Hallucinations

[Violet]

I recently watched a discussion between (self-declared) atheists and (self-declared) believers (of religions). On the side of believers there was a man who claims to have seen and spoken to God on a crucial moment in his life, in jail. This experience brought him back to a more sober life, free of the criminal activities he used to engage in.

On the side of the atheists it was said to this man that he had had a powerful hallucination. This was refuted by the believer who said it was as real as "sitting here right now" to which an atheist replied that he too had suffered from a range of very real appearing hallucinations for which he had meanwhile been successfully treated at the hospital. He could now see the difference.

The religious debate itself is not so important for me here. I'd look to use this example, rather, to zoom in on what both sides claim about hallucinations.

The man who spoke to God believes it's true, it was not a hallucination. He had done drugs before, and he knows what a hallucination is.

The atheist says it's not real. It really is a hallucination.

Reality and non-reality.

This, here and now, is real. Right?

And the debate seemed pretty real to me too.

Now, implicitly, the man who had that extraordinary experience was being pushed to consider whether or not he's really there sitting on that chair facing opposition, because that particular occasion looked as real as the one in which he met God. And what that does to your mind.

The atheist who recovered from his hallucinations said that now he knows. He didn't say, however, how.

So, how do you know?

[Ewan]

My concise answer to that would be that you just know. There is not the words to even explain it to someone who doesn't.

A familiar comment that runs through experiencers stories is that it seemed more real than anything else they'd ever experienced. In the case of an atheist, I think it would be fair to suggest that term is interchangable with cynic, (hard-nosed skeptic), they will never come close to understanding because they begin from a position of denial.

That said, Anthony Flew reversed his position on atheism through a process of reason. As far as I know he never had any experience to help him.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHUtMEru4pQ

http://p1.storage.canalblog.com/15/03/191716/91289731.jpg

[Agape]

Think beyond the problem . Think 'brain frequency landscape' . I think the answer may be somewhere there .

Medical science do not have this puzzle solved and sorted till now but there's new neurological research going on to phenomena such as OBEs, NDEs and meditative trance , among else .

There's really substantial difference between the 'brain-scape' of someone experiencing powerful spiritual vision , for example and someone hallucinating as a result of drug overdose or worse, mental illness .
Most 'atheists' ( not all ) can not experience 'expanded consciousness' ( not speaking of God for how do you substantiate 'speaking to God' , even in religious terms anyway ) because how their brain works rather than vice versa and there's hardly any way to induce 'spiritual consciousness' in all people/human brains.

Think baptism. Theoretically, all kinds of spiritual initiations serve the purpose of opening your brain centres to 'higher frequency' and thus the option of elucidating spiritual experience .
Whether an experience is 'elucidating' , 'enlightening' or 'hallucination' , notice the root 'lux' = the light is quite the same in all those terms
depends on whether it conveys positive meaning to you , or not . Just as I tried to explain in the notorious 'don't go to light' Simon Parkes thread 3 times at least ,
the 'light' mentioned in all esoteric texts signifies 'meaning' .
Just as when you say 'the article is enlightening' it does not really signify it glows more than other articles .
It rather 'elucidates' meaning of larger context of data that were previously latent or disconnected for you and thus brings an 'aha moment' , for example .
To compare this to computer software what you experience is information upgrade .

For those who are victims of hallucinations and keep seeing things that frighten and confuse them , people who take drugs or are ill otherwise , most of them don't derive any benefits from their experiences at all , the result tends to be more fear and confusion.
It's probable that whole different mechanism of neurological functions is employed for people suffering from hallucinations .

The quality of the two above cases can not quite compare , it's not one to one .

Of course , there are many borderline disorders and the shamanic path and people who like to experiment and so forth , really too many options than two but if you are serious student of yoga, meditation or other esoteric school
the good teacher should always warn you not to experiment with 'visions' till you achieve great meditation stability ( and master degree in that particular subject ) because the road is slippery ,
and people experience 'falls' while trying to force or call in 'divine visions' quite frequently, pushing their brains over the edge ,
similar to what some hallucinogenic drugs can do or what too much of anything can do to brain. After all .






See the dog :dog:

[Eram]

I think it is sad that the move toward atheism and also science somehow lead to a belief that the physical material world is all there is.
Why deny certain phenomenon solely because we can't measure them and our physical senses can't sense them?
It's a very short sighted conclusion and the forces of darkness are doing high fives for the success if this illusion.

