F.Bullbait
Oh, a wise guy,eh?
Me too!
Well, now, Mimsey! . . .
Here we see "science" has found that if you sit in front of another person for "10 minutes" and look into their eyes things change
Details at this link;
Looking into someone's eyes for longer than 10 minutes induces altered state of consciousness
A psychologist in Italy has figured out how to induce a drug-free altered state of consciousness by asking 20 volunteers to sit and stare into each other’s eyes for 10 minutes straight. Not only did the deceptively simple task bring on strange ‘out of body’ experiences for the volunteers, it also caused them to see hallucinations of monsters, their relatives, and themselves in their partner’s face.
The experiment, run by Giovanni Caputo from the University of Urbino, involved having 20 young adults (15 of which were women) pair off, sit in a dimly lit room 1 metre away from each other, and stare into their partner’s eyes for 10 minutes. The lighting in the room was bright enough for the volunteers to easily make out the facial features of their partner, but low enough to diminish their overall colour perception.
A control group of 20 more volunteers were asked to sit and stare for 10 minutes in another dimly lit room in pairs, but their chairs were facing a blank wall. The volunteers were told very little about the purpose of the study, only that it had to do with a “meditative experience with eyes open”.
Once the 10 minutes were up, the volunteers were asked to complete questionnaires related to what they experienced during and after the experiment. One questionnaire focussed on any dissociative symptoms that the volunteers might have experienced, and another questioned them on what they perceived in their partner’s face (eye-staring group) or their own face (control group).
Snipped . . .
/
Well, get a load of this . . . no "anecdotals" here . . .
Life after death is real, concludes scientific study of 2,000 patients
In the largest such study ever conducted, researchers have found evidence that consciousness continues even after brain activity has ceased. This evidence of life after death came from a study led by researchers from the University of Southampton and published in the journal Resuscitation.
“Contrary to perception, death is not a specific moment but a potentially reversible process that occurs after any severe illness or accident causes the heart, lungs and brain to cease functioning,” lead researcher Dr. Sam Parnia said. “If attempts are made to reverse this process, it is referred to as ‘cardiac arrest’; however, if these attempts do not succeed it is called ‘death.’ ”
Nearly 40 percent of those interviewed recalled experiencing some form of awareness after cardiac arrest (being pronounced clinically dead).
Snipped . . . .Perhaps the study’s most significant finding was what may be the first-ever clinical confirmation of an OBE. In this case, a 57-year-old social worker accurately reported things that were happening around him after his brain activity had ceased.
“This is significant, since it has often been assumed that experiences in relation to death are likely hallucinations or illusions,” said Dr. Parnia said, “occurring either before the heart stops or after the heart has been successfully restarted, but not an experience corresponding with ‘real’ events when the heart isn’t beating.
“In this case, consciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat. This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted. Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events.”
The man’s memories were not only accurate but even helped the researchers place his experience in time.
“The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the [experience] lasted for,” Dr. Parnia said.
Snipped . . .
/
These days I don't think about the cult & it's doings very often, but, this " what if wasn't dub in" is pretty funny to me,
Here's why, being the - drum rolls please - mighty " Clear Cog " is - flashy fanfare please - ' I'm mocking it up ".
Would someone of you " Masters of Tek as written by Source " kindly explain the difference to dumb me the exact difference in " mocking it up " & " dub in " ?
I mean that one baffles me. I even tried a " demo " ( for the first time in quarter of a century 1 ) of this " mocking it up " & " dub in " !
I even drug out a big fat heavy dictionary to no avail in discerning how to split this hair between " mocking it up " & " dub in ".
Maybe one of you sharp people can explain to me what this " mocking it up " is and then how that ain't " dub in ".
help ! Looks like just more double speak to me.
Terril can you help ?
These days I don't think about the cult & it's doings very often, but, this " what if wasn't dub in" is pretty funny to me,
Here's why, being the - drum rolls please - mighty " Clear Cog " is - flashy fanfare please - ' I'm mocking it up ".
Would someone of you " Masters of Tek as written by Source " kindly explain the difference to dumb me the exact difference in " mocking it up " & " dub in " ?
I mean that one baffles me. I even tried a " demo " ( for the first time in quarter of a century 1 ) of this " mocking it up " & " dub in " !
I even drug out a big fat heavy dictionary to no avail in discerning how to split this hair between " mocking it up " & " dub in ".
Maybe one of you sharp people can explain to me what this " mocking it up " is and then how that ain't " dub in ".
help ! Looks like just more double speak to me.
Terril can you help ?
- snip -
Then, if I'm mocking it up . . . . is it 'true' ?
- snip -
Like you, I don't think about scn that much anymore. But I do remember how I thought about this when I was in scn. I'll explain "I'm mocking up my own reactive mind" as I understood it.
To me, this did not mean, "I'm making up stuff to tell the auditor." It meant I, the thetan, made a decision to take pictures of events in the physical universe which contained force and mass, and to become the effect of these pictures. I had agreed to be the effect of this mechanism called the reactive mind, which I was creating. That, to me, was "mocking up my reactive mind."
Dub in was stuff you ran in session that hadn't actually happened the way it seemed to you. These were pictures that weren't real. At the time I didn't worry about differentiating them from "real" pictures, 'cause Ron said it didn't really matter. Was I mocking that up too? Well, I guess.
How much of the track stuff was real? I'm now inclined to think probably none of it. Do past lives exist? I don't know. I take an agnostic position on that currently. But I don't worry about it.
What if WAS dub-in?
Roger, lately I've come to believe that every thought that was ever thought still exists. It only needs someone tuned into that frequency / wave length / vibration - whatever one wants to call it - to be ab;e to be in communication with it.Well now, here is an interesting one . . . let's see how the unbelievers can construe this as "untrue" or merely "anecdotal"