whats the name of the psychiatrist that proved the subcouncious see the future

[raaaid]

he would put a electroencefalograma to the subjects show some pictures and notice the results

amazingly the brain reacted to the pictures before the person actually saw them

this experiment is quite famuous, does anybody know who did it so i can research?

[Pirschjaeger]

I've never heard of this but it sounds like something from Russian reseach reports.

Got anymore details?

Fritz

[danjama]

quit playing with his mind fritz we all know it was yuo

[Pirschjaeger]

Interestingly, I saw your avatar and sig before I opened this thread Dan. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Fritz

[Capt.LoneRanger]

I'm pretty sure it was Baron von Münchhausen.

There is also a slight probability I mix him up with David Copperfield.

Honestly, Raaaid, no scientist has EVER prooven that.
I have no doubt that there are things between heaven and earth that is not explainable with the science we know, but nothing in this area has been documented as proof.
The US and Sovjet Union had many scientists working on it during the cold war era, though, and many claimed to have a scientific approach to the area. I know several of these reports and infact they all showed a success rate of about 33-40% of precognition under given circumstances!
Incredible, yes, but statistically most of these tests showed a success-rate of 50% when depending on pure luck....

[Pirschjaeger]

Hi Raaaid,

no doubt what you are referring to was either Dr. Kornhuber's findings(1976) or Dr. Libet's findings(1979).

Details (http://www.viewzone.com/future/index.html)

You guys really should give Raaaid a little more credit. Think back to his firsts posts and his recent posts. A world of difference.

Might be an interesting thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Fritz

[raaaid]

thanks a lot exactly what i was looking for

[Pirschjaeger]

Raaaid,

I've often thought that all life is one and although consciously we can't see it, subconsciously we can interact and draw on its resources. I believe that nature is a kind of collective and just as cells make up the organism, each unit of life makes up a natural cognitive that our subconscious can interact with. A simple example might be a school of fish or a flock of birds. They seem to move as one. Even when filmed with a highspeed camera, then watched in slow motion, there's no indication of physical communication.

The experiments you are asking about can be seen as being supportive of my idea.

What do you think?

Fritz

[raaaid]

if you are the one it would be cool all being the same but if you are just a cell...

im more individualist the cells im made of are not me but other individuals which live in comunity

i like the promasonic thinking that each single person is a potential god

we dont have to unite to be all together a god but we can be one without bonding i like to think

i also think that that quote that you have to kill desire for enlightenment is false desire or love is the fuel of nature

id say in religion there are two sides prounity and proindividuality

the devil would be proindividuality god would be pro unity, of coursse im with the devil

[Pirschjaeger]

Raaaid,

who are you posting to? In the beginning it looks like a response to my question but fades off into somewhere else.

Whose quote?

Fritz

[raaaid]

well i was more thinking aloud

i like to talk 1st thing comes to mi mind, no corses

by quote i meant the known budist quote maybe quote is not the best word

[Pirschjaeger]

Maybe we are all god, but not on an individual level. I tried to think of an argument that would support the idea that each of us has the potential to become a god. The only way I could argue in favor of that would be to give an example of an individual who became a god. That's where I'd fail.

This leads me to think more in terms of us all being part of a "god", or whatever we'd call it. I'd rather use the term nature to refer to such a collective that would have a conscience.

A cell is an individual and they are countable. You are made up of X number of cells. Remove one and you'll never notice. Remove a million and you're likely to say "ow". Remove all of your cells and you cease to exist. So, as insignificant as a cell may seem, it is still part of the collective.

I often think that like the cell, we are almost nothing as an individual in nature. But we are part of nature. Each one of us has the potential to either harm or benefit nature. It is this that makes us significant. But as part of the collective, the individual person cannot cause a ripple in the collective conscience.

In the experiments it was shown that people were physically reacting to the photos before they were seen. Could it be that enough individuals had seen the photos that the information had been somehow uploaded into a collective conscience?

