Merged Ideomotor Effect and the Subconscious / Beyond the Ideomotor Effect

[Navigator]

Assuming it was a rodent.

Sure. Not a lot of other options as to what it was. My guess is that it was a rat. But really the point isn;t so much what was making the noise.

It's not a question of assigning superstition, but a question of magical (superstitious) thinking - e.g. accepting that your subconscious (or whatever you think you were communicating with) inexplicably stopped a rodent making a noise under the floorboards at your request.

We didn't request it so much as agree with it.

Nonetheless, that is how it happened.

How is your 'whole life experience to date' relevant to my sample explanations?

That is for me to know and you to never really know.

Are you suggesting these were just two more of many unusual events in your life that you find quite inexplicable by conventional means?

It isn't that I find them inexplicable. How and why it was able to happen has been explained to me and the explanation is reasonable in relation to the events. It is not supernatural, paranormal, superstition, god(s) or aliens or whatever.
It is not necessary for me to believe or doubt the explanation, but to simply accept it as possible...which I do.

There is no convention but the ones in your mind.

or that your whole life experience leads you to reject mundane explanations, or explanations that imply you have the same human fallibilities as everyone else?

I listen to all explanations. Some are less convincing than others. Your explanations are extremely unconvincing because they overlook what I have said in favor of you implying I must be at least, misreporting the event. I accept that you have you own reasons for wanting the explanations to be as you believe they are and I accept that you were not there to witness the events.
You use of the expression "same human fallibilities as everyone else" is not even why I am rejecting your explanations.

I can well understand your feeling either or both the above, but if not them, what?

I have one more event to share, but you and I both know that it is really just sharing hear-say and it is not about showing evidence or convincing the skeptical.

We both know that we are simply 2 individuals who would react differently to the same events anyway. As I have said, How I approached this whole process was not for purposes of entertainment or 'magic'.

As to you question 'what' (as an explanation) there is none which can be empirically understood, because those who think they understand the mind, are not altogether on the right track.

But that is another story, and one unlikely to be told through the pages of academia.

So you know...all those individuals who reject the explanation of 'human fallibility' attached to unusual events in their personal experience of life, because the explanations themselves have a lot of holes in them...good luck with that. Not saying that every case of explanation should be rejected , but I am very confident that in my case, yes they should be.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
I listen to all explanations. Some are less convincing than others. ...

And all of them are less convincing by default, to you, than your solidified belief

 

[steenkh]

Are you your parents? No? Yet you are a product of your parents.



Your brain - like your parents - is a separate thing. A seed is not the same as the thing it helps produce.



That is why you are not your heart or your big toe. There is no argument that you are consciousness experiencing life through the form of a human. But you are not the form, or any particular aspect of the form. You are consciousness.

You will not convince anybody with flawed analogies. If your brain is damaged, your consciousness is also damaged, and your personality can be altered completely. The same is not happening to you if your parents are ill or die, and a seed is just fine, even if it's mother flower is killed.

 

[dlorde]

Nonetheless, that is how it happened.

I'm not disputing the story, I'm just suggesting that there are simple and plausible explanations that are consistent with what we know, from empirical evidence, of how our minds process such information.

That is for me to know and you to never really know.

So you find the explanations unconvincing for reasons you're not prepared to explain... Okay.

Your explanations are extremely unconvincing because they overlook what I have said in favor of you implying I must be at least, misreporting the event.

Doesn't quite jibe with what you said earlier ("I am definitely unconvinced at your sample explanations. But not because of these 2 incidental events."), but meh... I think you may have misinterpreted the events, but if you quote where you think I've implied you're misreporting them, I can try to explain what I meant.

Having said that, there's a raft of research into eyewitness reports that indicate they can be surprisingly unreliable, and that anecdotes tend to change with retelling. It doesn't imply any intent to deceive; so although, for the sake of the discussion, I'm accepting the sequence of events you describe, it's not something I'd rule out.

I accept that you have you own reasons for wanting the explanations to be as you believe they are...

It's just an anecdote, there's no way to know what the explanation is. I'm suggesting ways to account for the events you describe that are consistent with what has been learned from empirical research into how our minds work.

You use of the expression "same human fallibilities as everyone else" is not even why I am rejecting your explanations.

