"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.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Stand and Deliver
"Believe me, I discarded the telekinesis myth long ago. I know I am choosing outcomes, not manipulating processes."
I'm in the process of developing a presentation. And I'm not above cannibalizing my previous work for said presentation. In doing so, I try to ask 'Is there a way I could have said this better?'.
For example, I could have said...
The most promising variable that is not currently accounted for in psi research is the ever-changing knowledge of the system in question. With each observation, expectations of future outcomes within that system are adjusted. If you accept that these varying states of expectation can have some effect on the outcomes that are selected, then it becomes necessary to control either 1) the input of information about the system, or 2) the expectations that can be generated about future observations, or both. (This was discussed a bit in Entangled Expectations.)
Think of motion through our 5th dimension just like you think of motion through time - it is constant; you can't escape it. Each new input of information in conscious awareness modifies the forces that contribute to the process of state selection for future outcomes. Only when you account for this shifting of expectations due to new information, can you begin to see the pattern of motion through Smearland.
...but then, I have a splitting headache right now, so perhaps this only makes sense to me
I'm in the process of developing a presentation. And I'm not above cannibalizing my previous work for said presentation. In doing so, I try to ask 'Is there a way I could have said this better?'.
For example, I could have said...
The most promising variable that is not currently accounted for in psi research is the ever-changing knowledge of the system in question. With each observation, expectations of future outcomes within that system are adjusted. If you accept that these varying states of expectation can have some effect on the outcomes that are selected, then it becomes necessary to control either 1) the input of information about the system, or 2) the expectations that can be generated about future observations, or both. (This was discussed a bit in Entangled Expectations.)
Think of motion through our 5th dimension just like you think of motion through time - it is constant; you can't escape it. Each new input of information in conscious awareness modifies the forces that contribute to the process of state selection for future outcomes. Only when you account for this shifting of expectations due to new information, can you begin to see the pattern of motion through Smearland.
...but then, I have a splitting headache right now, so perhaps this only makes sense to me
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The Prometheus Project
"To refuse this challenge of providing something entirely new in the world would be to fall somewhat short of our full humanity."
[ASIDE: Several months ago I googled Gerald Feinberg to see if he had ever written a follow-up piece to The Prometheus Project: Mankind's Search for Long-Range Goals (1969). Sadly, I learned that he had passed away in 1992, and I was unable to locate any follow-up to this optimistic vision of man's potential to shape his future.]
But on to business... that being, the ongoing search/struggle for a formula/mathematical model.
Let me just say that strange thoughts about matrix manipulations have now returned to plague me at odd moments. My search for a workable model of 5-dimensional navigation devolved some years ago into a struggle to master and manipulate matrix mechanics. But I never succeeded in creating a model of anything more than a single aspect of what I felt needed to be represented. I don't remember how I decided to use matrices and matrix operations for these representations, save that I was not familiar enough with anything else (say, set topology) to be able to use it for what I needed.
Anyway, as this progressed, I got further and further into the intricacies of matrix mechanices, and farther and farther from the big picture I was trying to capture. And I was never really sure a matrix representation would work at all. There were too many things I still didn't know how to represent using matrix mechanics... How could I model degree of correspondence between representations? How could I model forward flow of information, and feedback, and priming? Was it possible to model emotion or conviction or attention as operators with differing effects on the mental representation's position in determining the final outcome? Can you use matrices as members of a zero-sum set? (And so it went.)
Eventually I decided to table the model-creating until after I had achieved some brilliant insight that would enable it to go much faster. (Translation: This isn't working.)
Staring in the mirror this morning, I came to the moderately depressing realization that I was probably not going to be the recipient of such a gift of sudden insight. If I want to create a working model, I am probably going to have to model (independently) all the various aspects of 5-dimensional navigation as I believe I understand them, and then hope a more global model can somehow be synthesized from the results. (Oy.)
Which brings me back to the thought - "This would be so much easier if someone else were here in Smearland with me!"
"The Prometheus Project cannot be an effort of one man, or a small number of men, since no small group can encompass the total wisdom or feelings of mankind. I am writing in the hope of stimulating enough interest in these questions so that eventually a sizable fraction of the human race will take part in the discussion..."
[ASIDE: Several months ago I googled Gerald Feinberg to see if he had ever written a follow-up piece to The Prometheus Project: Mankind's Search for Long-Range Goals (1969). Sadly, I learned that he had passed away in 1992, and I was unable to locate any follow-up to this optimistic vision of man's potential to shape his future.]
But on to business... that being, the ongoing search/struggle for a formula/mathematical model.
Let me just say that strange thoughts about matrix manipulations have now returned to plague me at odd moments. My search for a workable model of 5-dimensional navigation devolved some years ago into a struggle to master and manipulate matrix mechanics. But I never succeeded in creating a model of anything more than a single aspect of what I felt needed to be represented. I don't remember how I decided to use matrices and matrix operations for these representations, save that I was not familiar enough with anything else (say, set topology) to be able to use it for what I needed.
Anyway, as this progressed, I got further and further into the intricacies of matrix mechanices, and farther and farther from the big picture I was trying to capture. And I was never really sure a matrix representation would work at all. There were too many things I still didn't know how to represent using matrix mechanics... How could I model degree of correspondence between representations? How could I model forward flow of information, and feedback, and priming? Was it possible to model emotion or conviction or attention as operators with differing effects on the mental representation's position in determining the final outcome? Can you use matrices as members of a zero-sum set? (And so it went.)
Eventually I decided to table the model-creating until after I had achieved some brilliant insight that would enable it to go much faster. (Translation: This isn't working.)
Staring in the mirror this morning, I came to the moderately depressing realization that I was probably not going to be the recipient of such a gift of sudden insight. If I want to create a working model, I am probably going to have to model (independently) all the various aspects of 5-dimensional navigation as I believe I understand them, and then hope a more global model can somehow be synthesized from the results. (Oy.)
Which brings me back to the thought - "This would be so much easier if someone else were here in Smearland with me!"
"The Prometheus Project cannot be an effort of one man, or a small number of men, since no small group can encompass the total wisdom or feelings of mankind. I am writing in the hope of stimulating enough interest in these questions so that eventually a sizable fraction of the human race will take part in the discussion..."
