"Feats of magic will make your name known everywhere, sir, but they will never make your opinions understood. For that you must publish."
Writing a blog was never supposed to be anything other than a jumpstart to writing something more serious. But I like this medium, and I like what I have been able to create here, so I think I will leave this blog here in this, its final form. Many thanks to all those who helped in its creation. :) And, because I can't bear to leave them out, I'll sign off with these quotes from Flatland.
"When I could find my voice, I shrieked aloud in agony, 'Either this is madness or it is Hell.' 'It is neither,' calmly replied the voice of the Sphere, 'it is Knowledge; it is Three Dimensions: open your eyes once again and try to look steadily."
"Yet I exist in the hope that these memoirs, in some manner, I know not how, may find their way to the minds of humanity in Some Dimensions, and may stir up a race of rebels who shall refuse to be confined to limited Dimensionality."
Friday, December 28, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The Observer and the Observed
"It is not our job to put our heads in the sand. Our job is to learn to control these forces."
It's occurred to me lately that the story of Smearland is finally nearing completion. Most of the critical ideas are here, with one notable exception...
It stands to reason that if an observer can select an outcome, the same observer may be impacted by similar forces generated by other observers. And indeed we can find everyday accounts of people's behaviors being affected by the observations of unknown/unseen others, as well as scientific attempts to verify these effects via laboratory experiments.
Having a basic understanding of what it takes to select an outcome, I began to wonder what signals the observer might have access to that tell him that he is being observed. Could sensitivity to these signals be developed and exploited?
I've added some more links - take a look...
It's occurred to me lately that the story of Smearland is finally nearing completion. Most of the critical ideas are here, with one notable exception...
It stands to reason that if an observer can select an outcome, the same observer may be impacted by similar forces generated by other observers. And indeed we can find everyday accounts of people's behaviors being affected by the observations of unknown/unseen others, as well as scientific attempts to verify these effects via laboratory experiments.
Having a basic understanding of what it takes to select an outcome, I began to wonder what signals the observer might have access to that tell him that he is being observed. Could sensitivity to these signals be developed and exploited?
I've added some more links - take a look...
Sunday, December 16, 2007
For the World is Hollow...
... and I have touched the sky."
I did not slide easily into the Smearland perspective.
I went through periods of angst, particularly when I realized just exactly how mutable some things were and how easy it was to slip into another universe. The other day I was going through some old notebooks and I came across some thoughts I had jotted down during what was probably the most intense of these periods. I hesitate to post any of this material in its raw form because it is, well, raw.
When I began to think seriously about these things, I had no framework upon which to lay my observations and experiences. I had nothing that told me what any of it was or what it meant. It's very possible that, save for a few things, I might have become seriously unhinged by some of the things I experienced.
"... it is feasible that a mutant human might come along every now and then who was exceptionally sensitive to the entangled universe. The question is whether this mutation would be sufficiently compatible with normal psychological functioning for it to survive..." - Entangled Minds, Dean Radin, (2006), p.273.
(I'm letting the 'mutant' crack slide... for now... because Radin is right to question how something like this might or might not be compatible with normal psychological functioning.)
I was aided most of all (believe it or not) by a healthy skepticism. I generally had to experience something quite a few times before I would acknowledge that something real was going on. Furthermore, I decided to seek validation in science. I suppose I could have adapted more quickly to what I was experiencing if I had studied magick, or metaphysics, or another framework of knowledge that more readily acknowledged things like this. But these systems of knowledge were not within my range of experience, and besides, science had the promise of being able to unlock any secret if applied rigorously enough. ;)
Still, I had nothing to tell me what any of it meant. In retrospect, this was probably a good thing, as it allowed me to collect observations free of any paradigm-driven assumptions. But it did make for some uncomfortable moments of questioning. :) I still can't claim to understand what it means. But the faith of a scientist says that there will be more data, and that that data will clarify what we don't yet understand.
I did not slide easily into the Smearland perspective.
I went through periods of angst, particularly when I realized just exactly how mutable some things were and how easy it was to slip into another universe. The other day I was going through some old notebooks and I came across some thoughts I had jotted down during what was probably the most intense of these periods. I hesitate to post any of this material in its raw form because it is, well, raw.
When I began to think seriously about these things, I had no framework upon which to lay my observations and experiences. I had nothing that told me what any of it was or what it meant. It's very possible that, save for a few things, I might have become seriously unhinged by some of the things I experienced.
"... it is feasible that a mutant human might come along every now and then who was exceptionally sensitive to the entangled universe. The question is whether this mutation would be sufficiently compatible with normal psychological functioning for it to survive..." - Entangled Minds, Dean Radin, (2006), p.273.