Interesting way to put it...

As to you question 'what' (as an explanation) there is none which can be empirically understood, because those who think they understand the mind, are not altogether on the right track.

So you know better for reasons you can't or won't explain, and/or that can't be 'empirically understood'... got it.

Not saying that every case of explanation should be rejected , but I am very confident that in my case, yes they should be.

Yes, quite; "But my case is different!" is a very common claim (ironically). There's probably a name for it, like 'Special Pleading'

 

[Navigator]

...If your brain is damaged, your consciousness is also damaged, and your personality can be altered completely...

Oh dear.

If anything is damage, anything in relationship to it is not also damaged.

(If a CD player is damaged, this does not mean that CD is also damaged.

If the CD is damaged this does not mean the CD payer is damaged.)

Ones personality might change, but I would expect that in most human beings as they deal with the frustration of brain damage.

This does not conclusively mean that you are your brain. This just means that consciousness works best when brains are not severely damaged.

I have not said otherwise.

 

[Daylightstar]

... consciousness works best when brains are not severely damaged. ...

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
Like:
Cerebral bloodflow works best when brains are not severely damaged.
Cognitive functioning works best when brains are not severely damaged.
Vision works best when brains are not severely damaged, same for the other senses.
Speech works best when brains are not severely damaged.

 

[Navigator]

I'm not disputing the story, I'm just suggesting that there are simple and plausible explanations that are consistent with what we know, from empirical evidence, of how our minds process such information.

Well perhaps more study needs to be done.
That link you gave pointing to scientific 'study' re message boards is a joke

So you find the explanations unconvincing for reasons you're not prepared to explain... Okay.

I have already explained why the explanations you have so far offered are inadequate. I have one final event to share, but the is no reason why I need to share everything (of the not so ordinary nature) with you.

Doesn't quite jibe with what you said earlier ("I am definitely unconvinced at your sample explanations. But not because of these 2 incidental events."), but meh... I think you may have misinterpreted the events, but if you quote where you think I've implied you're misreporting them, I can try to explain what I meant.

I have even clarified the events by adding things I had not thought necessary to mention initially. Nonetheless, if you believe that your explanations fit into what I have described (There are 'a few seconds' where the sub conscious is aware of something before the surface conscious is.) does not explain to me how at least 45 seconds went by, but anyway, your way to explain that is to say that I must be misreporting the event.
But I am not.



Anyway, what happened happened and it isn't about me trying to convince anyone of anything.

Having said that, there's a raft of research into eyewitness reports that indicate they can be surprisingly unreliable, and that anecdotes tend to change with retelling. It doesn't imply any intent to deceive; so although, for the sake of the discussion, I'm accepting the sequence of events you describe, it's not something I'd rule out.

That is funny.



I can tell you now, I don't remember what day or year this happened, or what season, of what the time was or what I had for tea that night, or what I or my partner were wearing, or what the various items in the area of the room the pointer indicated toward were, or the exact content of the communication we were having up to that point, but I do remember that it was night time, and what positions we were sitting in, and then general overall context and associated emotion of the particular communication (which I have mentioned) and how I was feeling and how my partner was reacting and how the mood changed and lightened up as the session was winding down, and - of course - what I described in relation to what happened near the end of that session.

So yes, eye witness accounts can be notoriously inaccurate, but there will be extenuating reasons for these which don;t really have a lot to do with memory faultiness so much as what the individual chooses to prioritize.

What got my attention.

It was something unexpected and humorous. It was not something which didn't happen so fast as to make one wonder what exactly happened, or something which required us to feel pressured to have to remember details clearly because other people could be affected by our retelling of the events.

Neither of these events were anything which require some kind of strenuous questioning on my part. As I said, they were interesting but we regarded them as small examples of what our communicator was capable of - examples which we did not demand in the first place. We just accepted these events in the spirit the were offered. I remember them in that way. Interesting enough under the circumstances. Humorous and just different enough to be important enough to remember and not so cluttered up with any distractions. Just my partner and myself, not outside noises (we were in the country) no radio of TV or stereo. Just a quiet evening doing what we normally did. We used to have a communication in the morning at breakfast and at night before bed.