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
A Shortcut Through Time (Pt III)
"It seems to me quite likely that the risks of plunging every day into the unconscious without a tether are considerable... it is too easy to become overwhelmed by ego after successful trials. I do it very well and it scares me. So I don't do it in general."
After the training exercise that produced The 5th Dimension: Channels to a New Reality, I didn't push too many other boundaries for awhile. (Yep. That book is still sitting on the bookshelf, waiting to be read... someday.)
One day though, in the afterglow of some surfing, I wondered briefly if I could task to an object that represented information about an event whose outcome I had not yet observed. Just a very vague, half-formed thought. Couldn't be considered proper protocol for any type of training exercise. But then there was an object, right in front of me, commanding my attention. 'Alright, I'll study the object', I thought, with no particular expectations about what parameters, if any, of the object would contain significant information.
Once I had observed the outcome of the event, I began to analyze the object in light of the event. That analysis morphed into an experience that must be one of the closest things I have ever had to a mystical experience. (I don't really know what a mystical experience is, so I'm guessing here.) I could see connections between almost every element of the object, and the event - concepts, words, symbolism, connections between ideas. That experience became so disconcerting that I soon had to stop thinking about the whole thing.
But it did make me seriously think about the nature of information, time, and reality in general. For awhile, anyway. Then self-preservation kicked in and I went to find some coffee. ;)
After the training exercise that produced The 5th Dimension: Channels to a New Reality, I didn't push too many other boundaries for awhile. (Yep. That book is still sitting on the bookshelf, waiting to be read... someday.)
One day though, in the afterglow of some surfing, I wondered briefly if I could task to an object that represented information about an event whose outcome I had not yet observed. Just a very vague, half-formed thought. Couldn't be considered proper protocol for any type of training exercise. But then there was an object, right in front of me, commanding my attention. 'Alright, I'll study the object', I thought, with no particular expectations about what parameters, if any, of the object would contain significant information.
Once I had observed the outcome of the event, I began to analyze the object in light of the event. That analysis morphed into an experience that must be one of the closest things I have ever had to a mystical experience. (I don't really know what a mystical experience is, so I'm guessing here.) I could see connections between almost every element of the object, and the event - concepts, words, symbolism, connections between ideas. That experience became so disconcerting that I soon had to stop thinking about the whole thing.
But it did make me seriously think about the nature of information, time, and reality in general. For awhile, anyway. Then self-preservation kicked in and I went to find some coffee. ;)
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
A Shortcut Through Time (Pt II)
"I had become a [scientist] in large part because I considered science - pure science, the search for knowledge for its own sake - to be the noblest and most meaningful of human endeavors. We are here to figure out why we are here. What other purpose is worthy of us?"
I like puzzles. I played Set until I mastered it. (Nineteen seconds was my personal record. Pardon me if I brag a little bit. ;) Some might say that I get a daily paper primarily for the Sudoku puzzle. And then there is the word scramble...
LYRCIAT
Normally you solve this puzzle by systematically re-ordering subsets of the letters to make recognizable pairings. EX: 'LY' is commonly seen at the end of words. You keep doing this until you recognize where all the letters fit to form the unscrambled word. ('No kidding!' you are thinking.)
The point is, that solving this puzzle usually involves 1) a serial set of tasks, 2) which are performed consciously. You are aware of the process that results in the solution. Well, usually...
Many times when I have played this puzzle, I have had the experience of looking at the scrambled word - not staring at it, mind you, but looking at it for a second or so - and then looking up to begin the systematic process of unscrambling the word. And before I can begin the process, the unscrambled word appears in my conscious awareness, before any conscious processing could take place. (And it's right.) This is a little bit disturbing to experience, for the following reasons...
1) There is only a matter of a second or two between the time the scrambled word was acquired for processing, and the time the solution appears in consciousness. This is not enough time to complete the serial set of tasks needed solve the puzzle in the conventional way.
2) I haven't played this puzzle so much that I could be familiar with all the possible words used and all possible recombinations of the letters of those words.
3) There is no context from which the word can be inferred. And these aren't words that you see every day, though the combination of letters in them are not usually unique enough to make the word obvious.
One day, after I had spent a few minutes thinking about that 'instant solution' experience, I had the thought - 'I wonder if this is what it's like to be a quantum computer.'
These experiences led me to ask the following questions...
Was I really bypassing the serial tasks involved in solving the puzzle? Or were they happening, but just at a much faster rate than what can be shunted through conscious awareness? And if that was the case, what does that say about the concept of time? Does it imply that our ability to consciously perceive time is drastically slower than the speed at which processing in our brain can/does occur?
My experience with the Set puzzle was an ongoing study in the process of pattern recognition. When I began to play Set, it took me 5 to 6 minutes to solve the puzzles. Eventually I broke the 60 second barrier. Then I was consistently solving the puzzle in less than 30 seconds. The sets began to 'jump out' at me. I had managed to train some part of my brain to recognize a very specific set of cues in a very specific setting. I was recognizing the sets more quickly each time I played the puzzle, despite the fact that the actually cards in the sets were not the same ever time, nor was I limited to searching for only one or two patterns. (Seriously, read the rules and try the game. It's fun!)
Had some similar kind of complex pattern recognition network been building all the while I had been playing the word scramble puzzle? If so, how did it get so fast?
Or, was I pulling the solution into awareness from a future point in time? Perhaps from a point in time after I had verified the solution? Hmm...
(Have you figured out the word yet?)
I like puzzles. I played Set until I mastered it. (Nineteen seconds was my personal record. Pardon me if I brag a little bit. ;) Some might say that I get a daily paper primarily for the Sudoku puzzle. And then there is the word scramble...
LYRCIAT
Normally you solve this puzzle by systematically re-ordering subsets of the letters to make recognizable pairings. EX: 'LY' is commonly seen at the end of words. You keep doing this until you recognize where all the letters fit to form the unscrambled word. ('No kidding!' you are thinking.)
The point is, that solving this puzzle usually involves 1) a serial set of tasks, 2) which are performed consciously. You are aware of the process that results in the solution. Well, usually...
Many times when I have played this puzzle, I have had the experience of looking at the scrambled word - not staring at it, mind you, but looking at it for a second or so - and then looking up to begin the systematic process of unscrambling the word. And before I can begin the process, the unscrambled word appears in my conscious awareness, before any conscious processing could take place. (And it's right.) This is a little bit disturbing to experience, for the following reasons...
