• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

UFO Impulsivity & Paranormal Phenomena

Free episodes:

Hummm... Having been raked over the preverbal hot coals as to my "disconnect", you then inject your own disconnect by speaking about string theory. What does that have to do with my view of McKenna's ideas on the UFO issue, or his over use of 3 dollar words? But since you broach the topic of string theory, this is also a "pet peeve" of mine, (did not know that I had so many pets did you?). String theory is one of those improvable hypotheses, at least so far. While it is mathematically interesting, and very challenging, we have no experimental techniques to deal with such small "objects" as strings. So for now, it will remain in the realm of interesting ideas.
And, yes, I agree with soft bread. I enjoy talking about the UFO issue, and the rhetoric that goes along with it. I have no desire to take this issue so seriously that we start to “flame” each other over perceived misuse of ethos. This is the first forum that I have been on, and when it stops being fun, then I will find another recreation.
ffice:office" /><o>:p></o>:p>
Welcome back plumbbob. Don’t worry, the blood letting is over...I hope. Trust me when I say it wasn’t fun for either one of us. Sometimes a spirted discussion can take and change your perspective. However In your case, I think it’s a lost cause (as far as Mckeena & all). It would have been a lot of fun if it had been someone from another forum like Open Minds Forum. I was drawing a comparison in Jungian Theory to String Theory and the possibility that Jungian Theory might be revisited, which I highly doubt. At CERN their looking for the Higgs boson. This might answer some of your questions as to the research into String Theory. This is my first forum as well. I agree with you, forums should be fun,(and sometimes educational). http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-does-the-higgs-boson
 
Hopefully I haven't been misread too badly. I do agree with a lot of McKenna’s ideas, as well as Jung's ideas on group mind. I have been discussing this with others as it relates to the old Carlos Castaneda’s books about Don Juan, and his ideas that our minds have "agreed" on how reality should look. If we see something that does not fit with our learned reality, then our minds change it to accommodate our preconceived ideas. With this said, I do find too much evidence to suggest that the UFO phenomena is only the result of this kind of creative reality. I would bet the farm that there is a physical phenomena that occurs with a percent of UFO sightings, and this means that this physical event comes from somewhere, either from our own world, or from another, (and by world, I mean dimensional world, as the multi dimension issue in physics deals with such small dimensions as to be unrelated to a physical event that we can see with our eyes). I think that it is very logical to suggest that we are being visited from another planet/star system.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
 
Okay.. just to infuriate you even more..
There is no way in hell you can know what a person is thinking by knowing what information they are receiving. Poetry does not come by staring at something. Not even if it is a Thesaurus.

I'll review all your fascinating info when I have time, I do appreciate your effort.

Actually according to the reports they can tell what you are thinking, before you act on it
The Guardian piece ran as follows: <O:p> </O:p>
A team of world-leading neuroscientists has developed a powerful technique that allows them to look deep inside a person’s brain and read their intentions before they act. <O:p> </O:p>
The research breaks controversial new ground in scientists’ ability to probe people’s minds and eavesdrop on their thoughts, and raises serious ethical issues over how brain-reading technology may be used in the future. <O:p> </O:p>
‘Using the scanner, we could look around the brain for this information and read out something that from the outside there's no way you could possibly tell is in there. It's like shining a torch around, looking for writing on a wall,’ said John-Dylan Haynes at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Germany, who led the study with colleagues at University College London and Oxford University. <O:p> </O:p>

Again your opinion stated as fact runs contrary to the research at places like the max planck institite and oxford university.
What your brain does including writing poetry can be quantified and replicated, it all happens at the cellular level, and they are talking about reverse engineering to the molecular level, every process has to have an electro chemical basis, and that can be read.
Back in the days of acoustic coupling modems you could hear the signals a stream of sqeaks ,boings and wistles. you couldnt understand these signals but the computer on the other end could. it could recognise these and demodulate them into data. Thats all this technology does, they build a database of reference, then apply the signals from the brain to that and decode those signals, yes its a complex job but its doable, we already have experimental proof of concept.

Professor Henry Markram, a doctor-turned-computer engineer, announced that his team would create the world's first artificial conscious and intelligent mind by 2018.