One way to test this idea would be to redo the experiment with new picturesand not only monitor the reactions but also look for variations in the data relative to the number of times the experiment is run. If there turned out to be no variations from the first test to the 1,000th test then we could almost rule out my idea of info being uploaded into a collective conscience.

BTW, I'm lost on the Buddhist thing Raaaid. Maybe you are confusing me with another?

Fritz

[MEGILE]

Originally posted by raaaid:

im more individualist the cells im made of are not me but other individuals which live in comunity



The Eukaryotic cell is so incredibly complex it's like the body is a billion communities, rolled in to 1.

[buzzsaw1939]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Maybe we are all god, but not on an individual level. I tried to think of an argument that would support the idea that each of us has the potential to become a god. The only way I could argue in favor of that would be to give an example of an individual who became a god. That's where I'd fail.

This leads me to think more in terms of us all being part of a "god", or whatever we'd call it. I'd rather use the term nature to refer to such a collective that would have a conscience.

A cell is an individual and they are countable. You are made up of X number of cells. Remove one and you'll never notice. Remove a million and you're likely to say "ow". Remove all of your cells and you cease to exist. So, as insignificant as a cell may seem, it is still part of the collective.

I often think that like the cell, we are almost nothing as an individual in nature. But we are part of nature. Each one of us has the potential to either harm or benefit nature. It is this that makes us significant. But as part of the collective, the individual person cannot cause a ripple in the collective conscience.

In the experiments it was shown that people were physically reacting to the photos before they were seen. Could it be that enough individuals had seen the photos that the information had been somehow uploaded into a collective conscience?

One way to test this idea would be to redo the experiment with new picturesand not only monitor the reactions but also look for variations in the data relative to the number of times the experiment is run. If there turned out to be no variations from the first test to the 1,000th test then we could almost rule out my idea of info being uploaded into a collective conscience.

BTW, I'm lost on the Buddhist thing Raaaid. Maybe you are confusing me with another?

Fritz

Geeez Fritz... who are you?.. The same road I swear it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

[Pirschjaeger]

Originally posted by buzzsaw1939:
Geeez Fritz... who are you?.. The same road I swear it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Dude, look to your left. I'm on grid 4, section 52, row 8 of the collective.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

[raaaid]

there are 2 things i dont like of buddism, one is that it says ego is bad and other that desire is bad

so when i heard you saying ego might be not as important i thought of the other

its a fact we are cells of mother earth but as a cell mother earth has no more right to live than me, you cant say 6 billions lifes are more valuable than just one, life by definition has no value

[Pirschjaeger]

Originally posted by raaaid:
there are 2 things i dont like of buddism, one is that it says ego is bad and other that desire is bad

so when i heard you saying ego might be not as important i thought of the other

I think you might have me confused with Fabian. I'm not into Buddhism.


Originally posted by raaaid:
its a fact we are cells of mother earth but as a cell mother earth has no more right to live than me, you cant say 6 billions lifes are more valuable than just one, life by definition has no value

There's an interesting thought. Maybe the value of life is relevant to the life that is making the assessment.

For example, you wouldn't go out a kill another person unless you felt morally forced to (defense). You probably wouldn't kill a dog but would kill a dog rather than a human. You'd probably kill a mouse before a dog and a spider before a mouse and a cell before a spider, each one becoming progressively easier to kill.

So, if the individual woul see him/herself as the pinnicle of life, then it should be easier to kill 10 people rather than commit suicide in order to save them. But, and I think this would apply to most people, the individual person would rather tkae his/her own life in order to preserve the 10 lives. Any and I think all belief systems teach us this. This "moral" as I will call it is not limited to borders, time, or even humans. Animals have shown this moral behavior.

I'm not talking about the value of life but rather the value of life to the individual. It seems to me that this moral behavior is meant to preserve a sort of collective.

We often say "The good of the many outweigh the good of the few". Could this be a kind of "white cell" of a collective's immune system?

Fritz

[Enforcer572005]

Buzzsaw;

You will be asimilated. Resistance is futile.

I swear I dunno how he finds all this stuff so fast. I think Fritz is actually some kinda Collusus type computer somewhere.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I wasn't aware of anything like the subject of this thread even existing, and I thought I kept up with most of the unusual stuff.