1) There is only a matter of a second or two between the time the scrambled word was acquired for processing, and the time the solution appears in consciousness. This is not enough time to complete the serial set of tasks needed solve the puzzle in the conventional way.
2) I haven't played this puzzle so much that I could be familiar with all the possible words used and all possible recombinations of the letters of those words.
3) There is no context from which the word can be inferred. And these aren't words that you see every day, though the combination of letters in them are not usually unique enough to make the word obvious.
One day, after I had spent a few minutes thinking about that 'instant solution' experience, I had the thought - 'I wonder if this is what it's like to be a quantum computer.'
These experiences led me to ask the following questions...
Was I really bypassing the serial tasks involved in solving the puzzle? Or were they happening, but just at a much faster rate than what can be shunted through conscious awareness? And if that was the case, what does that say about the concept of time? Does it imply that our ability to consciously perceive time is drastically slower than the speed at which processing in our brain can/does occur?
My experience with the Set puzzle was an ongoing study in the process of pattern recognition. When I began to play Set, it took me 5 to 6 minutes to solve the puzzles. Eventually I broke the 60 second barrier. Then I was consistently solving the puzzle in less than 30 seconds. The sets began to 'jump out' at me. I had managed to train some part of my brain to recognize a very specific set of cues in a very specific setting. I was recognizing the sets more quickly each time I played the puzzle, despite the fact that the actually cards in the sets were not the same ever time, nor was I limited to searching for only one or two patterns. (Seriously, read the rules and try the game. It's fun!)
Had some similar kind of complex pattern recognition network been building all the while I had been playing the word scramble puzzle? If so, how did it get so fast?
Or, was I pulling the solution into awareness from a future point in time? Perhaps from a point in time after I had verified the solution? Hmm...
(Have you figured out the word yet?)
Monday, October 15, 2007
A Shortcut Through Time (Pt I)
"... what if expectation acts to focus our attention on our potential future states, and allows us to 'select' favorable paths to pursue? If gaining information from our futures were possible, then in principle we might be able to navigate through potential futures to achieve a desired outcome." - Radin and Lobach (2007) (here)
Reading that paper got me thinking... and remembering...
One of the first things I wondered about, after accepting that there was a correlation between certain states of expectation and the outcomes I actually observed, was whether or not this was some form of convoluted, inverted precognition (an effect of the actual outcome that traveled back in time), or whether my expectations were somehow the cause of the outcome. Somewhere along the way, I decide to focus on the causal perspective, and from then on I researched primarily from that perspective.
I don't have a whole lot of notes from that period, as it is generally easier not to leave crazy-sounding notes lying around when one has roommates. ;) But I do remember thinking that if it were more cause than effect, then I should be able to change my expectations mid-way to the outcome and see the corresponding results in the observed outcome.
Here's an illustration... Let's say I flip a coin. Prior to observing the outcome, I generate the expectational components that steer me towards the outcome 'Heads'. Then I change my mind. I now want the outcome 'Tails'. So I go about generating the various representations that will steer me to 'Tails'. Which outcome will I observe, and how will that outcome be determined?
What I found across repetitions and a variety of outcome situations boiled down to this ... Those expectational components and representations of the outcome that were more accurate, more vivid, more convincing, and which utilized more of my attention, determined the outcome I observed. If I were better able to generate the required representations after I had decided to steer towards a different outcome, then I was going to get the 'changed my mind' outcome.
This result also helped lock me into a causal mode of thinking about this effect. It really seemed like there was something (a forces model was helpful to me at this time) that was summing together, and the end result was rather like adding a positive and a negative number. Whichever number had a higher absolute value won out.
Needless to say, that is probably an overly simplistic representation of what is actually happening.
And now, among other things, I want to know... can the causal role (if any) of non-observational states upon the actual outcome be separated from the effect of the actual observation (traveling back in time) upon those same pre-outcome non-observational states? What would information traveling backwards in time from a future outcome feel like as an experience? Is it possible to enhance sensitivity to this type of effect as well?
Hmmm... must find more coffee now...
Reading that paper got me thinking... and remembering...
One of the first things I wondered about, after accepting that there was a correlation between certain states of expectation and the outcomes I actually observed, was whether or not this was some form of convoluted, inverted precognition (an effect of the actual outcome that traveled back in time), or whether my expectations were somehow the cause of the outcome. Somewhere along the way, I decide to focus on the causal perspective, and from then on I researched primarily from that perspective.
I don't have a whole lot of notes from that period, as it is generally easier not to leave crazy-sounding notes lying around when one has roommates. ;) But I do remember thinking that if it were more cause than effect, then I should be able to change my expectations mid-way to the outcome and see the corresponding results in the observed outcome.
Here's an illustration... Let's say I flip a coin. Prior to observing the outcome, I generate the expectational components that steer me towards the outcome 'Heads'. Then I change my mind. I now want the outcome 'Tails'. So I go about generating the various representations that will steer me to 'Tails'. Which outcome will I observe, and how will that outcome be determined?
What I found across repetitions and a variety of outcome situations boiled down to this ... Those expectational components and representations of the outcome that were more accurate, more vivid, more convincing, and which utilized more of my attention, determined the outcome I observed. If I were better able to generate the required representations after I had decided to steer towards a different outcome, then I was going to get the 'changed my mind' outcome.
This result also helped lock me into a causal mode of thinking about this effect. It really seemed like there was something (a forces model was helpful to me at this time) that was summing together, and the end result was rather like adding a positive and a negative number. Whichever number had a higher absolute value won out.
Needless to say, that is probably an overly simplistic representation of what is actually happening.
And now, among other things, I want to know... can the causal role (if any) of non-observational states upon the actual outcome be separated from the effect of the actual observation (traveling back in time) upon those same pre-outcome non-observational states? What would information traveling backwards in time from a future outcome feel like as an experience? Is it possible to enhance sensitivity to this type of effect as well?
Hmmm... must find more coffee now...
Friday, August 03, 2007
What Happens In Vegas
(Time for another story...)
Once upon a time, I attended a convention. At this convention, I attended a talk. Prior to the talk, I conversed with two individuals sitting next to me. They asked what I did, I told them about what I was studying and, like clockwork, their eyebrows went up in the fashion of skeptics everywhere. "A demonstration is in order," thought I.
