New Study Proves Peoples' Brains Work in Sync Together

Discussion in 'Human Potential, Self Discovery' started by JustSheila, Apr 29, 2017.

View Users: View Users
  1. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    How cool is that? :biggrin:

    Great minds really DO think alike and when we focus and work together on similar things, we end up with synchronized brain waves.

    So one writes what the other thinks, or one expands on the other's thought. That sort of ESP is normal for any environment where we can focus and communicate on the same thing together.

    I like it!
  2. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    I couldn't resist quoting this from 1961, E-Meter Essentials, chapter The Needle:

    54. You can also (after you've been talking to, not processing, a preclear) set the meter on yourself, then give the cans to the preclear and he or she will read the same adjustments for a few moments.​

    I imagine it's all part of the phenomenon of "sharing the same space" that allows telepathic (remote) metering etc when the two people are in rapport, but I'm not going to argue about it, and I'm not trying to credit Hubbard with more than his idle observation.

  3. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    Thanks for the quote, Paul.

    I'm not sure the e-meter reads the same thing. Could be.

    It doesn't happen in the first few moments, but then, that doesn't happen in the first few moments between people, either. :no: For example, if you were to strike up a conversation with someone about a celebrity or show that you both liked a lot and were familiar with the episodes, then after a while, as you come up with the next, similar episode, so might the other person at the same time. GMTA!

    It's pretty cool, actually. :biggrin:

    I'd love to see these so-called pet psychics tested with an EEG and see how many of them actually can sync their thoughts with dogs that aren't their own pets, lol!

    ADDED: It just occurred to me, if the e-meter does this, how many of those reads are just group sync thoughts? In other words, nothing particularly individual or personal, but just random thoughts that come to mind related to the question. :hmm:

    I also wonder how focusing for years on L Ron's writings might make someone a narcissistic, paranoid schizophrenic like him?
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2017
  4. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    I think you are right, but I don't think it takes years. Synchronized behavior is well known. Look at some of the upper indoc trs - there all about synchronized behavior. ( place your hands against mine, follow them, the 8c walking about drill, also the regular trs and Chinese school etc. ) Mimsey

    Watch how many are in sync in this video - amazing

  5. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    I would like to see the study results in detail. Maybe we could put it to good use for the UTR as they open the cracks in prison of belief for all prisoners to all fly above the radar in unison week would be a good time for the event! ha ha
  6. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    The Psychology researchers at NYU who used the EEG to test brain wave sync for this study just received a grant for $1.4 million from the National Science Foundation to continue, extend and expand upon it, so it must have been professional.

    David Poeppel, Professor of Psychology and Neural Science at NYU is the study’s principal investigator, if you want to look up and read the original study.

    Nice find, Mimsey! :thumbsup:Yes, you're absolutely right. Sociology studies on group behavior found the same sort of thing. A number of sciences support "in sync" behaviour now, but this is the first time it was proven with actual brain waves.

    So we really do have access to a hive mind to share information and think along parallel lines, after all. Awesome!
  7. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    What is being measured in both cases is a physical product of more subtle processes. The mechanics involved is not clear. :)

    The synchronous activity I think is like resonance, a harmonic action, with the details again unclear.

  8. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    I like the way you think, Paul. Instead of assuming there is a cause-effect relationship, you say, 'no way, the actual causative agent(s) is/are completely outside the experiment.'

    Far out. :thumbsup:(yah, it's old 70s slang but what else fits?) Sometimes you just think from another direction and absolutely blow my mind. Now I'll be wondering about that all day. :hmm:Not sure I agree, but we have three years until the extended experiment is completed, so we'll see.
  9. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    I don't think waiting three years is going to reveal much of use, as the experimenters are (I assume) of the no-belief-in-spirit ilk.

    Theory aside, the phenomenon of telepathic metering (as a part of remote auditing) is readily observable. Someone without a worldview allowing this cannot deal with it, and that used to include me. Back at the start of 2004, for several weeks I would read Robert D's posts on R3X using telepathic metering and they just made no sense to me at all: it was like reading gibberish, although the English sentences seemed to be structured OK. Then I read a bunch of other stuff from non-Scn-related sources, and finally grokked how telepathic metering could work.