And that is exactly what he is doing.
On the shore of Lake Geneva, this brilliant, eccentric scientist is building an artificial mind. A Swiss - it could only be Swiss - precision- engineered mind, made of silicon, gold and copper.

The end result will be a creature, if we can call it that, which its maker believes within a decade may be able to think, feel and even fall in love.

Success will bring with it philosophical, moral and ethical conundrums of the highest order, and may force us to confront what it means to be human.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...living-mind-inside-machine.html#ixzz1FIHPi9Ko

---------- Post added at 09:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 AM ----------

Well, that will only work if you believe in God. If someone believes microwaves are putting voices in his/her head, then, if it were me, first I would tell them to shut up. If they didn't, I would start to question why they were not responding to my wish and why it sounded, very suspiciously, like a tape recording. Then finally, in desperation, I would take some aluminum foil, fashion a protective cap, put it on my head, and get some sleep.

Yeah it has to be noted that LRAD is a different technology to the brain reading gear ive been talking about.

an American advertising firm recently used an LRAD unit to support a media campaign for a new TV show. LRAD was pointed at a sidewalk in Manhattan, below the billboard featuring the new show. LRAD broadcast a female voice providing teaser lines from the show. The effect was startling, and a bit scary for many who passed through the LRAD beam.

Its actually directed sound, as opposed to the Sony patent which uses microwaves to fire neurons in your brain to produce patterns that form mental data directly in your head

---------- Post added at 09:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 AM ----------

Science News


<!-- googleon: all -->
Scientists plan to record people's dreams

Scientists think it will be possible to record people's dreams and then interpret them, according to a new report.


sleep_1696570c.jpg
Scientists think it will be possible to record people's dreams and then interpret them, according to a new report. Photo: ALAMY






By Laura Roberts 7:00AM BST 28 Oct 2010

They claim to have developed a system which allows them to record higher level brain activity.

told the journal Nature: "We would like to read people's dreams."

Previously the only way to access people's dreams is for psychologists to ask about them after the event and try to interpret them.

Dr Cerf hopes to eventually compare people's memories of their dreams with an electronic visualisation of their brain activity.

He told the BBC: "There's no clear answer as to why humans dream. And one of the questions we would like to answer is when do we actually create this dream?"

<!-- BEFORE ACI -->Related Articles

  • The scientist believes his latest research shows that certain neurons or individual brain cells are linked with specific objects or concepts.
He found that a particular neuron lit up when a volunteer thought about Marilyn Monroe.
If a database was built up identifying various neurons with concepts, objects and people it would allow them to "read the subject's minds", according to Dr Cerf.
 
Its actually directed sound, as opposed to the Sony patent which uses microwaves to fire neurons in your brain to produce patterns that form mental data directly in your head ---------- Post added at 09:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 AM ----------
As far as I've read, LRAD induces an auditory response by transducing a modulated microwave signal directly into the cochlea of the human inner ear. According to research at NASA, the transduction effect is the result of microscopic temperature variations caused by the microwave E/M field producing coresponding mechanical pressure pulses on the cochlea's receptor cells. Kind of like a 'Singing Tesla' inside your head.[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ff_AXVlo9U[/video]
 
It's a Very interesting thread.. love it keep it up!

---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:33 PM ----------

Perhaps instead of the idea that stimulating the brain with the weak magnetic fields is forcing a human to feel god or whatnot.. perhaps the magnetic fields are stimulating our god or whatever "receptors".

Part of the brains job is to collect and interprate data from your sensory organs, maybe persinger is stimulating neurons receptive to gooey god (or whatever) feelings.
One has to ask why these gooey god neurons would even be in the brain?
Is it a just a trick of evolution? If as a baby my right arm was chopped off (gory I know), the common wisdom is that neurons for the arm, brain mapping etc, would die off. That area of the brain that is normally allocated to the arm would be altered and used in some other way.
So my question is.. why the heck our there neurons in our brains giving us gooey god feelings (or however you want to interpret them)?