(I'm letting the 'mutant' crack slide... for now... because Radin is right to question how something like this might or might not be compatible with normal psychological functioning.)
I was aided most of all (believe it or not) by a healthy skepticism. I generally had to experience something quite a few times before I would acknowledge that something real was going on. Furthermore, I decided to seek validation in science. I suppose I could have adapted more quickly to what I was experiencing if I had studied magick, or metaphysics, or another framework of knowledge that more readily acknowledged things like this. But these systems of knowledge were not within my range of experience, and besides, science had the promise of being able to unlock any secret if applied rigorously enough. ;)
Still, I had nothing to tell me what any of it meant. In retrospect, this was probably a good thing, as it allowed me to collect observations free of any paradigm-driven assumptions. But it did make for some uncomfortable moments of questioning. :) I still can't claim to understand what it means. But the faith of a scientist says that there will be more data, and that that data will clarify what we don't yet understand.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Walking Between the Worlds
"There were by now so many different memories, so many skeins of life experience, jostling in his head, that he scarcely tried to remember anything. He took it as it came. He was living almost like a child, among actualities only. He was surprised by nothing, and by everything."
Awhile back I brought up the significance of memory in understanding the 5-dimensional perspective. We need the information about past experiences that feeds our ability to generate expectations about future outcomes. But is this forward flow of information inviolable?
I've suggested that true freedom/mobility in 5 dimensions involves overriding the influence of memory. But what happens if the circuitry of memory is circumvented too often?
Perhaps I should back up and give an example of 5-dimensional navigation might involve overriding the influence of memory... Okay, suppose you are at the store. You want a frozen mushroom pizza. The store is having a sale on the brand of pizza that you want to buy, but you scan the shelves and there isn't a mushroom pizza of this brand to be found. 'I don't like this universe', you mutter to yourself. But you know that it is theoretically possible to find a future that is inconsistent with the observation you have just experienced. 'I can UNDO this', you smugly think to yourself.
Now, the majority of people would never see a future outcome that is inconsistent with that observation. Or, if they did, undoubtedly they would assume that they simply hadn't seen something the first time they looked. But you have practiced and can willfully shift your attention, alter your expectations, and override the influence of that past observation upon your next observation. In effect, you aren't horribly anchored yet in this particular universe, so you dive back into the smear and re-emerge in a slightly more-satisfying universe. ;)
Memory is a powerful anchor to be sure, and its mechanisms are not completely understood. (For example, sleep does not involve the cessation of visual imagery or a feeling of experience; it simply has a different relationship to the mechanisms of memory. I know I am awake again when I can willfully access and reflect on the contents of my past experience.) But what happens if we become slightly less dependent on having a past that is consistent with the future?
Let's assume you have discovered that you like being able to jump universes. How are the influence and the architectures of memory altered to cope with this type of inconsistency in observations? What are the consequences of too much of this UNDOing?
So far I have two observations of note in this area...
1) I have a hideous short-term memory, and it seems to me that this has gotten worse over time. It now requires much more of an effort on my part to hold information in short-term memory.
2) Non-local drift.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Ante Up
"The physicist Erwin Schrödinger concluded that organisms are subject to “a new physics,” which he did not produce, but rather viewed as necessary. This new physics might well be the domain of anticipation. Indeed, from within physics itself—that is, quantum mechanics—a possible understanding of some aspects of anticipation can be derived." - antE Institute website (my emphasis)
Successful, willful five-dimensional navigation is predicated on the ability to accurately anticipate the possible outcome states for any future observation. Only once the possible outcome states have been anticipated, can the desired outcome be selectively reinforced against other possibilities. This brings up a series of questions...
What are the mechanisms that govern our ability to anticipate a future event? Is anticipation guided largely (or entirely) by memory, in which case our ability to anticipate would be an entirely linear function of past experience? Or is there room for time-reversed information from the future to have an effect on the accuracy of anticipation, as suggest by Radin/Lobach in their recent study?
Is it possible that we may even be dependent on a time-reversed flow of information from the future for our successful survival? (Okay, back away from the wild speculation.)
If we cannot escape the need for time-reversed information flow, as per physics, and we can agree that there is a dependency of some sort on previous experience in determing what we can anticipate, then where/how do these two components of anticipation interface? How much influence does time-reversed information have on our ability to anticipate (or, on normal cognition in general)? How is that influence manifest within the otherwise-linear dynamics created by the architectures of memory?
Yep, I still have some reading to do...