It's just an anecdote, there's no way to know what the explanation is. I'm suggesting ways to account for the events you describe that are consistent with what has been learned from empirical research into how our minds work.

Well I have my own theories. No I don;t have to share those with you. Besides which, other posts in this forum from me adequately show where I stand in relation to theism, atheism, paranormal, superstition, god ideas, consciousness, and ideas of life after death of the body.

Interesting way to put it...


So you know better for reasons you can't or won't explain, and/or that can't be 'empirically understood'... got it.

No. You don;t 'got it'. (But that is understandable). Those scientists you linked me to with their experiments with the Ouija board can;t get it. (You didn't reply to my post where I made suggestions on how they could approve their approach to this) but daylightstar did and in that expressed the attitude down pat as to why you don;t 'got it.' You will never get it. But that is alright. I get it.

Yes, quite; "But my case is different!" is a very common claim (ironically). There's probably a name for it, like 'Special Pleading'

That is subjectivity for ya. even group subjectivity cannot get around that. It is the nature of individual life experiences. I have no reason to believe or doubt. I approached the use of message boards thinking maybe I could get some answers. I got some answers, but not because I believed I would and the answers I got did not necessarily align with the beliefs I did have at that point and challenged a lot of the beliefs.

But answers are just that. Answers. They may or may not be true, and I have no reason to believe or to doubt.

No special pleading in that. No more than the special pleading you are offering in your 'empirical evidence.' 'Oh the evidence strongly suggests' therefore 'the interpretations of said evidence must be correct'...or as you say of ‘all evidence points to this (conclusion) as being most likely the case.'

Ultimately what does it matter?

Skepticism is a good thing to have. I value it. Same with critical thinking. I don;t make the mistake of buying into one belief or the other because I am skeptical and think critically and thus have to apply those things to all beliefs.

No special pleading in that. My life and my experiences are not something that can be explained away by those who have not experienced my life and experiences.

But I think we can at least both agree that this conversation between us can only ever remain circular.

 

[abaddon]

<snip>
But I think we can at least both agree that this conversation between us can only ever remain circular.

But you want it to remain circular for that is the only means by which you can maintain your unsupported position.

 

[steenkh]

Oh dear.



If anything is damage, anything in relationship to it is not also damaged.



(If a CD player is damaged, this does not mean that CD is also damaged.



If the CD is damaged this does not mean the CD payer is damaged.)

These relationships are just as irrelevant as your earlier examples of plants and seeds.

Ones personality might change, but I would expect that in most human beings as they deal with the frustration of brain damage.

So you think that the personality changes caused by say, a frontal lobotomy, is purely a case of frustration?

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Ultimately what does it matter?
...

Why then do you display a strong need to publicly proclaim your beliefs?
What does it matter?

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Skepticism is a good thing to have. I value it. Same with critical thinking. I don;t make the mistake of buying into one belief or the other because I am skeptical and think critically and thus have to apply those things to all beliefs.
...

You're 'buying into' one belief and the other because you evidently lean strongly towards irrationality.
Skepticism and/or critical thinking do not apply to your beliefs or the way you approach them, that much is painfully clear.

...
No special pleading in that. ...

It is special pleading when you reject science as a tool to evaluate that which you claim to experience.

 

[dlorde]

...Nonetheless, if you believe that your explanations fit into what I have described (There are 'a few seconds' where the sub conscious is aware of something before the surface conscious is.) does not explain to me how at least 45 seconds went by...

You must have missed the part in post #838 where I said:

The majority of subconscious sensations never reach conscious awareness at all. I think you underestimate the effect of selective attention on conscious awareness of all kinds of sensory input. For example, even quite severe injuries can go unnoticed by conscious awareness for many minutes if it is strongly preoccupied; and most people have cut themselves at some time and only realised later when they saw the blood, at which point they suddenly felt the pain.

... your way to explain that is to say that I must be misreporting the event.

Once again, where did I say that? It's quite possible that your recollection is inaccurate, but there's no way to tell without a contemporary recording of the events.

But I am not.

That's what many eyewitnesses say before they're shown to be mistaken. I don't know what really happened, so for the purposes of the discussion, I accept the events as reported. I just think you misinterpreted them.