If the experience that the man had, was really God, is a question that cannot be answered so easily imo.
There are other explanations possible as well, such as a meeting with his higher mind, or guardian angel for instance.

So, how does he know?
Perhaps the experience, combined with all the rumors about the existence of God and also the logical deduction that there must have been some form intelligence behind creation lead him to the belief that he had direct contact with God.
Speculation on my part of course, but that's my theory. :)

[Violet]

Thank you for these valuable insights.

I meant to say: how does the atheist in question know? :) The one who claimed to have been suffering from hallucinations in response to the believers' extraordinary experience. Adding that after successful medical treatment he had now been freed from the hallucinations. What, do you think, makes him so sure?

[conk]

Atheists are simple ignorant. Adherents to religious doctrine are equally ignorant. so many think those are our only two options. We need no label whatsoever to believe in a divine intelligence. 'Something' is directing the tiny bits of energy and subsequent mass to form into whatever shape is called for at that instant. Things don't simple manifest for no reason. 'Something' tells a cell to become a limb or a toe or a nose. 'Something tells those same cells to stop growing, that the nose is big enough. The DNA or the genes do not contain this information.

[Mark]

I simple understand that there are those who cannot experience gnosis and those who can. It is the only real division in humanity. Every other division that has come up along our human journey has basically been a subterfuge designed by the Elite to draw attention away from this chasm in thought and understanding. For the purpose of continued advantage. Those who realize this who are in control are also a very small minority. Over the centuries, this has been one of the mainstays of their efforts.

But we've always seen it. Always celebrated this difference. It is in our myths, in our movies, in our lives.

I contend that the direct observation of this truth of the human condition is so horrific to those who can experience spiritual gnosis and have the characteristics of empathy and resonance, that they deliberately ignore it or treat it lightly despite the evidence of predation going back to the beginning of human storytelling around campfires.

Surely it is just a misunderstanding. Surely it is not biological. Surely we are all the same. Have the same capabilities.

Such an admission remains subject to vociferous objection.

[Ewan]

Thank you for these valuable insights.

I meant to say: how does the atheist in question know? :) The one who claimed to have been suffering from hallucinations in response to the believers' extraordinary experience. Adding that after successful medical treatment he had now been freed from the hallucinations. What, do you think, makes him so sure?

His own belief system makes him sure, it is what he wants to believe ergo it is the truth. (imo)

[shaberon]

Well, the atheist can easily be on the right track since everything is a hallucination. It will all fade away some day.

It's easy for us to group hallucinate "a chair", which is not a chair to a worm or an ostrich, and it's only a temporary assembly of molecules, whose life and pathways are much greater than this momentary form.

So I would say it's the wrong question (is or isn't hallucinatory). You could talk about why some hallucinations are purely private, or how the shared ones interact. I could say the "converser's" hallucination has been repeated by others, but that doesn't make it what he claims it is, in the same way that the chair isn't quite what we say it is. And I'm having a very non-hallucination of the electro-magnetic sea I am bathing in now.

The viewpoint of: I am not hallucinating, is thus insubstantial. Banging on the chair trying to demonstrate what a simple group hallucination it is, does not "increase its reality" versus: whatever the mind perceives, is real to it.

[Violet]

The terminology used by the debaters was that, hallucinations, and used as such to doubt one another's experience of reality. In your bit of text, I tried (for myself) to replace hallucination with the word reality but I'm not sure if it does justice to what you are saying, so I'll leave it to you to judge that.

Additionally: do I understand it correctly if I read: things that fade are not real? How about what follows, equally unreal?


Well, the atheist can easily be on the right track since everything is a hallucination. It will all fade away some day.

It's easy for us to group hallucinate "a chair", which is not a chair to a worm or an ostrich, and it's only a temporary assembly of molecules, whose life and pathways are much greater than this momentary form.

So I would say it's the wrong question (is or isn't hallucinatory). You could talk about why some hallucinations are purely private, or how the shared ones interact. I could say the "converser's" hallucination has been repeated by others, but that doesn't make it what he claims it is, in the same way that the chair isn't quite what we say it is. And I'm having a very non-hallucination of the electro-magnetic sea I am bathing in now.