As for those experiments of brain imaging that pick up what we (or the poor kitty) sees.. they can map what we see, or where we look, but they can't map how we interprate that data, how it strikes us emotionally, what we think about it, and how has our past and or cultural experience influenced what we see.
You ever heard of Phantom Limb?Phantom limb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Phantom limb (disambiguation).
<table class="infobox" style="" cellspacing="5"> <tbody><tr> <th colspan="2" class="" style="text-align: center; font-size: 125%; font-weight: bold; background-color: lightgrey;">Phantom limb</th> </tr> <tr class=""> <td colspan="2" class="" style="text-align: center;">Classification and external resources</td> </tr> <tr class=""> <th scope="row" style="text-align: left;">ICD-10</th> <td class="" style="">G54.6-G54.7</td> </tr> <tr class=""> <th scope="row" style="text-align: left;">ICD-9</th> <td class="" style="">353.6</td> </tr> <tr class=""> <th scope="row" style="text-align: left;">DiseasesDB</th> <td class="" style="">29431</td> </tr> <tr class=""> <th scope="row" style="text-align: left;">MeSH</th> <td class="" style="">D010591</td> </tr> </tbody></table> A phantom limb is the sensation that an amputated or missing limb (even an organ, like the appendix) is still attached to the body and is moving appropriately with other body parts.<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference">[3]</sup> Approximately 60 to 80% of individuals with an amputation experience phantom sensations in their amputated limb, and the majority of the sensations are painful.<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference">[4]</sup> Phantom sensations may also occur after the removal of body parts other than the limbs, e.g. after amputation of the breast, extraction of a tooth (phantom tooth pain) or removal of an eye (phantom eye syndrome). The missing limb often feels shorter and may feel as if it is in a distorted and painful position. Occasionally, the pain can be made worse by stress, anxiety, and weather changes. Phantom limb pain is usually intermittent. The frequency and intensity of attacks usually decline with time.<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference">[5]</sup>
A slightly different sensation known as phantom pains can also occur in people who are born without limbs and people who are paralyzed.<sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference">[6]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference">[7]</sup> Phantom pains occur when nerves that would normally innervate the missing limb cause pain. It is often described as a burning or similarly strange sensation and can be extremely agonizing for some people, but the exact sensation differs widely for individuals. Other induced sensations include warmth, cold, itching, squeezing, tightness, and tingling (Ramachandran & Blakeslee 1998; Ramachandran & Hirstein 1998).
<table id="toc" class="toc"> <tbody><tr> <td> Contents

[hide]

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> [edit] Clinical description

Although not all phantom limbs are painful, patients will sometimes feel as if they are gesturing, feel itches, twitch, or even try to pick things up. For example, Ramachandran and Blakeslee describe that some people's representations of their limbs do not actually match what they should be, for example, one patient reported that her phantom arm was about "6 inches too short" (Ramachandran & Blakeslee 1998).
Some people with phantom limbs find that the limb will gesticulate as they talk. (But whether they feel the weight of the phantom limb while gesticulating is unclear). Given the way that the hands and arms are represented on the motor cortex and language centers, this is not surprising. Some people find that their phantom limb feels and behaves as though it were still there; others find that it begins to take on a life of its own, and does not obey their commands.
I placed a coffee cup in front of John and asked him to grab it [with his phantom limb]. Just as he said he was reaching out, I yanked the cup away.
"Ow!" he yelled. "Don't do that!"
"What's the matter?"
"Don't do that", he repeated. "I had just got my fingers around the cup handle when you pulled it. That really hurts!"
Hold on a minute. I wrench a real cup from phantom fingers and the person yells, ouch! The fingers were illusory, but the pain was real - indeed, so intense that I dared not repeat the experiment.
– <cite>Ramachandran, Phantoms in the Brain, p. 43. (Ramachandran & Blakeslee 1998)</cite>​
[edit] Neurological basis


The fact that the representation of the face lies adjacent to the representation of the hand and arm in the cortical homunculus is crucial to explaining the origin of phantom limbs.