There were roughly 100 people attending this talk, and two fairly substantial and desirable door prizes were to be given away before the talk ended. Skipping to the end of the story... Yes, I walked away with one of the door prizes. The interesting part of this story is HOW I plotted a trajectory through Smearland that led a universe where I won one of the door prizes.
To be a truly impressive feat in keeping with my claims, the door prizes would have to be given away in some random fashion. (As opposed to as prizes for a competition which involved knowledge or skill.) Task #1 - Make sure we end up in the universe where the prizes are given away via some random or quasi-random system. (Done.)
Task #2 involved the framework problem. The gist of my problem was this... Under these circumstances, it would have been more difficult for me to navigate to the winning universe if only one critical observation were involved. Ex: If every person had a unique number, all numbers were put into a bin, and two were selected at random. Task #2 - Secure a more favorable framework of observations. (Done. I found the universe where a subgroup of the audience was selected, and then from the subgroup, a winner. Much easier course to navigate for reasons we will discuss later.)
Task #3 - Find the universe where I win one of the door prizes. (Done.)
Task #4 should have been to ensure that I also landed in a universe where the individuals in question put two and two together and concluded that I did know what I was talking about. Alas, I failed in this task. Probably because I was too preoccupied with winning, and I assumed (fatal error) that recognition would follow.
The moral of this story is that each task involves its own critical observations, and each observation was critical in determining the nature and success of the next task. This is the nature of navigating through Smearland. You need to be aware of what other possible outcomes might arise before they occur. You also need to be aware of how one result will impact your ability to see the next set of outcomes and to generate the forces necessary to select that outcome at will.
What would have happened if I had not been successful in Task #2? Of if I had not thought to find a universe other than the obvious one where the two winners were drawn from a pool of all audience members at random? Certainly, if I had won under those circumstance, my skeptic friends may have remembered our conversation and been a little impressed, but the point is, one way or another, I decided to find a universe where I won, and I did. :) Shhh... don't tell anyone.
Once upon a time, I attended a convention. At this convention, I attended a talk. Prior to the talk, I conversed with two individuals sitting next to me. They asked what I did, I told them about what I was studying and, like clockwork, their eyebrows went up in the fashion of skeptics everywhere. "A demonstration is in order," thought I.
There were roughly 100 people attending this talk, and two fairly substantial and desirable door prizes were to be given away before the talk ended. Skipping to the end of the story... Yes, I walked away with one of the door prizes. The interesting part of this story is HOW I plotted a trajectory through Smearland that led a universe where I won one of the door prizes.
To be a truly impressive feat in keeping with my claims, the door prizes would have to be given away in some random fashion. (As opposed to as prizes for a competition which involved knowledge or skill.) Task #1 - Make sure we end up in the universe where the prizes are given away via some random or quasi-random system. (Done.)
Task #2 involved the framework problem. The gist of my problem was this... Under these circumstances, it would have been more difficult for me to navigate to the winning universe if only one critical observation were involved. Ex: If every person had a unique number, all numbers were put into a bin, and two were selected at random. Task #2 - Secure a more favorable framework of observations. (Done. I found the universe where a subgroup of the audience was selected, and then from the subgroup, a winner. Much easier course to navigate for reasons we will discuss later.)
Task #3 - Find the universe where I win one of the door prizes. (Done.)
Task #4 should have been to ensure that I also landed in a universe where the individuals in question put two and two together and concluded that I did know what I was talking about. Alas, I failed in this task. Probably because I was too preoccupied with winning, and I assumed (fatal error) that recognition would follow.
The moral of this story is that each task involves its own critical observations, and each observation was critical in determining the nature and success of the next task. This is the nature of navigating through Smearland. You need to be aware of what other possible outcomes might arise before they occur. You also need to be aware of how one result will impact your ability to see the next set of outcomes and to generate the forces necessary to select that outcome at will.
What would have happened if I had not been successful in Task #2? Of if I had not thought to find a universe other than the obvious one where the two winners were drawn from a pool of all audience members at random? Certainly, if I had won under those circumstance, my skeptic friends may have remembered our conversation and been a little impressed, but the point is, one way or another, I decided to find a universe where I won, and I did. :) Shhh... don't tell anyone.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Journal Club #4
I've talked a bit about expectations. So, what happens when you try to manipulate expectations within the context of a psi experiment?
Pitman, J. A., The effect of manipulating expectations both before and during a test of ESP. Journal of Parapsychology, Spring 2004. (here)
This paper begins with a very general overview of expectations as they may relate to psi performance. The thing to note here is that 'expectations' are never precisely defined in terms of their components - mental imagery, representations of time, degree and nature of emotional content, changes in expectations as testing progresses, etc. It's assumed that everyone has the same definition of 'expectation' and that 'expectation' means the same thing in every study that is discussed. This means that 'expectations' are not being manipulated with a level of precision that will easily lead to future testable hypotheses.
Pitman presents two experiments which have basically the same design. The second experiment corrects subtle flaws in 'random' presentation and increases the number of subjects, as compared to the first experiment. Pitman manipulates expectation in two ways - by artificially inflating (or not) the degree of positive feedback the subjects are given about their ESP 'guessing' trials, and by giving them a placebo (or not) that is presented as a substance that enhances ESP. We are largely left to speculate as to what the actual effects of these manipulations might be upon expectations for success. It is assumed that subjects will have greater expectations of success when given the 'ESP-enhancing' placebo and when given artificially inflated positive ('false') feedback about their success. But again, the nature of these expectations is never elaborated upon.
In both experiments, Pitman found a significant interaction between the placebo manipulation and the feedback manipulation.
"When participants were given false feedback, there was a placebo effect... However, when participants were given true feedback, there was no placebo effect... Further, when participants were given a placebo, there was an effect of feedback... However, when participants were not given a placebo, there was no effect of feedback." (Results - Experiment 1; confirmed in Experiment 2)
In other words, unless your expectations were (theoretically) artificially inflated in two different ways at the same time, your performance was no different from that of everyone else in the study.
Pitman acknowledges that this is a problematic result. "Without a significant effect for the placebo manipulation in increasing predicted ESP performance, explanation of the additive performance for placebo and falsely positive feedback is challenging." (Her next sentence brings to light an additional problem with this study - "One must conclude that all participants started the ESP test with similar levels of expectancy...". Yeah, that's a problem for many reasons.)