    Afterwards I read Robert's posts again and they made perfect sense. That doesn't mean I believed everything he said, but at least it wasn't gibberish any more: simply claims he was making that seemed far-fetched. I ended up receiving about 60 hours of (paid) R3X auditing from him and discovered for myself that remote metering was in fact possible and that he was superb at it. (I'm not a big fan of R3X, but that's irrelevant here.)

    Anyway, don't hold your breath expecting useful results from these experimenters.

  10. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    The new study is geared toward education, so other schools, as well as teachers, will be wearing EEG helmets. There was a mention of how when a person either 1) liked the teacher or 2) was a more empathetic personality (as per prior test results) that the sync effect worked much better. So positive emotion was the most powerful force for one person to go into sync with another. They are also testing ideal group sizes and hopefully other personality characteristics. (see prior link about the grant). So that will be helpful info, no matter what a person believes.

    What, exactly, is remote viewing with an e-meter?

    I once saw a formerly excellent avian veterinarian go out the bottom and deterioriate when he was scammed into using something similar on birds. He once saved bird lives, then he became some sort of crazy naturopath who put them through so much misery through his experiments and they died horribly and painfully. :angry:

    I saw the remote viewing thingy he used on the birds while in action and it was a blatant hoax. It was a German gadget and he'd been conned but couldn't see it. Colors going up and down, nothing like the sort of brain sync the article described. I think it's possible (in person) to get into sync with an animal for a very brief time, or if it is a long-term pet, but this nutty vet (who drank his way out of a marriage and career, too, btw) thought the machine would cure the birds and stopped doing all the successful things he had before then and went off the deep end.

    With severely ill birds, they do need the sort of bonding they get from their parents or they have little chance of recovering. I've had plenty of heartaches trying to save birds with Beak & Feather disease who contracted another infection. The right antibiotics with loving cuddling saved a few of them to live as long as ten more years. ALL of them died without the right antibiotics, though. Just sayin'.
  11. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Remote metering is a session where the auditor and client are not face-to-face, and talk over a telephone or Skype. The auditor holds solo cans, and the client's reactions to the ongoing procedure are reflected on the meter, similar to a regular session, except the client is not holding the cans. There needs to be a good rapport between the auditor and client for this to work.

    This rapport is sometimes described as "sharing the same space." It will be familiar to any experienced auditor accustomed to seeing the client's pictures while in session.

    As an auditor I can't do it. I don't have the patience. Maybe that's why I developed PaulsRobot!

    Edit: This is a two-minute video of a remote session I had from Rolf Dane back in 2010. I say "session," but it was really a simple couple of minutes of E-meter Drill 21. I was willing to have a proper session, but Rolf wanted to keep it "standard," more or less, as he had a reputation to uphold and wasn't as free to mess around as I was/am, so did a drill.

    For those who don't know, EM Drill 21 is "Consider the events of today." Normally, the coach holds the cans and the student auditor, sitting opposite him and looking at the meter dial, says "Consider the events of today." The coach thinks of random things that happened earlier in the day, almost always pretty innocuous things, and the meter needle waggles around. The student pounces on something relatively juicy and says, "What was that?" The coach realises what he was thinking of but doesn't answer and thinks of other things. After a while (in practice usually 5-30 seconds) the coach allows his mind to roam over what he was thinking of before. The student auditor is supposed to notice the same read recurring and quickly say "That was the same thought." This is quite an impressive drill to the new student when he first does it right.

    In this instance, I am at home in Newcastle and Rolf is at home in Denmark, 100 km or so away. We are on Skype. He is holding the cans and recording the audio and meter actions.

    The needle is dancing around (note the high sensitivity). The read he picked up I now see is a fast small fall. I was surprised it read as the "incident" was really minor. I didn't fake anything in this drill: you can take it all at face value.

    I would love to see other videos of remote metering in action.

    Note that I was not (am not) emotionally close to Rolf. We had emailed a few times over the years, maybe spoken on Skype once before this.

  12. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    Thanks. Yah, now I remember this. You posted this vid before. I watched it again.

    Like you said, I'd have to see a lot of different vids of different people, knowing they weren't prepped, too, and with an objective witness there.

    It's annoying how floppy the needle is, but then, the last meter I ever used was a Mark VI. At the very beginning, the needle seems to make extra movements to the auditory sounds of your voices, first Ralph's as he speaks, then yours. There's a great deal of extra motion in the needle that shouldn't be there, meaning, the words spoken would not/should not create so much continual reaction. It's like "noise" with the sensitivity set so high.

