|
Post by laughter on Feb 7, 2024 4:21:16 GMT -5
Their reaction is evident to me. And also, I don't let the other party know that I am sending my thoughts to them. I always do that without letting them know. And also, it happens only when they are very near me. If they are standing far away from me, it's not happening. When I project my thoughts, they react in a certain way, so I know my thoughts wellup in their minds. Ok, but in a scientific experiment, you'd have to tell a scientist what the thought was that you were projecting, and then they'd make sure you didn't have a chance to influence this other person in advance. For example, you would not have a chance to meet or speak to or in any way communicate with this other person in advance. You could be physically near them, but people would be watching what was happening. And then this other person would be asked afterwards what thoughts occurred to them, to make sure that the thought they reported was what you said you would be implanting. Do you think you could implant your thoughts under these sorts of conditions? Do you understand what I am getting at? Scientists are trying to ensure that what is going on is actually telepathy and not merely someone playing a trick -- on either themselves or someone else. There is a matter of degree going on here. Anyone who's had the experience of making a sale or seducing an object of affection understands the language underneath the language, the communication unspoken. And that's just common mind. Just the sort of non-verbal communication that ultimately can be reduced to a set of rational explanations. Beyond that, the metaphor of the individual as an antenna can be useful to explain more ... uncommon experiences. The experiment you describe is on one extreme end of that spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 7, 2024 6:04:47 GMT -5
Their reaction is evident to me. And also, I don't let the other party know that I am sending my thoughts to them. I always do that without letting them know. And also, it happens only when they are very near me. If they are standing far away from me, it's not happening. When I project my thoughts, they react in a certain way, so I know my thoughts wellup in their minds. Ok, but in a scientific experiment, you'd have to tell a scientist what the thought was that you were projecting, and then they'd make sure you didn't have a chance to influence this other person in advance. For example, you would not have a chance to meet or speak to or in any way communicate with this other person in advance. You could be physically near them, but people would be watching what was happening. And then this other person would be asked afterwards what thoughts occurred to them, to make sure that the thought they reported was what you said you would be implanting. Do you think you could implant your thoughts under these sorts of conditions? Do you understand what I am getting at? Scientists are trying to ensure that what is going on is actually telepathy and not merely someone playing a trick -- on either themselves or someone else. It's not possible to ask them because it's a kind of sexual influence. But I know for sure from the way they react. I don't have any idea to get them, but to understand whether this kind of telepathy real or not and so I did. Now I know that It's true. The problem here is, if we continue to do this influence on the same person whenever they come near us, they start to develop a certain kind of attraction towards us. I tried with various kinds of people; it works perfectly. But when the person is far away from me, it is not working for me. But some experts say that it works for them. Even they report that person need not to be in the same place where we are in. Kindly don't ask me what I do, I can't reveal in this public forum. I want this to be remain as a secret.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 7, 2024 6:12:27 GMT -5
Ok, but in a scientific experiment, you'd have to tell a scientist what the thought was that you were projecting, and then they'd make sure you didn't have a chance to influence this other person in advance. For example, you would not have a chance to meet or speak to or in any way communicate with this other person in advance. You could be physically near them, but people would be watching what was happening. And then this other person would be asked afterwards what thoughts occurred to them, to make sure that the thought they reported was what you said you would be implanting. Do you think you could implant your thoughts under these sorts of conditions? Do you understand what I am getting at? Scientists are trying to ensure that what is going on is actually telepathy and not merely someone playing a trick -- on either themselves or someone else. There is a matter of degree going on here. Anyone who's had the experience of making a sale or seducing an object of affection understands the language underneath the language, the communication unspoken. And that's just common mind. Just the sort of non-verbal communication that ultimately can be reduced to a set of rational explanations. Beyond that, the metaphor of the individual as an antenna can be useful to explain more ... uncommon experiences. The experiment you describe is on one extreme end of that spectrum. But this non-verbal communication can be known for sure. Because when we project those thoughts, they react very clearly. And they give us a weird look. I react as if I haven't done anything to them, and they wouldn't even think that those thoughts are coming from me; they think that those thoughts are arising within themselves. People are using this kind of technique to create an attraction towards the opposite sex. Deliberate creation says that clear images in your mind set reality in motion, but this one is a little different because the target will be hit the moment you do influence to them. Their subconsciousness wouldn't think that these thoughts are coming from another person; they think they are developing by themselves, so it seeks you out.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Feb 7, 2024 8:48:46 GMT -5
There is a matter of degree going on here. Anyone who's had the experience of making a sale or seducing an object of affection understands the language underneath the language, the communication unspoken. And that's just common mind. Just the sort of non-verbal communication that ultimately can be reduced to a set of rational explanations. Beyond that, the metaphor of the individual as an antenna can be useful to explain more ... uncommon experiences. The experiment you describe is on one extreme end of that spectrum. But this non-verbal communication can be known for sure. Because when we project those thoughts, they react very clearly. And they give us a weird look. I react as if I haven't done anything to them, and they wouldn't even think that those thoughts are coming from me; they think that those thoughts are arising within themselves. People are using this kind of technique to create an attraction towards the opposite sex. Deliberate creation says that clear images in your mind set reality in motion, but this one is a little different because the target will be hit the moment you do influence to them. Their subconsciousness wouldn't think that these thoughts are coming from another person; they think they are developing by themselves, so it seeks you out. .. while at the same time still wanting your affirmation returned to you.