Successful, willful five-dimensional navigation is predicated on the ability to accurately anticipate the possible outcome states for any future observation. Only once the possible outcome states have been anticipated, can the desired outcome be selectively reinforced against other possibilities. This brings up a series of questions...
What are the mechanisms that govern our ability to anticipate a future event? Is anticipation guided largely (or entirely) by memory, in which case our ability to anticipate would be an entirely linear function of past experience? Or is there room for time-reversed information from the future to have an effect on the accuracy of anticipation, as suggest by Radin/Lobach in their recent study?
Is it possible that we may even be dependent on a time-reversed flow of information from the future for our successful survival? (Okay, back away from the wild speculation.)
If we cannot escape the need for time-reversed information flow, as per physics, and we can agree that there is a dependency of some sort on previous experience in determing what we can anticipate, then where/how do these two components of anticipation interface? How much influence does time-reversed information have on our ability to anticipate (or, on normal cognition in general)? How is that influence manifest within the otherwise-linear dynamics created by the architectures of memory?
Yep, I still have some reading to do...
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Wizards in Winter
"Whatever elaborate, and grotesquely counter-intuitive, underpinnings there might be to familiar reality, it stubbornly continues to be familiar."
I am not fond of winter driving. [Understatement]
The fear that provokes white-knuckled cursing as one attempts to negotiate treacherous byways alongside one's fellow travelers can drive all thoughts of 5-dimensional physics out of one's mind. :) As one is consumed with thoughts of speed, mass, and traction and the loss thereof, expectations that other drivers will behave reasonably and perform a specific (sane) action can quickly turn against one, creating moments of escalating panic.
And so, before making the mandatory return voyage, I lectured myself. The lecture went a little something like this...
...Okay, driving on ice-covered roads is not an experience that is immune to the laws of 5-dimensional physics. (Anticipate. Visualize. Execute.) It is possible to choose the universe where the best of possible conditions prevails. (Anticipate. Visualize. Execute.) You can eliminate the outcomes you don't want. (Anticipate. Visualize. Execute.) You can layer frameworks of expectations to maximize safety...
Did it work? Well... there were fewer instances of immanent peril on the return trip. There was also less fear and a large decrease in the amount of cursing. ;)
And now I am free to obsess over the question of how I got to the universe where I have to engage in this particular form of battle with the elements...
I am not fond of winter driving. [Understatement]
The fear that provokes white-knuckled cursing as one attempts to negotiate treacherous byways alongside one's fellow travelers can drive all thoughts of 5-dimensional physics out of one's mind. :) As one is consumed with thoughts of speed, mass, and traction and the loss thereof, expectations that other drivers will behave reasonably and perform a specific (sane) action can quickly turn against one, creating moments of escalating panic.
And so, before making the mandatory return voyage, I lectured myself. The lecture went a little something like this...
...Okay, driving on ice-covered roads is not an experience that is immune to the laws of 5-dimensional physics. (Anticipate. Visualize. Execute.) It is possible to choose the universe where the best of possible conditions prevails. (Anticipate. Visualize. Execute.) You can eliminate the outcomes you don't want. (Anticipate. Visualize. Execute.) You can layer frameworks of expectations to maximize safety...
Did it work? Well... there were fewer instances of immanent peril on the return trip. There was also less fear and a large decrease in the amount of cursing. ;)
And now I am free to obsess over the question of how I got to the universe where I have to engage in this particular form of battle with the elements...
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Meeting of the Minds
"The first attempts at merged consciousness would probably be temporary; after a time the individual minds would separate and work independently again. This would give them a chance to see whether they preferred individuality or the merged state."
Quite a few years ago I took part in a Ganzfeld ESP experiment. (The gist of the Ganzfeld is the creation of a uniform/no information feed of visual and auditory input, which is designed to help you ignore these senses in favor of extrasensory information.)
My partner is this escapade was an acquaintance/friend who took the role of 'sender' to my 'receiver'. The task goes something like this... Sender sees target picture. Sender focuses on target picture for the duration of time (15 or 20 minutes, if I remember correctly) that the receiver is in the Ganzfeld and actively monitoring the impressions and images that pass through his/her mind. Sender is hearing the receiver's verbalizations during this period, presumably because this allows the sender to mentally 'endorse' or 'reinforce' the receiver when s/he gets something right. Sender may also draw pictures to try to reinforce a specific idea or image they are sending to the receiver about the target.
Don't get too hung up on that part of the protocol though. The idea of needing someone to 'send' the information to the receiver presumes that the receiver is most competent at tasks involving telepathy with his/her partner, as opposed to simply identifying information that s/he will be subjected to during later feedback portions of the task and temporally displacing that information to conscious awareness at an earlier time during the task. And by the way, yes, I was able to correctly identify the target picture from a set of four. And, yes, I know that that's not particularly impressive to you all unless I'm able to repeat it quite a few times in a row. No, I did not have the opportunity to try to repeat it.