So yes, eye witness accounts can be notoriously inaccurate, but there will be extenuating reasons for these which don;t really have a lot to do with memory faultiness so much as what the individual chooses to prioritize.

People generally notice and remember only what their attention is focused on anyway; it's the way those autobiographical experiences are processed and stored as memory and then subsequently reconstructed that is inherently unreliable.

For example:
List of Memory Biases
How Much of Your Memory is True?
Memory Distortion & Invention
False Autobiographical Memories
Seven Sins of Memory
The Memory Doctor

Besides which, other posts in this forum from me adequately show where I stand in relation to theism, atheism, paranormal, superstition, god ideas, consciousness, and ideas of life after death of the body.

How is this relevant to your story?

No more than the special pleading you are offering in your 'empirical evidence.' 'Oh the evidence strongly suggests' therefore 'the interpretations of said evidence must be correct'...or as you say of ‘all evidence points to this (conclusion) as being most likely the case.'

Not only is that not what special pleading means (I already corrected you on that in post #480), but more importantly, it's not what I said. If you want to quote me, quote what I actually posted; don't put words in my mouth, it's misrepresentation.

My life and my experiences are not something that can be explained away by those who have not experienced my life and experiences.

Nobody's trying to 'explain away' your life and experiences. I'm pointing out alternative interpretations of your experiences that are consistent with a large body of empirical knowledge.

I think we can at least both agree that this conversation between us can only ever remain circular.

It's unlikely to progress if you continue inventing quotes for me.

'Fake straw herring' -> misrepresentation of a someone's position by false attribution as a distraction or for lack of coherent argument against the position as actually stated.

 

[Navigator]

You must have missed the part where I said:

Once again, you are mixing and matching. I am speaking about the sense of smell and in a situation where we were free from those kinds of distractions which may effect someone from being conscious of wounds.
Sometimes I have cut myself but haven't realized immediately simply because there is no pain.

Once again, where did I say that? It's quite possible that your recollection is inaccurate, but there's no way to tell without a contemporary recording of the events.

And since there isn't, you cannot assume that my recollections are faulty.

That's what many eyewitnesses say before they're shown to be mistaken. I don't know what really happened, so for the purposes of the discussion, I accept the events as reported. I just think you misinterpreted them.

Lets see...you will accept that I did not misreport them, but think that I misinterpreted them.
Where did I give you an interpretation?

People generally notice and remember only what their attention is focused on anyway;

That's what I said.

it's the way those autobiographical experiences are processed and stored as memory and then subsequently reconstructed that is inherently unreliable.

We have been down this line of argument already. The account of these event has not changed in the telling. I tell the same thing to you that I have told to others over the years. It is not exactly a complicated story.

How is this relevant to your story?

I mentioned it only because you brought the word 'superstition' into it. As to why these events are relative to who I am (and what I have to say in relation to this forum and the threads I participate within) who I am has almost everything to do with what I have experience. My life is that story, and events that I have shared in this forum are part of that.

Not only is that not what special pleading means (I already corrected you on that in post #480), but more importantly, it's not what I said. If you want to quote me, quote what I actually posted; don't put words in my mouth, it's misrepresentation.

Oh its a special kind of special pleading. Like claiming a belief is correct because empirical evidence leaves one to conclude their belief is therefore correct, because 'beyond reasonable doubt' is applicable in reaching such conclusion.

Do you not agree that you chose to believe that the death of the brain is the end of your conscious self, because you interpret the empirical evidence to being something which is beyond reasonable doubt?

How then can I misrepresent your position in relation to my own?

Nobody's trying to 'explain away' your life and experiences. I'm pointing out alternative interpretations of your experiences that are consistent with a large body of empirical knowledge.

Explain away. You forget that empirical evidence is subject to interpretation.

It's unlikely to progress if you continue inventing quotes for me.

Let me see now...special pleading.

I am not misrepresenting your position. I am not quoting you. I am paraphrasing. it is no biggy delorde. I have not veered away from your stated position and subsequent beliefs your position invests in.

'Fake straw herring' -> misrepresentation of a someone's position by false attribution as a distraction or for lack of coherent argument against the position as actually stated.