I think it's a fascinating result. Due to the imprecise definition of 'expectation' and the vague manipulations thereof in this experiment (and pretty much all similar studies), any conclusion that I would attempt to draw from the data would be highly speculative. But go ahead and twist my arm... okay, okay, I'll speculate.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that, with two sources for expectations of success, participants may have been able to shift their attention between two significantly different frameworks. For example, when I am told that I got the answer wrong, I may be able to shift my attention and draw upon my expectations about the placebo, and it may take several trials worth of false positive feedback for my expectations to again center on the outcome/feedback. With only a single source of expectation for success, my expectations will probably begin to be altered in the subtle ways that lead to a pull towards the opposite outcome. (I tried some of this out on slot machines in Las Vegas. I could only be successful for so long before my expectations, by virtue of simple exposure to success, had qualitatively changed to the point where, without a much greater effort, I was pulled towards an unsuccessful outcome.)
Before I digress too far, I should point out that other studies have shown effects of a single manipulation of expectation. Pitman points out that J.B. Rhine was successful in getting a single main effect of placebo upon ESP performance. Other studies have also attempted to manipulate the participants' beliefs about ESP in an (sometimes successful) attempt to improve their performance. So further speculation about the results of this study would probably only be productive if I were able to include the other studies for comparison purposes.
Subjects in this study were also asked to predict their ESP scores prior to testing, but it appears that these predictions were collected after the placebo manipulation. Of course it's possible that asking the subjects to quantify expectations had an effect in and of itself, but there are not enough details about when and how this data was collected to allow for useful speculation.
The author attempts to make further inferences about 'expectation' as it relates to the subjects' scores on the 'sheep-goat' scale of psi belief, but these are not the expectations we are interested in, and therefore they will not be discussed here. The expectations that occur at the time of testing are, IMHO, the ones most likely to influence the outcome. Their nature most closely matches the representations of the outcome and success or failure, therefore these are the expectations that I think need to be more carefully teased apart and manipulated in future testing.
Kudos to Pitman for a simple, elegant experimental design, and a fascinating finding!
Pitman, J. A., The effect of manipulating expectations both before and during a test of ESP. Journal of Parapsychology, Spring 2004. (here)
This paper begins with a very general overview of expectations as they may relate to psi performance. The thing to note here is that 'expectations' are never precisely defined in terms of their components - mental imagery, representations of time, degree and nature of emotional content, changes in expectations as testing progresses, etc. It's assumed that everyone has the same definition of 'expectation' and that 'expectation' means the same thing in every study that is discussed. This means that 'expectations' are not being manipulated with a level of precision that will easily lead to future testable hypotheses.
Pitman presents two experiments which have basically the same design. The second experiment corrects subtle flaws in 'random' presentation and increases the number of subjects, as compared to the first experiment. Pitman manipulates expectation in two ways - by artificially inflating (or not) the degree of positive feedback the subjects are given about their ESP 'guessing' trials, and by giving them a placebo (or not) that is presented as a substance that enhances ESP. We are largely left to speculate as to what the actual effects of these manipulations might be upon expectations for success. It is assumed that subjects will have greater expectations of success when given the 'ESP-enhancing' placebo and when given artificially inflated positive ('false') feedback about their success. But again, the nature of these expectations is never elaborated upon.
In both experiments, Pitman found a significant interaction between the placebo manipulation and the feedback manipulation.
"When participants were given false feedback, there was a placebo effect... However, when participants were given true feedback, there was no placebo effect... Further, when participants were given a placebo, there was an effect of feedback... However, when participants were not given a placebo, there was no effect of feedback." (Results - Experiment 1; confirmed in Experiment 2)
In other words, unless your expectations were (theoretically) artificially inflated in two different ways at the same time, your performance was no different from that of everyone else in the study.
Pitman acknowledges that this is a problematic result. "Without a significant effect for the placebo manipulation in increasing predicted ESP performance, explanation of the additive performance for placebo and falsely positive feedback is challenging." (Her next sentence brings to light an additional problem with this study - "One must conclude that all participants started the ESP test with similar levels of expectancy...". Yeah, that's a problem for many reasons.)
I think it's a fascinating result. Due to the imprecise definition of 'expectation' and the vague manipulations thereof in this experiment (and pretty much all similar studies), any conclusion that I would attempt to draw from the data would be highly speculative. But go ahead and twist my arm... okay, okay, I'll speculate.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that, with two sources for expectations of success, participants may have been able to shift their attention between two significantly different frameworks. For example, when I am told that I got the answer wrong, I may be able to shift my attention and draw upon my expectations about the placebo, and it may take several trials worth of false positive feedback for my expectations to again center on the outcome/feedback. With only a single source of expectation for success, my expectations will probably begin to be altered in the subtle ways that lead to a pull towards the opposite outcome. (I tried some of this out on slot machines in Las Vegas. I could only be successful for so long before my expectations, by virtue of simple exposure to success, had qualitatively changed to the point where, without a much greater effort, I was pulled towards an unsuccessful outcome.)
Before I digress too far, I should point out that other studies have shown effects of a single manipulation of expectation. Pitman points out that J.B. Rhine was successful in getting a single main effect of placebo upon ESP performance. Other studies have also attempted to manipulate the participants' beliefs about ESP in an (sometimes successful) attempt to improve their performance. So further speculation about the results of this study would probably only be productive if I were able to include the other studies for comparison purposes.
Subjects in this study were also asked to predict their ESP scores prior to testing, but it appears that these predictions were collected after the placebo manipulation. Of course it's possible that asking the subjects to quantify expectations had an effect in and of itself, but there are not enough details about when and how this data was collected to allow for useful speculation.
The author attempts to make further inferences about 'expectation' as it relates to the subjects' scores on the 'sheep-goat' scale of psi belief, but these are not the expectations we are interested in, and therefore they will not be discussed here. The expectations that occur at the time of testing are, IMHO, the ones most likely to influence the outcome. Their nature most closely matches the representations of the outcome and success or failure, therefore these are the expectations that I think need to be more carefully teased apart and manipulated in future testing.
Kudos to Pitman for a simple, elegant experimental design, and a fascinating finding!