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 7, 2024 10:32:36 GMT -5
I've employed telepathy, and it has proven effective for me. However, mastering this skill requires considerable practice. I've learned to implant my thoughts into someone else's mind without their awareness, and it indeed works. Fascinating. Can you prove this under experimentally controlled conditions? It's good to see that some people can go deep into spirituality while also having critical thinking skills, and not succumbing to gullibility and delusions of grandeur.
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 7, 2024 11:00:30 GMT -5
Their reaction is evident to me. And also, I don't let the other party know that I am sending my thoughts to them. I always do that without letting them know. And also, it happens only when they are very near me. If they are standing far away from me, it's not happening. When I project my thoughts, they react in a certain way, so I know my thoughts wellup in their minds. Ok, but in a scientific experiment, you'd have to tell a scientist what the thought was that you were projecting, and then they'd make sure you didn't have a chance to influence this other person in advance. For example, you would not have a chance to meet or speak to or in any way communicate with this other person in advance. You could be physically near them, but people would be watching what was happening. And then this other person would be asked afterwards what thoughts occurred to them, to make sure that the thought they reported was what you said you would be implanting. Do you think you could implant your thoughts under these sorts of conditions? Do you understand what I am getting at? Scientists are trying to ensure that what is going on is actually telepathy and not merely someone playing a trick -- on either themselves or someone else. People have done experiments like that. They are difficult to design, because there are so many ways to cheat or accidentally skew results. For example, take a random playing card from a deck, and see if another person can guess the card with better than chance odds (about 2%). If telepathy were occurring you'd see closer to 100%. The experiments find either nothing, or next to nothing, and the "parapsychology" field has devolved into debates about the statistical significance of a 2.0% vs 2.1% result. Never have they found someone who can just blow a test away and leave no doubt. That still leaves the possibility that telepathy has occurred in non-repeatable, spontaneous events, not under the control of the human ego.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 7, 2024 12:21:11 GMT -5
Fascinating. Can you prove this under experimentally controlled conditions? It's good to see that some people can go deep into spirituality while also having critical thinking skills, and not succumbing to gullibility and delusions of grandeur. Realizing the irrational nature of 'Self' surpasses telepathy in the 'abandonment of critical thinking' department. How would we scientifically test for 'Self', or for realization of 'Self'? From the perspective of rational science, the self-realized are surely gullible.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 7, 2024 14:08:57 GMT -5
This discussion starts to get off the "AI &related" topic ...
"Critical thinking" is often just another manifestation of ignorance, and attempt to bully those who think differently.
"Belief in science" is on the same lines with believing in anything: you believe (firmly) in something you don't understand.
My reference to the possibility of large scale communicating through telepathy was just meant to give an example of how a change in paradigm could obsolete some current professions, while opening possibilities and freeing the mind and other resources.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 7, 2024 14:25:39 GMT -5
Artificial intelligence, as its name suggests, is about "intelligence".
This means that it diminishes the effect of emotions, inherently still reflecting to some degree the emotions of its designers, and of the data it works with.
On the other hand, AI lacks intuition, and there is no algorithmic way to compensate for it, because intuition implies a mind, and it means tapping into non-physical resources of knowledge and guidance.