    Back when you first posted this years ago, I thought it was just a matter of Ralph having done this so many times for so many years, he probably has a certain feel for a person's delays while thinking about things and when to say "that." But watching this vid again, it was actually the same read.

    Considering this EEG research, now I think you both shared enough common years in scn and with the e-meter that doing this drill together created the rapport more than anything and that Ralph has synced his reaction time with yours.

    I don't believe it read on you, though. It read on Ralph or something Ralph did. Your timing was synced, though, and your line of thinking to some degree just doing scientology together. But no, I don't believe Ralph was actually in sync with your thoughts, just on the general wave of thought reaction timing, if that makes sense.

  13. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Yes, it is. These remote reads don't show up at normal sensitivity. Robert D. did/does his remote auditing with a very high sensitivity too.

    When I first watched this video from Rolf I didn't see any matching read in the jittering needle movements, and thought he was merely picking up the mental/emotional "impact" at the exact time I re-experienced/re-created it. Years later I looked at it more carefully and spotted the actual read. Of course it's impossible to discount anything he did pick up at the exact same time as the visible read.

    Such videos are no proof of anything as they are so easy to fake. It's impressive when one is the "pc", though. It's not even particularly impressive when one is the auditor, as one can never really shake off the feeling that the "pc" is faking it just to be "helpful".

  14. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Gold Meritorious Sponsor


    I have a reactive compulsion to comment on "remote metering". Kindly keep in mind that this is not me criticizing the demonstration--it's my reactive brain.

    Well then, onwards!

    1) I can easily think of at least 5 simple reasons that the demonstration appeared to work. The most obvious ones being:

    * There is no "control group" to reference in the reaction time for the person being asked to think--and then some time later "rethink" the same thought. If, for example, 95/100 participants all "re-think" the same thought within 10 seconds, then the meter operator could very successfully conduct this demonstration with NO METER AT ALL.

    * There is a glaring frailty in the methodology. The meter operator asks the participant to "think of something" ("A") and then (essentially) think of other things ("B", "C", et al) for a bit and then come back to the "A" thought again. This assumes that the participant has the extraordinary mental skills to BLOCK OUT OF THEIR MINDS "A" while trying to divert their attention to "B", "C", "D" and other thoughts. This is tantamount to telling someone "DO NOT THINK OF A PINK ELEPHANT". The point here is that the participant IS ABSOLUTELY KEEPING "A" in their mind (at some level) if only to remind themselves that they have been instructed to come back to thinking about "A" shortly. Thus, "A" is not out of their mind--so at any given point the meter reacts, it might also be true that the person was JUST ABOUT TO THINK ABOUT "A" AGAIN; or, possibly JUST THINKING TO THEMSELVES THAT THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO THINK ABOUT "A" FOR A BIT. In both cases, they are thinking about "A" and the meter reacting doesn't prove that they ever had "A" out of their mind. I'm not speculating that you (Paul) didn't have the "A" thought just before the meter operator called it, but there are so many variables that could easily explain that--other than the meter measuring thought. ​

    2) Talking about the "A" thought, it is very convenient that your thought was about the girl's "Ass"). LOL

    3) This demonstration could prove many things other than (and completely in contradiction to) the notion that an e-meter works to measure thought. It could, for example, just as easily be used to prove that Scientology is a complete hoax. Example: The meter demonstrator (Rolf) was holding the cans. So, obviously the demonstration proved that Rolf had reactive charge on the girls ass, even though he never saw it. Then Rolf (while still on the cans and thinking of her can) "blew the charge" on her ass. We know this because Rolf had a Floating Needle (even thought he indicated to you that your needle floated). CONCLUSION: Rolf erased the charged incident. From this I conclude that anyone being told about anything (e.g. awesome wog asses, gorilla goal implants, et al) can cause "charge"--which then can be "handled" and "erased" with a trained auditor and meter master. In other words, Rolf was "implanted" with hot ass facsimiles by you. But quite fortunately, Rolf was able to blow the charge. And even more luckily, you (Paul) were able to find out from Rolf that he erased your BPAC (by-passed-ass-charge) as well!

    I apologize for my reactive brain's behavior today. I appreciate yours and Rolf's win but, damn, now I am thinking of that girl's ass--and I don't even have Rolf's phone number in Germany to get the charge handled!
  15. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    I'll respond to the sensible parts of your post. :)

    The "don't think of an elephant" point is quite valid. My response would be, so what? You have obviously done this drill many, many times too, so have a familiarity with how it works (or doesn't).