Until recently, the dominant theory for cause of phantom limbs was irritation in the severed nerve endings (called "neuromas"). When a limb is amputated, many severed nerve endings are terminated at the residual limb. These nerve endings can become inflamed, and were thought to send anomalous signals to the brain. These signals, being functionally nonsense, were thought to be interpreted by the brain as pain.
Treatments based on this theory were generally failures. In extreme cases, surgeons would perform a second amputation, shortening the stump, with the hope of removing the inflamed nerve endings and causing temporary relief from the phantom pain. But instead, the patients' phantom pains increased, and many were left with the sensation of both the original phantom limb, as well as a new phantom stump, with a pain all its own (Ramachandran & Blakeslee 1998). In some cases, surgeons even cut the sensory nerves leading into the spinal cord or in extreme cases, even removed the part of the thalamus that receives sensory signals from the body.
In the early 1990s, Tim Pons, at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), showed that the brain can reorganize if sensory input is cut off (Pons et al. 1991). Hearing about these results, V. S. Ramachandran realized that phantom limb sensations could be due to "crosswiring" in the somatosensory cortex, which is located in the postcentral gyrus (Ramachandran & Blakeslee 1998; Ramachandran & Hirstein 1998), and which receives input from the limbs and body. Input from the left side of the body goes to the right hemisphere and vice versa. The input from extremities comes into the somatosensory cortex in an ordered way, the representation of which is referred to as the somatosensory homonculus. Input from the hand is located next to the input from the arm, input from the foot is located next to input from the hand, and so on. One oddity is input from the face is located next to input from the hand.
Ramachandran reasoned that if someone were to lose their right hand in an accident, they may then have the feelings of a phantom limb because the input that normally would go from their hand to the left somatosensory cortex would be stopped. The areas in the somatosensory cortex that are near to the ones of the hand (the arm and face) will take over (or "remap") this cortical region that no longer has input. Ramachandran and colleagues first demonstrated this remapping by showing that stroking different parts of the face led to perceptions of being touched on different parts of the missing limb (Ramachandran, Rogers-Ramachandran & Stewart 1992). Through magnetoencephalography (MEG), which permits visualization of activity in the human brain (Yang et al. 1994), Ramachandran verified the reorganization in the somatosensory cortex.
[edit] Treatment

Some treatments include drugs such as antidepressants. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can be effective treatment for phantom pain. An electrical stimulator is implanted under the skin, and an electrode is placed next to the spinal cord. The nerve pathways in the spinal cord are stimulated by an electric current. This interferes with the impulses travelling towards the brain and lessens the pain felt in the phantom limb (Melzack 1992). Instead, amputees feel a tingling sensation in the phantom limb.
Vibration therapy, acupuncture, hypnosis, and biofeedback may all be used to treat phantom pain but are often of little help. The pain can sometimes be helped by keeping busy and focusing attention on something else. Massaging the stump can sometimes help.
For planned amputation, phantom pain can be reduced by preoperative pain management, effective control of pain by analgesic or neuroleptic is required. The brain seems to implant the sensations from the preoperative state.
One particularly novel treatment for phantom limb pain is the mirror box developed by Vilayanur Ramachandran and colleagues (Ramachandran, Rogers-Ramachandran & Cobb 1995). Through the use of artificial visual feedback it becomes possible for the patient to "move" the phantom limb, and to unclench it from potentially painful positions. Repeated training in some subjects has led to long-term improvement, and in one exceptional case, even to the complete elimination of the phantom limb between the hand and the shoulder (so that the phantom hand was dangling from the shoulder).
The success of the mirror method inspired a team of researchers at the University of Manchester in England to experiment a technology of "immersive virtual reality" to combat the discomfort caused by phantom limb syndrome.<sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference">[8]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference">[9]</sup> The researchers reported that phantom limb pain can be relieved by attaching the sufferer's real limb to an interface that allows them to see two limbs moving in a computer-generated simulation. This works on the same principle as the mirror box technique in that the somatosensory cortex is being 'tricked', except that the computer created illusion is thought to be stronger. Another virtual reality research was reported in 2009.<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference">[10]</sup>
 
Heres an excellent clip that shows your brain makes the decision 6 seconds before your "mind" thinks it does.
In this experiment the person running the experiment is concious of what the subject is going to do 6 seconds before the subject is............


In this example technology is used to "read" your decision before your concious mind is aware of it.
 
