, once again, the basic plausible potential for the two never meeting, with regards to definition or categorization, even though we are forced to deal with the point that both exist. This point can be difficult for a linear thinking person with a mind that has not gone through, or toward these possibilities, with regards to mental juggling and rumination, and they also have the potential to cause considerable stress in the given person, depending on the function of the person's basic mental modeling and underpinnings of their psychology.
In other words and terms..it's a simple case of people who've made it past that point themselves, attempting to help those who have not understood and do not understand the basic existence of these points and considerations...without the base psychology of the uninitiated wreaking havoc in the given situation.
This illustrates the point that 'brick walls' in science have a tendency to be more of psychological issue than anything else.
Science itself is riddled with the very same point, (name). For example, within the realm of all known sciences that investigate the physics of existence, or wave/particle..this, down to and including basic math.. the vast majority of those points, over time, have been misconstrued to be something called a 'fact'. 'Laws', even. The point is, that any good scientist knows that they are merely modeling functions, with regards to attempting to define 'reality' in some fashion. All of these laws, are subject to revision upon the findings of new data that can be correlated into a new paradigm..and thus a new or revised 'model'.
"Model"
Not 'Law' or 'fact'.
All is theory....nothing more.
So we investigate openly, and attempt to define and correlate our observations --- which is the very Raison d'être (reason for being) of science itself.
If you mentally shut the door on that, you deny science itself.
A point is that we have deeply investigated the particle function of science but are only now beginning to understand (meaning:look toward) the wave aspect, with regards to it existing. Our basic sciences, including the idea of organization, values and numbers, even basic math, all rest on the idea of the particle function. The wave aspect, can seemingly make mockery of even those points. Yet, we are forced to 'realize' that the wave function exists..and is an unexplored consideration..which may always defy categorization and or valuation.
Valuation itself may suffer revision, as well as basic methodology of human function with regards to such, before any semblance of understanding the wave function exists in the 'human particle function/aspect' arena.
For example, once again, the basic plausible potential for the two never meeting, with regards to definition or categorization, even though we are forced to deal with the point that both exist. This point can be difficult for a linear thinking person with a mind that has not gone through, or toward these possibilities, with regards to mental juggling and rumination, and they also have the potential to cause considerable stress in the given person, depending on the function of the person's basic mental modeling and underpinnings of their psychology.
In other words and terms..it's a simple case of people who've made it past that point themselves, attempting to help those who have not understood and do not understand the basic existence of these points and considerations...without the base psychology of the uninitiated wreaking havoc in the given situation.
This illustrates the point that 'brick walls' in science have a tendency to be more of psychological issue than anything else.