    As for the average delay thing, sure, that's possible. But if you want to quantify it, there would be, what, an 8-second variance? And allowing, what, 200 milliseconds leeway in calling the duplicate read, wouldn't that make it a 1-in-40 (i.e., 8x5) chance he would call it correctly?

  16. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    :smoochy: :biglove: Oooh, HH, that's what I said the first time I saw this, but you said it better! GMTA!! :biggrin: :hysterical:

    Paul, the odds of this happening are more likely than you think. It's more of a bell curve, where some 40-50% or so of the people asked that question would have the same thought within a certain number of seconds and the other 50% might be spread around. Rolf didn't time it within any 1/16th of a second, either. He speaks more slowly than that, slow enough to be within 1/2 second at the fastest, and he barely allowed time for your thoughts to drift. So without any timing sync, he'd probably still get it right with no meter and his eyes closed a bit less than 1/2 the time. With the natural timing sync of people working together on something with which they are very familiar, (likely, since you'd both done this same activity for decades), he should nearly always get it right on the timing with no meter and his eyes closed. Problem is, it's HIS reads. So if you were doing something like listing and nulling, you'd be chit out of puck if he R/Ses where you theta bop.

    Mr. Standard Tek would not do a demo like that on you, but he'd use remote metering, which is so squirrely? :hmm:

    :laugh: :hysterical:

    So if the class of NY college students all have e-meters instead of EEG's on their heads and ALL get an LFBD F/N when the instructor tells a dirty joke about a girl, does that mean they all had charge on it and all blew the charge?

    And does it also mean every woman in the audience was secretly gay? :omg:

    OR does it mean that we all have charge on dirty jokes and need someone to tell lots of them so we can all go clear on the 2D as a group?:coolwink:

  17. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    Note that DOF referred to Rolf Dane. Ralph Hilton uses a
    different method. The PC uses the meter and holds the cans where
    Ralph can view the meter on skype. Less for purists to grumble at.
  18. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    Thanks, Terril. (Not that I can see any point to ever using an e-meter...)
  19. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Gold Meritorious Sponsor

    Naturally, I see your points.

    But, with the sensitivity cranked up to such hyperactive twitching, it seemed like the meter was CONSTANTLY reading.

    I know that the meter needle moves around when anyone picks up the cans, but the rest of the interpretive guesswork about "charge" and "erasing" and "restimulation" is all just woo science. If not, why are people getting reads on the "Which is Your Favorite Vegetable?" e-meter drill. Are we to believe that asparagus and bok choy have "charge" on them? LOL.

    I have seen, experienced and witnessed lots of meter reactions. Some of them coincide with the PC having realizations and experiencing momentary relief. Time and experience has taught me a valuable lesson--that a great deal of those life-changing "COGNITIONS" (accompanied by charge-erasing meter reactions) were absolute and complete LIES. In other words, the brilliant insights were bullshit; therefore, what? Charge is supposed to blow on EXACT TIME, PLACE, FORM & EVENT. But there we all were, "blowing charge" on WRONG TIME, WRONG PLACE, WRONG PLACE, WRONG FORM and WRONG EVENT.


    I just can't take any more of these ritualistic meter divinations.

    I am a human. I don't have charge on asparagus or asses. And when I go into a restaurant, I don't need an e-meter to decide which side vegetable to order with my entree.

    My God, Paul, does anyone actually believe that Rolf can hold soup cans in Germany and perform psychometric diagnostics on your mind? How is this any different than the corny 19th century seances where the table began "vibrating" or "jumping about" due to (supposed) etheric spiritual energies? Those tables moved, just like the needle moved. The table's motion was produced, it didn't happen the mystical way they superstitiously believed.
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2017
  20. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Gold Meritorious Sponsor



    I understand.

    But, it's very hard for me to take much of this e-meter and charge stuff seriously. I tried (very very hard) to take it seriously while I was on the road to total freedom. But then I had a profoundly suppressive cognition (that somehow managed to suppressively F/N!) which was just this:


    That's why Scientology tech is a complete "joke" to me.

    When someone goes Clear or goes Exterior or goes OT, or knocks hats off at 50 feet--I promise to stop treating the subject like it's a joke.

Share This Page