^What is that about? The chart I attached simply shows how circular argument develops and how discussion develops.

We could discuss the link you gave do with so called scientific process in relation to study of ideomotor and here are my comments regarding the processes these 'scientists' used and the suggestions I made on how they could improve those tests.
I bothered to follow through. You ignored.

"Short sharp 'science'"...that link(used to back argument) is only slightly more scientific than this link I was given in initial interactions I had with forum members of this message board to 'explain scientifically' (and thus show me the error of my interpretations) why the ideomotor effect worked in relation to message boards.

I have done more study into this than the people in either of those links have done. My use of ideomotor has been focused upon self improvement through deep introspection processes involving being honest with one's self. That is one of the most significant aspects of using this process that I have found.
Not exactly something which might be useful in relation to where science in general is leading the human race, but that in itself does not prove it is not of course useful to the individual.

Those events I have mentioned in relation to use of ideomotor and message boards are simply little non explainable things - are not known to have occurred in so called scientific testing and thus are not part of empirical evidence, thus cannot be explained with the empirical evidence so far gleaned from the superficial test already done.

I am happy to include the sub conscious in relation to explanation. It appears (from my experience) that the sub conscious is not just that which scientists explain it to be, 'tis all.

That and as well as the idea that it is not just the sub conscious alone. The subconscious acts as a bridge. (As explained way back in post #41)

 

[Navigator]

Event Three: Sight.

Event Three: Sight.

I had a brief experience which compelled me to place a symbol on the message board which signified 'Sky Art' and had to do with cloud formation in which recognizable patterns could be seen.

The way things evolved in relation to the creation and use of message boards involved the belief that we were interacting with separate entities and any thought regarding the sub conscious in relation to this process was absent at this time.

(That concept did not come along until after I started using the message boards on my own)

During the whole time my partner and I used the message boards we believed we were interacting with various entities, and as the months went by and the communications got more involved, this coincided with a change of understanding in relation to who we were communicating with.

We started off with someone called 'Amy'. She identified as having lived briefly as a human and the communication was extremely difficult to understand.
Within days of trying - and somewhat succeeding in understanding Amy, we discovered that she had a brother we could speak with and he was far more understandable.

Long story short, we went through a range of different communications with various entities and the one we eventually focused upon was one who we affectionately ended up calling 'QueenBee'.

This Entity represented the collective consciousness of all conscious activity on the planet.

Naturally I created a symbol which represent this Entity.

On fine day (date unknown) my partner and I were visiting her sister and partner down on their land, and during this time I happened to look up at the sky and said "Wow!" at what i saw.

My partner then looked up to see what it was that I was exclaiming about and said "QueenBee!".

The reason for these reactions was because what we were seeing was a huge cloud formation - in fact the only one in the sky - and this formation was absolutely clearly and unquestionably a copy of the symbol I had created and placed on my message boards, signifying "QueenBee."

The type of cloud was that type which does not rapidly change - it remains the same for a long time (in comparison with usual cloud formation) and was wispy, (like this) rather than thick and full.

Understanding QueenBee as we had come to know her through our communications with her, we were not altogether surprised that something like this could happen - on both those other events (Post #746 & 783) I have mentioned in this thread, we were also speaking with her at the time.

While not being surprised, we were still always very impressed.

Those impressions go a long way to explaining why - while I think human science is not to be scoffed at, its approach towards investigating such things is wanting and somewhat limited. It travels its own course, for better or worse.

Individuals on the other hand have a better chance of delving into such things and discovering answers to the questions which human science (in its present incarnation) is unable/unwilling to examine.

So, in relation to Event Three and the sub conscious, how did the subconscious manage to recreate an immediately identifiable symbol I had created to represent the collective consciousness of all things conscious on earth, by using cloud as the 'paint' and sky as the 'canvas'? - Because if the explanation is going to be 'it was coincidence' I have no option but to laugh.

If the explanation is that we somehow created this image but it wasn't really there - it was 'all in the mind' due to our 'expectations', I will have to laugh.

What this event, and the other two events I have already mentioned (and many more events which I have not mentioned or have not mentioned in this thread) tell me is that we don't really know what it is we are really involved within.

We assume a lot. We believe a lot. We know so very little.