Friday, July 27, 2007
Surfing the Waves of Probability
"But after the momentary exaltation of lifting the rock I saw clearly that such acts were in no sense the goal of the spirit, but just a by-play of its true life, amusing, and sometimes useful, and often dangerous, but never themselves the goal."
That being said, I do still manage to have some fun here is Smearland... :) Especially when I can isolate myself from competing observers and get into the 'zone' where synchronicities are immediate and abundant. I like to call it 'surfing the waves of probability'. It's difficult to explain to someone the sheer joy that you can feel when you throw yourself into the ocean that is the multiverse, find a wave, get into the zone and ride it to a spectacular result? This is a metaphor, of course, but it is most appropriate.
It takes a certain amount of skill to find the universe where your favorite song plays back-to-back on three different radio stations, or to find a universe where something materializes in front of you that perfectly captures your thoughts or feelings. Or to find a universe where the item that you've been looking for, the one that wasn't there a second ago, is now right in front of you (and on sale).
These may seem like trivial examples, and certainly much more spectacular feats have been achieved, but things like this give you a strange sense of oneness with the Universe while allowing you to stretch your wings and soar. So this is what I do for fun - I surf the waves of probability. Some of my most prized possessions are the 1-in-incaluable-odds 'trophies' I've collected after an awesome ride. And some of the greatest opportunities I've had have come about because I rode a wave to that universe.
This was the good part of my vacation, and these are the things I cling to when it seems like I will never succeed in establishing this idea as a valid paradigm for scientific study. You tell me how I can do these things, and I'll let it go. :)
That being said, I do still manage to have some fun here is Smearland... :) Especially when I can isolate myself from competing observers and get into the 'zone' where synchronicities are immediate and abundant. I like to call it 'surfing the waves of probability'. It's difficult to explain to someone the sheer joy that you can feel when you throw yourself into the ocean that is the multiverse, find a wave, get into the zone and ride it to a spectacular result? This is a metaphor, of course, but it is most appropriate.
It takes a certain amount of skill to find the universe where your favorite song plays back-to-back on three different radio stations, or to find a universe where something materializes in front of you that perfectly captures your thoughts or feelings. Or to find a universe where the item that you've been looking for, the one that wasn't there a second ago, is now right in front of you (and on sale).
These may seem like trivial examples, and certainly much more spectacular feats have been achieved, but things like this give you a strange sense of oneness with the Universe while allowing you to stretch your wings and soar. So this is what I do for fun - I surf the waves of probability. Some of my most prized possessions are the 1-in-incaluable-odds 'trophies' I've collected after an awesome ride. And some of the greatest opportunities I've had have come about because I rode a wave to that universe.
This was the good part of my vacation, and these are the things I cling to when it seems like I will never succeed in establishing this idea as a valid paradigm for scientific study. You tell me how I can do these things, and I'll let it go. :)
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Dueling Observers
"Has anyone, including and especially the claimant, gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only confirmatory evidence been sought?"
Believe it or not, I have spent quite some time thinking about how this theory/explanation might be falsified. A true test of falsification would require more concrete predictions about the effects of and interactions between multiple observers of the same outcome. To that end, I am particularly interested in people and situations where someone besides me may be the 'strongest observer'.
One way to find an observer who is likely to have more of an effect on the outcome than I will is to find a situation where the other party has more of an emotional investment in the outcome. I wouldn't attempt to induce any situation where another person might be traumatized (informed consent would taint the experiment anyway), so mostly I take what I can gather from existing situations. And sometimes card and board games get a little out of hand when people think they can best me at 'picking the universe'. ;)
Today provided an excellent situation for study. Two observers (call us N and O) in a situation where O has spent a lot of time thinking about a particular outcome (call it P). O has very specific expectations that lead him to think the outcome will be P1 and not P2 (dichotomous split). O also has a lot of emotions invested in the outcome and claims to want P1. (O tells this all to N, so N isn't guessing at what O is thinking.) N agrees that P1 would be the preferable outcome. N agrees that P1 is the likely outcome based on classical knowledge of the situation, but N (knowing how these things go) suspects that O, as the strongest (or only) observer of the critical moment of observation, would likely find himself in the universe where he experiences P2.
N agrees to be present at the critical window of observation. (The critical window of observation is all observations made at a specific place during the period of time that define the 'event'.) Now we have N and O as the only two observers of significance for the event/outcome P. N can consciously make an effort to steer both N and O towards outcome P1. O is a wild mess of chaotic thought and emotion that is likely to pull them both towards P2. As the end of the critical time window approaches, N feels safe enough in the outcome (P1) to depart from the critical observational space in order to answer the call of nature.
No doubt you can guess what happened. By the time N returned to the scene, the outcome was irreversibly P2. N wants to say to O "What? You couldn't hold that universe for two minutes without me?" but doesn't.
And now N gets to speculate about multiple observer dynamics. :) N has sympathy for the original creators of Observational Theory who must have had one helluva time trying to deal with summing together all the possible forces that contribute to an outcome. The truly disturbing question is - What, if any, elements of N's decision to momentarily leave the scene can be attributed to O's pull towards the ultimate outcome P2?
Believe it or not, I have spent quite some time thinking about how this theory/explanation might be falsified. A true test of falsification would require more concrete predictions about the effects of and interactions between multiple observers of the same outcome. To that end, I am particularly interested in people and situations where someone besides me may be the 'strongest observer'.
One way to find an observer who is likely to have more of an effect on the outcome than I will is to find a situation where the other party has more of an emotional investment in the outcome. I wouldn't attempt to induce any situation where another person might be traumatized (informed consent would taint the experiment anyway), so mostly I take what I can gather from existing situations. And sometimes card and board games get a little out of hand when people think they can best me at 'picking the universe'. ;)
Today provided an excellent situation for study. Two observers (call us N and O) in a situation where O has spent a lot of time thinking about a particular outcome (call it P). O has very specific expectations that lead him to think the outcome will be P1 and not P2 (dichotomous split). O also has a lot of emotions invested in the outcome and claims to want P1. (O tells this all to N, so N isn't guessing at what O is thinking.) N agrees that P1 would be the preferable outcome. N agrees that P1 is the likely outcome based on classical knowledge of the situation, but N (knowing how these things go) suspects that O, as the strongest (or only) observer of the critical moment of observation, would likely find himself in the universe where he experiences P2.