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 7, 2024 15:07:51 GMT -5
It's good to see that some people can go deep into spirituality while also having critical thinking skills, and not succumbing to gullibility and delusions of grandeur. Realizing the irrational nature of 'Self' surpasses telepathy in the 'abandonment of critical thinking' department. How would we scientifically test for 'Self', or for realization of 'Self'? From the perspective of rational science, the self-realized are surely gullible. To me it's the opposite. Realization is closer than thoughts, requires no beliefs; so it's like the opposite of gullibility - only what you can see for yourself. But that doesn't mean you can come back to the manifest world and make absurd and irrational claims. Someone like Nisargadatta for instance did not go around claiming he was Superman in the material world, or that he could fly, or magically "manifest" things to please his ego.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 7, 2024 15:08:56 GMT -5
Artificial intelligence, as its name suggests, is about "intelligence". This means that it diminishes the effect of emotions, inherently still reflecting to some degree the emotions of its designers, and of the data it works with. On the other hand, AI lacks intuition, and there is no algorithmic way to compensate for it, because intuition implies a mind, and it means tapping into non-physical resources of knowledge and guidance.Nailed it. I'd also put 'imagination/inspiration' in that category
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 7, 2024 15:10:26 GMT -5
This discussion starts to get off the "AI &related" topic ... "Critical thinking" is often just another manifestation of ignorance, and attempt to bully those who think differently. "Belief in science" is on the same lines with believing in anything: you believe (firmly) in something you don't understand. ... said every fool ever who had to protect his beliefs from examination and open inquiry. Truth is not brittle. Truth survives being subjected to rational thinking. Pure spirituality does not require gullibility, belief in the tooth fairy, etc.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 7, 2024 15:11:26 GMT -5
Realizing the irrational nature of 'Self' surpasses telepathy in the 'abandonment of critical thinking' department. How would we scientifically test for 'Self', or for realization of 'Self'? From the perspective of rational science, the self-realized are surely gullible. To me it's the opposite. Realization is closer than thoughts, requires no beliefs; so it's like the opposite of gullibility - only what you can see for yourself. But that doesn't mean you can come back to the manifest world and make absurd and irrational claims. Someone like Nisargadatta for instance did not go around claiming he was Superman in the material world, or that he could fly, or magically "manifest" things to please his ego. Interesting. How does 'one' (or 'you' if you are happy to speak for yourself) make the shift from the 'non-immediate' to the 'immediate'? My experience has been that it necessitates a very small (but significant) leap of trust or faith.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 7, 2024 21:10:07 GMT -5
Artificial intelligence, as its name suggests, is about "intelligence". This means that it diminishes the effect of emotions, inherently still reflecting to some degree the emotions of its designers, and of the data it works with. On the other hand, AI lacks intuition, and there is no algorithmic way to compensate for it, because intuition implies a mind, and it means tapping into non-physical resources of knowledge and guidance.Nailed it. I'd also put 'imagination/inspiration' in that category Your reply reminds of Rudolf Steiner's "The Sages of Higher Knowledge: Imagination, Inspiration, Intuition" ( link). - In 1904, in the magazine Lucifer-Gnosis, Rudolf Steiner published some of his earliest articles on self-development, which became his classic How to Know Higher Worlds: A Modern Path of Initiation. Steiner continued his articles as "The Stages of Higher Development." He wrote of his intention in 1914: "A second part [of How to Know Higher Worlds] is to be added to this first part, bringing further explanations of the frame of mind that can lead to the experience of higher worlds." Though Steiner never found time to publish those articles as a book, they are collected in this volume. The Stages of Higher Knowledge records some of Steiner's early esoteric instructions, revealing how he became a pioneer of modern inner development and spiritual activity. He carefully guides the reader from an ordinary, sensory-based "material mode of cognition" through the higher levels of knowing he calls Imagination, Inspiration, and Intuition. This small handbook will help anyone who wishes to take a serious approach to Anthroposophy as a path of knowledge, especially those who have already studied and worked with How to Know Higher Worlds.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 7, 2024 23:16:48 GMT -5
Ok, but in a scientific experiment, you'd have to tell a scientist what the thought was that you were projecting, and then they'd make sure you didn't have a chance to influence this other person in advance. For example, you would not have a chance to meet or speak to or in any way communicate with this other person in advance. You could be physically near them, but people would be watching what was happening. And then this other person would be asked afterwards what thoughts occurred to them, to make sure that the thought they reported was what you said you would be implanting. Do you think you could implant your thoughts under these sorts of conditions? Do you understand what I am getting at? Scientists are trying to ensure that what is going on is actually telepathy and not merely someone playing a trick -- on either themselves or someone else. If he says 'yes' are you going to set up a science test for him?
|
|