The topic of synthetic intellect often makes me wonder .....
Given the vastness of space and time, two almost unimaginably long axis, that are the physical universe, Machine or Synthetic Intellegence is far better suited to that environment, than the mayfly spans of biological intellect.
When you mix that environment with the survival of the fittest adage, SI seems to be the more likely candidate to be the dominant form.
Which then makes me wonder how would such beings procreate ?
Simply making a copy of oneself would be akin to having a conversation with a mirror.
One way might be to recreate the circumstances of its/their creation. ie start with a biological species and have it (as we are now doing) create SI in its own image, thus the new SI would take on the mental "flavour" of its biological progenitors.
You might want to tweak the biological factory workers genetically for traits necessary for the task, and even seed them with physical technology to help them, but apart from that stay hidden so's not to directly influence the mental signiture of the SI under construction.
In this way a society of Machine intellects could create new members and grow.
It may be we are just the factory workers and not the finished product being created here
Heres a different perspective from Dr. Robert Lanza. This is one aspect of his theory.
 
Hopefully I haven't been misread too badly. I do agree with a lot of McKenna’s ideas, as well as Jung's ideas on group mind. I have been discussing this with others as it relates to the old Carlos Castaneda’s books about Don Juan, and his ideas that our minds have "agreed" on how reality should look. If we see something that does not fit with our learned reality, then our minds change it to accommodate our preconceived ideas. With this said, I do find too much evidence to suggest that the UFO phenomena is only the result of this kind of creative reality. I would bet the farm that there is a physical phenomena that occurs with a percent of UFO sightings, and this means that this physical event comes from somewhere, either from our own world, or from another, (and by world, I mean dimensional world, as the multi dimension issue in physics deals with such small dimensions as to be unrelated to a physical event that we can see with our eyes). I think that it is very logical to suggest that we are being visited from another planet/star system.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
This might interest you. I think the full version is available as well.World Science Festival Video : Why Extra Dimensions Make Sense
 
I apologize for not rebounding to your post sooner. At the time I was embroiled in social intercourse. That is unfortunate that your brother could not live long enough to realize his dream. I find that life is just filled with ironies.
Interesting story about longevity. My brother, Wallace Herbert Steinberg, was written up in something called Longevity magazine in the 1990s, explaining why he wanted to live forever. He died not long after that at the age of 62.

That put a crimp in family's style, since most of my immediate relatives had long lives. My late grandfather hung out till his 90s, though it wasn't in terribly good shape by then. But that was decades ago, so I hope the gene pool is better now. :)
 
Heres an excellent clip that shows your brain makes the decision 6 seconds before your "mind" thinks it does. In this experiment the person running the experiment is concious of what the subject is going to do 6 seconds before the subject is............
In that video, I wonder what that tomography-scanner would show for brain activity if the guy would first get ready to press the right button, quickly change his mind, and press the left button. Or conciously decide, ahead of time, to always be pressing the button opposite to the one he's going to decide to press while interacting with the scanner; ie. 'remap'; press right while thinking left and vice-versa.
Furthermore, I believe this line of thought; ie., that all thought is due solely to neuron activity, is inconsistent with quantum physics' requirement for a concious observer to be present to collapse the quantum wave function into 'reality'. Do not forget the neurons inside the brain are, themselves, just as much in an 'unreal' quantum wave state until an outside observer is present to collapse them into reality. The question becomes, who is that observer; other neurons, or you?
 
S.R.L Thanks for the link, and I have attempted to work through the papers on extra dimensions as it relates to string theory. If you all ever get an urge to toast your brains, there is a good paper written by Juan Maldacena from Harvard: Large N field Theories, String Theory and Gravity by Juan Maldacena Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge USA Lectures given at the Spring School on Superstrings and Related Matters, Trieste, 2-10 April 2001 LNS027001. I was able to digest some of this, but it will take some time spent reviewing every bit of mathematics I took in college to understand half of it. The question I have on extra dimensions when related to the topics we discuss on this site, is their usefulness. In Physical Review Letters, there is a statement that says: “Researchers found that the same law governing the gravitational pull between planets continues to work when objects are separated by as little as 56 micrometers. The finding rules out extra dimensions of 44 micrometers or larger, they report in this week's Physical Review Letters. This seems to rule out the idea of life forms that we could recognize originating from this source. Interesting stuff. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
 
Heres a different perspective from Dr. Robert Lanza. This is one aspect of his theory.
I find all points presented in the 'Biocentric Universe' theory video logically consistent. Interesting.