N agrees to be present at the critical window of observation. (The critical window of observation is all observations made at a specific place during the period of time that define the 'event'.) Now we have N and O as the only two observers of significance for the event/outcome P. N can consciously make an effort to steer both N and O towards outcome P1. O is a wild mess of chaotic thought and emotion that is likely to pull them both towards P2. As the end of the critical time window approaches, N feels safe enough in the outcome (P1) to depart from the critical observational space in order to answer the call of nature.
No doubt you can guess what happened. By the time N returned to the scene, the outcome was irreversibly P2. N wants to say to O "What? You couldn't hold that universe for two minutes without me?" but doesn't.
And now N gets to speculate about multiple observer dynamics. :) N has sympathy for the original creators of Observational Theory who must have had one helluva time trying to deal with summing together all the possible forces that contribute to an outcome. The truly disturbing question is - What, if any, elements of N's decision to momentarily leave the scene can be attributed to O's pull towards the ultimate outcome P2?
Friday, July 13, 2007
A Tale of Two Universes
(In light of yesterday's post, this seemed like an appropriate story for today.)
One evening, coming back from the store, I was doing about 50 on a six-lane road when a dog ran out in front of my car. I could see it coming, but didn't have enough distance to avoid hitting it. According to all the laws of classical physics that govern motion and force, I was going to hit the dog.
Not wanting to hurt the poor animal, I threw up a barrier to the universe where I would hit the dog. That is to say, in the split second before I would have observed the impact, I eliminated that observation (hitting the dog) from the set of possible observations. The only other possible observation was not hitting the dog. And this observation would be incompatible with the forces (speed, monentum) and distances that were in play. (Incompatible observations ---> UNDONE.)
The laws of Smearland won out and I did not hit the dog. The dog vanished. It did not appear in front of my car, behind my car, or off to either side of my car. And believe me, I slowed down to look. Never shut my eyes. Couldn't have missed it if it had been miraculously able to move out of the way. It didn't go over my car or under my car, and I never felt an impact. I don't know where it ended up. And, believe me, I looked.
What happened to the dog?, you ask. I don't know. I don't make any claims to having teleported myself or the dog. I only suggest that I was able to shift the coordinates of my position in Smearland. Perhaps to another, parallel, universe where there was no dog to hit, if that is an analogy that helps you.
Postscript (3:06 PM) - By now you've torn that story apart looking for every possible 4-dimensional explanation. :) Maybe I have lousy depth perception and underestimated the distance between my car and the dog. Maybe the dog was never there and I saw something else that my brain registered as a dog. Maybe I was distracted just long enough to miss the dog as it ran off. Good! You should be skeptical! And, I have to say, I have wondered what any nearby traffic cameras might have caught on tape...
Fortunately, it is not necessary for you to believe the story in order to see the point. :)
One evening, coming back from the store, I was doing about 50 on a six-lane road when a dog ran out in front of my car. I could see it coming, but didn't have enough distance to avoid hitting it. According to all the laws of classical physics that govern motion and force, I was going to hit the dog.
Not wanting to hurt the poor animal, I threw up a barrier to the universe where I would hit the dog. That is to say, in the split second before I would have observed the impact, I eliminated that observation (hitting the dog) from the set of possible observations. The only other possible observation was not hitting the dog. And this observation would be incompatible with the forces (speed, monentum) and distances that were in play. (Incompatible observations ---> UNDONE.)
The laws of Smearland won out and I did not hit the dog. The dog vanished. It did not appear in front of my car, behind my car, or off to either side of my car. And believe me, I slowed down to look. Never shut my eyes. Couldn't have missed it if it had been miraculously able to move out of the way. It didn't go over my car or under my car, and I never felt an impact. I don't know where it ended up. And, believe me, I looked.
What happened to the dog?, you ask. I don't know. I don't make any claims to having teleported myself or the dog. I only suggest that I was able to shift the coordinates of my position in Smearland. Perhaps to another, parallel, universe where there was no dog to hit, if that is an analogy that helps you.
Postscript (3:06 PM) - By now you've torn that story apart looking for every possible 4-dimensional explanation. :) Maybe I have lousy depth perception and underestimated the distance between my car and the dog. Maybe the dog was never there and I saw something else that my brain registered as a dog. Maybe I was distracted just long enough to miss the dog as it ran off. Good! You should be skeptical! And, I have to say, I have wondered what any nearby traffic cameras might have caught on tape...
Fortunately, it is not necessary for you to believe the story in order to see the point. :)
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Still Skeptical of The Secret
"A new scientific revolution is new scientific knowledge that satisfies at least one of the following two criteria
1) It makes possible previously impossible, even unimaginable, technological capabilities.
2) It engenders a fundamental reconstruction of our philosophical outlook."
What to my wandering eyes doth appear but yet another article on The Secret. Side by side with an article called The End of Science Revisited in the latest issue of Skeptic magazine. (The premise of The End of Science irks me because it bespeaks a lack of faith in the power of the human intellect and the human spirit to see beyond the current 'boundaries' of science. How do you hold on to that idea for 10 - sorry, 11 - years?!?) I feel compelled to snark just a little bit... ;)
"[T]he first thing you need to know is that The Secret isn't a secret" (Applause.) I can honestly say that I had never heard of the 'Law of Attraction' until after I had developed the 5-dimensional model. And having The Secret as a reference point for trying to describe Smearland is a bit like having 'Cooking for Dummies' as the textbook for chef school.
"Like attracts like". Well, actually, no. 'Like' would be creating a replica of actually 1) seeing/hearing/etc. the outcome, 2) at a specific moment in time, 3) with the conviction that it has actually happened, and 4) the forward flow of information that enables a reaction to the experience. Alter any of these components of your 'fake' represenation, and you alter the results as they pertain to your actual observation. These are some of the details that The Secret hasn't revealed. As clever skeptics have already pointed out, when it comes to magnetic signals, like repels like.
The 'Law of Attraction' also fails to mention that where there is the ability to attract, there is also the ability to repel. (You would think that when the primary analogy used is that of a magnet, someone would have come to that conclusion.) That means that it should be possible to 1) attract a good outcome, 2) attract a bad outcome, 3) repel a good outcome, and 4) repel a bad outcome. The Secret/The Law of Attraction deals only with how something might be attracted.