Because, while I can definitely say that the sub conscious is involved, it is not the primary source of everything which we experience, be they the mundane, the exceptional, OOBEs, NDEs, strange 'hallucinations' such as the ones I shared in this post, so called 'coincidences' such as serendipity/synchronicity, and dozens of other incidences which cannot and have not all been explained away be scientific means.

No, I am not my brain and my brain did not create images in the sky in order to somehow impress its self of its 'god-like' abilities to fool itself.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
We assume a lot. We believe a lot. We know so very little.
...

You assume a lot, you believe so much but you provide nothing substantial. Just anecdotes and implausibly suggestive opinions.

It's all useless, Navigator.

What does all of it matter?

...
Ultimately what does it matter?
...

Why then do you display a strong need to publicly proclaim your beliefs?
What does it matter?

 

[Daylightstar]

...
No, I am not my brain ...

You are what your brain brings forth. Nothing else.

...
... and my brain did not create images in the sky in order to somehow impress its self of its 'god-like' abilities to fool itself.

Your brain creates strong beliefs, which solidify as apparent hard wiring.

 

[dlorde]

...how did the subconscious manage to recreate an immediately identifiable symbol I had created to represent the collective consciousness of all things conscious on earth, by using cloud as the 'paint' and sky as the 'canvas'?

Pareidolia.

 

[dlorde]

Once again, you are mixing and matching. I am speaking about the sense of smell and in a situation where we were free from those kinds of distractions which may effect someone from being conscious of wounds.

It was just a more familiar example of a long delay between subconscious sensation and conscious perceptual awareness.

And since there isn't, you cannot assume that my recollections are faulty.

I've told you more than once that I'm not assuming they're faulty, although it's quite possible they are. My interpretation is based on the events you reported.

Where did I give you an interpretation?

Pretty much everything bar the plain sequence of events is interpretation; just for example, you said interpretation was 'necessary for many reasons'; your belief confidence that, in your case, human fallibility can be rejected as an explanation; your belief opinion that the events are 'not so easily dismissed as coincidence', etc.

The account of these event has not changed in the telling. I tell the same thing to you that I have told to others over the years. It is not exactly a complicated story.

There's no way you can be sure of that without a contemporary record. You may find it difficult to accept, but the studies (some links provided earlier) show that even simple stories are likely to change, and the more they are told the more they change.

Oh its a special kind of special pleading.

No. No, it isn't. You don't get to redefine the term to suit yourself.

Like claiming a belief is correct because empirical evidence leaves one to conclude their belief is therefore correct, because 'beyond reasonable doubt' is applicable in reaching such conclusion.

No. If someone claimed that it wouldn't be special pleading; you need to read the definition again. The claim is, in any case, incoherent.

Do you not agree that you chose to believe that the death of the brain is the end of your conscious self, because you interpret the empirical evidence to being something which is beyond reasonable doubt?

I think that the empirical evidence indicates, beyond reasonable doubt, that the death of the brain is the end of your conscious self. As ever, that view is provisional; however, I'm not anticipating evidence to the contrary.

How then can I misrepresent your position in relation to my own?

You misrepresent me by posting statements in quotation marks, that you represent as my view or explicitly claim I said; e.g "as you say of ‘all evidence points to this (conclusion) as being most likely the case.'"

Let me see now...special pleading.

Er, no. Wrong again.

I am not misrepresenting your position. I am not quoting you. I am paraphrasing. it is no biggy delorde. I have not veered away from your stated position and subsequent beliefs your position invests in.

The evidence is there in your post. Statements in quotation marks you attribute to me and which I didn't say.

^What is that about? The chart I attached simply shows how circular argument develops and how discussion develops.

I haven't referred to the chart. 'Fake straw herring' was an obvious reference to your misrepresentation.

We could discuss the link you gave do with so called scientific process in relation to study of ideomotor and here are my comments regarding the processes these 'scientists' used and the suggestions I made on how they could improve those tests.
I bothered to follow through. You ignored.

What do you expect me to do about it? they're looking for a better device, and your suggestions might or might not be helpful. Don't tell me, tell them.

I have done more study into this than the people in either of those links have done.