[Pirschjaeger]

Originally posted by Enforcer572005:
I think Fritz is actually some kinda Collusus type computer somewhere.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
.

If that were the case, I'd be top secret, protected by 20meter thick concrete walls, 2 km below area 51, which incidentally doesn't exist, and I wouldn't be able to tell you all this. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif


Originally posted by Enforcer572005:
I wasn't aware of anything like the subject of this thread even existing, and I thought I kept up with most of the unusual stuff.

Welcome to my world. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Fritz

[raaaid]

seems conspiratory to me that such amazing experiments are not widely known, maybe its so we all dont win lottery

the photograph experiments in which you see 5 sec into the future is not conclusive being made with a lie detector

the 1.5 sec uprising of energy before we decide to move our finger proves we are not so free as we think since we think the decision was spontaneous when actually took 1.5 sec

but the most decisive to me was the implant of electrodes in the brain and notice that skin stimulation took 1.5 seconds to manifest in the brain

that means we have a ping of 1500 ms, do you imagine playing a shooter with this ping and be proficient?

well the only way you could do it is if you saw into the future

so this experiment prove precognition qite much

the other thing i found fascinating is affecting with our minds random number generators, or what is the same affecting uncerteinty

what if as a comunitty we could decide the fate of each one of the comunity knowing every single detail of that person, subcounciously of course

what if when something bad happens we go to it knowing subcounciously its good for us, maybe in the end theres no bad all bring goodness

well thinking aloud again

[raaaid]

btw im very interested in collective subcouncious

id say its a huge internet where you can find all answeres that exist

shame we are wired to it just uncounciously

if it were councious we could be like all knowing gods

[Outlaw---]

Originally posted by raaaid:
seems conspiratory to me that such amazing experiments are not widely known, maybe its so we all dont win lottery

What conspiracy? Anyone who gives a carp about this can look it up. It's been known and reported for years.

Please explain how those experiments show any abilities that could be used to win the lottery.


Originally posted by raaaid:
the 1.5 sec uprising of energy before we decide to move our finger proves we are not so free as we think since we think the decision was spontaneous when actually took 1.5 sec

How does a delay indicate that we were not free to make the decision? The experiment was fundamentally flawed in that there no way to really know exactly when the subject made the decision. AS HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR YEARS, NERVE IMPULSES HAVE A FINITE SPEED. Therefore, it's impossible for a human to accurately report when a decision was made. The first thing that jumps to my mind is that there is a 1.5 second delay between when the decision is made and when the subject "...said they decided to move finger...".



Originally posted by raaaid:
but the most decisive to me was the implant of electrodes in the brain and notice that skin stimulation took 1.5 seconds to manifest in the brain

that means we have a ping of 1500 ms, do you imagine playing a shooter with this ping and be proficient?

well the only way you could do it is if you saw into the future

so this experiment prove precognition qite much

First off, it's a 0.5 second delay, not a 1.5 second delay. Secondly this experiment only dealt with the sense of touch in a group of patients who were undergoing medical treatment. Not a valid test sample by any stretch of the imagination.

Please explain how, aside from tactile feedback, the sense of touch is involved in any way with intersecting a group of pixels on the screen with another group of pixels.



Originally posted by raaaid:
the other thing i found fascinating is affecting with our minds random number generators, or what is the same affecting uncerteinty

Spooky to say the least, but does it really matter? Other than the fact that there seems to be an effect, it's of no use to us.


--Outlaw.

[DuxCorvan]

Well, when a hottie tells me she's gonna show me something, my brain and other parts of mine usually react before I actually see anything.

This proves the existence of the nipples.

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by raaaid:
there are 2 things i dont like of buddism, one is that it says ego is bad and other that desire is bad

so when i heard you saying ego might be not as important i thought of the other

its a fact we are cells of mother earth but as a cell mother earth has no more right to live than me, you cant say 6 billions lifes are more valuable than just one, life by definition has no value

Ego is good, all you need is awareness of the effects of it.