"If you turn it over to the universe, you will be surprised and dazzled by what is delivered. This is where magic and miracles happen." A phenomenon also know as 'release of attention/effort' (#9). Talked about in psi research and in the practice of magick.
"When dealing with instances of extraordinary evil, ... The Law of Attraction break[s] down rather spectacularly." Perhaps that is because The Law of Attraction is only focused on part of the picture. What if attracting a good outcome is not the same as repelling a bad outcome? Why should it be? Think about it. Then read this again, and ask yourself why the dichotomous split between outcomes was important.
Postscript (8:40 PM) - I don't want to leave you with the impression that I think the above paragraph adequately accounts for the problem of evil. The answer to that problem lies, I believe, with a better understand of mutliple-observer dynamics.
1) It makes possible previously impossible, even unimaginable, technological capabilities.
2) It engenders a fundamental reconstruction of our philosophical outlook."
What to my wandering eyes doth appear but yet another article on The Secret. Side by side with an article called The End of Science Revisited in the latest issue of Skeptic magazine. (The premise of The End of Science irks me because it bespeaks a lack of faith in the power of the human intellect and the human spirit to see beyond the current 'boundaries' of science. How do you hold on to that idea for 10 - sorry, 11 - years?!?) I feel compelled to snark just a little bit... ;)
"[T]he first thing you need to know is that The Secret isn't a secret" (Applause.) I can honestly say that I had never heard of the 'Law of Attraction' until after I had developed the 5-dimensional model. And having The Secret as a reference point for trying to describe Smearland is a bit like having 'Cooking for Dummies' as the textbook for chef school.
"Like attracts like". Well, actually, no. 'Like' would be creating a replica of actually 1) seeing/hearing/etc. the outcome, 2) at a specific moment in time, 3) with the conviction that it has actually happened, and 4) the forward flow of information that enables a reaction to the experience. Alter any of these components of your 'fake' represenation, and you alter the results as they pertain to your actual observation. These are some of the details that The Secret hasn't revealed. As clever skeptics have already pointed out, when it comes to magnetic signals, like repels like.
The 'Law of Attraction' also fails to mention that where there is the ability to attract, there is also the ability to repel. (You would think that when the primary analogy used is that of a magnet, someone would have come to that conclusion.) That means that it should be possible to 1) attract a good outcome, 2) attract a bad outcome, 3) repel a good outcome, and 4) repel a bad outcome. The Secret/The Law of Attraction deals only with how something might be attracted.
"If you turn it over to the universe, you will be surprised and dazzled by what is delivered. This is where magic and miracles happen." A phenomenon also know as 'release of attention/effort' (#9). Talked about in psi research and in the practice of magick.
"When dealing with instances of extraordinary evil, ... The Law of Attraction break[s] down rather spectacularly." Perhaps that is because The Law of Attraction is only focused on part of the picture. What if attracting a good outcome is not the same as repelling a bad outcome? Why should it be? Think about it. Then read this again, and ask yourself why the dichotomous split between outcomes was important.
Postscript (8:40 PM) - I don't want to leave you with the impression that I think the above paragraph adequately accounts for the problem of evil. The answer to that problem lies, I believe, with a better understand of mutliple-observer dynamics.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Outside the Gates of Science
Outside the Gates of Science, by Damien Broderick (2007).
Couldn't wait any longer. Had to buy it. Oddly, reading this book feels like coming in from the cold. It takes me back to a time when I thought that all that I wanted was a job researching the limits of the mind.
I'm just flipping through the book and I see references to probability fields, Greg Egan, 'applied psychic technology', Evan Harris Walker, Houtkooper, and Observer Theory. (happy sigh)
Put your skepticism on hold for a few days, read this book, and see how the other half lives. ;)
Couldn't wait any longer. Had to buy it. Oddly, reading this book feels like coming in from the cold. It takes me back to a time when I thought that all that I wanted was a job researching the limits of the mind.
I'm just flipping through the book and I see references to probability fields, Greg Egan, 'applied psychic technology', Evan Harris Walker, Houtkooper, and Observer Theory. (happy sigh)
Put your skepticism on hold for a few days, read this book, and see how the other half lives. ;)
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
The Psychic Grid
"It is a fearful thing to set out to determine truth for oneself."
Many years ago, when I was going through my first 'What the hell is this?!' phase of curiousity about psychic phenomena, a well-meaning person purchased the book The Psychic Grid by Dr. Beatrice Bruteau (1979) for me at a used book sale. While the book ended up having nothing to do with the ESP definition of 'psychic', it was nonetheless extremely eye-opening.
Today I was thinking about writing a short piece of fiction about what it might be like to be connected to other minds, in the telepathic, mind-web kind of way. When I thought about calling the piece The Psychic Grid, I decided it might be time to take another look at the book that I remembered as being so key in pushing me to study the mind. I pulled it out of the permanent collection, and began to flip through the pages. I was astonished that so many of the quotes I had underlined (in various colors of ink, for each of the times I had read that book) still had the same 'punch you in the gut with the profoundness of truth' quality that I remembered.
Even though it has nothing to do with synchronicity or probability, I still have to put this book on the 25 Best list.
"Confronting change and the unfamiliar is unsettling, but perfect settledness is death."
"Most new discoveries are suddenly-seen things that were always there."
Many years ago, when I was going through my first 'What the hell is this?!' phase of curiousity about psychic phenomena, a well-meaning person purchased the book The Psychic Grid by Dr. Beatrice Bruteau (1979) for me at a used book sale. While the book ended up having nothing to do with the ESP definition of 'psychic', it was nonetheless extremely eye-opening.
Today I was thinking about writing a short piece of fiction about what it might be like to be connected to other minds, in the telepathic, mind-web kind of way. When I thought about calling the piece The Psychic Grid, I decided it might be time to take another look at the book that I remembered as being so key in pushing me to study the mind. I pulled it out of the permanent collection, and began to flip through the pages. I was astonished that so many of the quotes I had underlined (in various colors of ink, for each of the times I had read that book) still had the same 'punch you in the gut with the profoundness of truth' quality that I remembered.
Even though it has nothing to do with synchronicity or probability, I still have to put this book on the 25 Best list.
"Confronting change and the unfamiliar is unsettling, but perfect settledness is death."
"Most new discoveries are suddenly-seen things that were always there."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)