Now, admittedly, I shouldn't try to draw too many conclusions from a single experience. So let's just say that this experience raised some interesting questions...
The most vivid image that I 'received' was actually an image that my friend had drawn during the 'sending' phase of the experiment. After the judging and feedback portions of the experiment were complete, I had the opportunity to see these drawings and discuss the session with my friend. Naturally I had a strong reaction to that image when I saw the drawing of it, as it was the image I had 'received' during the experiment. Had I gotten that image telepathically from my friend? If so, why hadn't I gotten the actual target image telepathically? Or had I been drawing on my startled reaction to the image when I was casting about for information during the 'receiving' portion of my session? If so, why hadn't I pulled the target image, which I subsequently saw and knew to be the correct image? (And so on.)
Attempting to resolve these questions becomes difficult, as I don't have the time-locked data that would let me compare the time I 'received' that image to the time my friend drew/'sent' it. I was able to speculate a little bit about my friend's ability to 'release'/'send' that image, based on what I learned about what happened during the 'sending' session. I suspect that my friend was able to more easily 'release' this image than the target image, due to the shifting of attention that happened during the 20 minutes or so of 'sending'. I don't think that this was a conscious act on the part of my friend, as neither of us had had any training in 'release of effort'.
And, from what I have read and experienced, in order for telepathy to function in a productive way, the sender must be as equally adept at releasing the information as the receiver is at identifying it and being able to act upon it. The sender must also be able to release/control his/her expectations of the receiver's ability to receive the information and/or act upon it.
Quite a few years ago I took part in a Ganzfeld ESP experiment. (The gist of the Ganzfeld is the creation of a uniform/no information feed of visual and auditory input, which is designed to help you ignore these senses in favor of extrasensory information.)
My partner is this escapade was an acquaintance/friend who took the role of 'sender' to my 'receiver'. The task goes something like this... Sender sees target picture. Sender focuses on target picture for the duration of time (15 or 20 minutes, if I remember correctly) that the receiver is in the Ganzfeld and actively monitoring the impressions and images that pass through his/her mind. Sender is hearing the receiver's verbalizations during this period, presumably because this allows the sender to mentally 'endorse' or 'reinforce' the receiver when s/he gets something right. Sender may also draw pictures to try to reinforce a specific idea or image they are sending to the receiver about the target.
Don't get too hung up on that part of the protocol though. The idea of needing someone to 'send' the information to the receiver presumes that the receiver is most competent at tasks involving telepathy with his/her partner, as opposed to simply identifying information that s/he will be subjected to during later feedback portions of the task and temporally displacing that information to conscious awareness at an earlier time during the task. And by the way, yes, I was able to correctly identify the target picture from a set of four. And, yes, I know that that's not particularly impressive to you all unless I'm able to repeat it quite a few times in a row. No, I did not have the opportunity to try to repeat it.
Now, admittedly, I shouldn't try to draw too many conclusions from a single experience. So let's just say that this experience raised some interesting questions...
The most vivid image that I 'received' was actually an image that my friend had drawn during the 'sending' phase of the experiment. After the judging and feedback portions of the experiment were complete, I had the opportunity to see these drawings and discuss the session with my friend. Naturally I had a strong reaction to that image when I saw the drawing of it, as it was the image I had 'received' during the experiment. Had I gotten that image telepathically from my friend? If so, why hadn't I gotten the actual target image telepathically? Or had I been drawing on my startled reaction to the image when I was casting about for information during the 'receiving' portion of my session? If so, why hadn't I pulled the target image, which I subsequently saw and knew to be the correct image? (And so on.)
Attempting to resolve these questions becomes difficult, as I don't have the time-locked data that would let me compare the time I 'received' that image to the time my friend drew/'sent' it. I was able to speculate a little bit about my friend's ability to 'release'/'send' that image, based on what I learned about what happened during the 'sending' session. I suspect that my friend was able to more easily 'release' this image than the target image, due to the shifting of attention that happened during the 20 minutes or so of 'sending'. I don't think that this was a conscious act on the part of my friend, as neither of us had had any training in 'release of effort'.
And, from what I have read and experienced, in order for telepathy to function in a productive way, the sender must be as equally adept at releasing the information as the receiver is at identifying it and being able to act upon it. The sender must also be able to release/control his/her expectations of the receiver's ability to receive the information and/or act upon it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)