It doesn't matter how long you spend if the methodology is flawed and the results unverifiable. Those links are just a few samples of a large body of research that has been in progress far longer that your 'study'.

That and as well as the idea that it is not just the sub conscious alone. The subconscious acts as a bridge. (As explained way back in post #41)

More interpretation.

So, from your posts, either you're a very special person - one not subject to human fallibility in the memory and recall of personal anecdotes, one whose experiences are too special to be just coincidence, and one who, through ad-hoc introspection, knows the workings of the mind better than the thousands of researchers who've been studying it carefully since before he was born.

Or you're not...

I'll leave the other members to judge for themselves.

 

[steenkh]

The reason for these reactions was because what we were seeing was a huge cloud formation - in fact the only one in the sky - and this formation was absolutely clearly and unquestionably a copy of the symbol I had created and placed on my message boards, signifying "QueenBee."

Am I the only one here who thinks that Navigator is having us on? It seems more and more like a big joke!

Those impressions go a long way to explaining why - while I think human science is not to be scoffed at, its approach towards investigating such things is wanting and somewhat limited. It travels its own course, for better or worse.

Actually, you are scoffing at science at every stage.

Individuals on the other hand have a better chance of delving into such things and discovering answers to the questions which human science (in its present incarnation) is unable/unwilling to examine.

No.

And the reason why has been explained to you over and over.

So, in relation to Event Three and the sub conscious, how did the subconscious manage to recreate an immediately identifiable symbol I had created to represent the collective consciousness of all things conscious on earth, by using cloud as the 'paint' and sky as the 'canvas'?

In the beginning you were claiming that you were only communicating with your own subconsciousness, and now you are communicating with "Amy" and "Queen Bee" representing the entire universe!

Read up on pareidolia. It is the tendency to see patterns that are not there. You did not even see the Queen Bee cloud right after designing the Queen Bee pattern, but later. That means you can have seen hundreds of random cloud patterns, but you reacted when one of them happened to look like your Queen Bee design.

- Because if the explanation is going to be 'it was coincidence' I have no option but to laugh.

Then laugh. It fits perfectly with your refusal to understand the real world and preference to live in a fantasy world.

We assume a lot. We believe a lot. We know so very little.

Empty claims. Actually, we know a lot, but you just prefer to ignore it.

Because, while I can definitely say that the sub conscious is involved, it is not the primary source of everything which we experience, be they the mundane, the exceptional, OOBEs, NDEs, strange 'hallucinations' such as the ones I shared in this post, so called 'coincidences' such as serendipity/synchronicity, and dozens of other incidences which cannot and have not all been explained away be scientific means.

At this stage one has to ask: is there anything paranormal that you do not believe in? And if yes, why not?

No, I am not my brain and my brain did not create images in the sky in order to somehow impress its self of its 'god-like' abilities to fool itself.

And to hell with all the evidence!

 

[abaddon]

Am I the only one here who thinks that Navigator is having us on? It seems more and more like a big joke!

No. No you are not.

Actually, you are scoffing at science at every stage.

Yup.

No.

And the reason why has been explained to you over and over.

And ignored.

In the beginning you were claiming that you were only communicating with your own subconsciousness, and now you are communicating with "Amy" and "Queen Bee" representing the entire universe!

Yup. This is the point where we all took a step over the cliff of the rational to crash heavily on the jagged rocks of WTF?

Read up on pareidolia. It is the tendency to see patterns that are not there. You did not even see the Queen Bee cloud right after designing the Queen Bee pattern, but later. That means you can have seen hundreds of random cloud patterns, but you reacted when one of them happened to look like your Queen Bee design.

When you are down to seeing bunnies in clouds as symbols of a global subconscious, it is time for some serious introspection and self examination.

Then laugh. It fits perfectly with your refusal to understand the real world and preference to live in a fantasy world.

"Amy"? "Amy's brother"? "QueenBee"? Assorted other unidentified entities? Cloud bunnies? Definitely not fantasy. Couldn't possibly be.

Empty claims. Actually, we know a lot, but you just prefer to ignore it.

Indeed.

At this stage one has to ask: is there anything paranormal that you do not believe in? And if yes, why not?

And to hell with all the evidence!

I believe this incipient train wreck is approaching the stop where I get off.