---------- Post added at 01:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 PM ----------

“Researchers found that the same law governing the gravitational pull between planets continues to work when objects are separated by as little as 56 micrometers. The finding rules out extra dimensions of 44 micrometers or larger, they report in this week's Physical Review Letters”. This seems to rule out the idea of life forms that we could recognize originating from this source.
The dimensions suggested by string theory are on a far (really far) smaller scale than micrometers.
 
Not necessarily, there are experiments using Buckey Balls (large carbon molecules), and crystals suggesting that this weirdness can occur up to ½ inch. There is a new experiment in the works called Scaled Up Quantum Super Position which may show the weirdness occurring at the level of tables and chairs.
I find all points presented in the 'Biocentric Universe' theory video logically consistent. Interesting.

---------- Post added at 01:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 PM ----------


The dimensions suggested by string theory are on a far (really far) smaller scale than micrometers.
 
Soft bread: Thanks, and yes, the string implied by most of the hypothesis is very small, close to the plank limit. The statement in Physical review relates to gravitational effects. Of course when one deals with gravity, we still have no idea what it is. Newton gave us the laws, (inverse square, and gravitational constant, etc), but we still do not know where or how the force is propagated. The whole reason, (or most of the reason) for CERN is to find the Higgs particle which most experimental evidence says that it has to be there. It would be quite a surprise if it was not found. But I digress.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
 
Heres an excellent clip that shows your brain makes the decision 6 seconds before your "mind" thinks it does. In this experiment the person running the experiment is concious of what the subject is going to do 6 seconds before the subject is............

This is an excellent example that demonstrates pretty conclusively that we do not directly experience the real world at all. Clearly, what we experience as the world and ourselves in it (including our thoughts) is actually a brain/mind system 3D virtual reality simulation occurring at a very different time and a very different physical location than the real world it presents itself to be! The real self and world and the experienced self and world for all practical purposes exist in two separate dimensions, realms, places or however you care to label it. What are the implications of this?
 
Sorry. I am very dyslexic. The only way I got through college and Eng 121 and 122 was with spell check and a very kind proof reader. Feel free to change my name around. pb
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ----------

Good clip and this brings up an even more problematic question. Do we have free will? If we are not making a decision with our conscious mind, then does free will exist?
 
This is an excellent example that demonstrates pretty conclusively that we do not directly experience the real world at all. Clearly, what we experience as the world and ourselves in it (including our thoughts) is actually a brain/mind system 3D virtual reality simulation occurring at a very different time and a very different physical location than the real world it presents itself to be! The real self and world and the experienced self and world for all practical purposes exist in two separate dimensions, realms, places or however you care to label it. What are the implications of this?

Another example of this is sight. our eyes actually only "see" an area the size of your thumb held at arms length, so the room you see now is actually a composite assembled in your head of these thumb sized bits.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Our eyes see nothing[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Our eyes don't send images to our brains. Images are constructed in our brains based on very simple signals sent from our eyes.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The nerve signals from our eyes are still the subject of much study, and mostly represent edges, shapes and motion. They do not send images. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Seeing" is a very complex higher-order brain function, and a huge percentage of our brains (the largest, in fact, of any brain function) is required for doing nothing other than recognize what's in front of us.[/FONT]​

As that experiment shows our subconcious mind makes the decisions, not our concious mind.
Our concious mind is the last to know, but it takes credit for it anyway
In this sense free will at the concious level (which is where most ppl assume it resides) is an illusion

a simplistic analogy would be the graphics you see in the windows media player when listening to a podcast, the graphical images are reflections of the data from the mp3 file, change the data and you change the graphic reflection above.
The human mind is the same.
We are at a base level programable life forms, a baby raised in china grows up speaking chinese and using chopsticks to eat, a child raised in the west speaks english and uses a knife and fork.
The mind is a reflection of the programmed data, change the data and you change the mind.

as quoted above the eye doesnt send images it sends signals, if you could use technology to impose new signals over the ones being sent from the eye, you could control what someone sees, make them "see" something that isnt there
This new data would be stored as memory and ultimatly make its way up to the "mind" level.

As many of the articles ive quoted have said, the implications for humanity and indeed what it is to be human are profound. free will and sovereignty of self are no longer absolutes
 
Back
Top