The viewpoint of: I am not hallucinating, is thus insubstantial. Banging on the chair trying to demonstrate what a simple group hallucination it is, does not "increase its reality" versus: whatever the mind perceives, is real to it.

[Agape]

Thank you for these valuable insights.

I meant to say: how does the atheist in question know? :) The one who claimed to have been suffering from hallucinations in response to the believers' extraordinary experience. Adding that after successful medical treatment he had now been freed from the hallucinations. What, do you think, makes him so sure?

Most of our ancestral advanced civilisations here on earth were natural believers . If you look to life of any aboriginal tribe and man and the way our brains were naturally wired ,
we are all born believers . We have -to believe- to survive . We are rarely born as accomplished gnostics,
gnosis itself evolves in its own pace , its own time-space along the highways of human lifetime.
It may be that the very demarkation line between primitive beast and 'homo sapiens' is not in some sort of technological method or invention but in deeply profound spiritual experience of the cosmos, himself, nature and everything.
Constant awe and search for ever deeper meaning.

So then naturally follows homo a-theist , one who doubts himself , his subtle perceptions and developed methodical brain, gray matter trying to organise everything to cubes and columns, and numbers .
Name 'everything' ..forgetting that no everything can be ever named and then he falls on his own sword trying to count all the stars and contain all the metaphysical complexity of the Universe only to arrive at the same place called infinity ..where he came from..

and there he sits on the sand and watches the tides wash the shore , quite the same way



:star:

[DeDukshyn]

 

Re: OP question.


In my opinion, I don't think it really matters.

It's about what you want to believe. Your higher self or soul or whatever has chosen to play it out in whatever way you decide - each will bring experience that at the end of the day is experience. A spirit's job is to experience, as the Creator seeks to, through you - it steps down from Source as the desire to experience focused vibrations, reverberations and resonances of Creation, and it comes through us (human project). We (ultimately) are of the First Cause, the "word" of God so to speak, the initial Tone that spawns Tonal from Nagual (as opposed to the majority of the rest of Creation which are of subsequent Cause - these are reverberations, resonances, that raise form in lower "octaves", so to speak). If one's soul desires to experience a religion, a belief, a non-belief, or whatever, it has absolutely zero impact on anything "real" whatsoever.

[ZooLife]

Sometimes I wonder if many atheist do not believe in 'God' because of the often perverted use of the concept over the course of human civilization. Having said that, the line between "(self-declared) atheists and (self-declared) believers (of religions)" isn't as clear as even they themselves think.

[DeDukshyn]

Sometimes I wonder if many atheist do not believe in 'God' because of the often perverted use of the concept over the course of human civilization. Having said that, the line between "(self-declared) atheists and (self-declared) believers (of religions)" isn't as clear as even they themselves think.

All the atheists I have been privileged to get to know have had a hatred for religion, and throw "God" into that bucket as well -- "since the religion is obviously BS, the source of them must also be - 'God'". In many discussions, I find many atheists are willing to accept possibly something we don't understand as "God", may actually exist. I tell them that I too find religion as mostly BS that seeks to control people in the name of 'freeing' them, but that I also believe in God because I recognized a distinction between what religion says about creation and logical possibilities; that distinction is required for a better view.

I also note that atheism is a belief, entirely like a religious belief - they are the same. They both require you to 'believe', things un-provable. I get a kick out of when an atheist thinks their belief is the control, merely because of the structure of language that is required for that expression -- "I don't believe in God" is how our language requires us to express it. So it looks like the action is "not" doing something vs "doing something" - believing, in the believer crowd. Our language itself is constructed to program our perspectives. Let me break a piece of that programming for you with a little deductive reasoning:


When one says, "I don't believe in God" - it is a generalization. It indicates TWO possibilities are present, that need to be defined with a distinction as only one of these can exist in a mind at any given time. One of the two possibilities is that you "have no belief on the subject at all", and the other is that you "believe that God does not exist". One of those is a belief, and the other is not the definition of an atheist. Basic deduction based on that distinction dictates that being an atheist is indeed a belief, just as a belief in God is - neither can be proven. Interesting how our language hides that? I wonder if this is the same in other languages?

The lack of existence of something is impossible to prove, just as atheists would say God is impossible to prove. ;) Pretty much the same mindset, the variable is the strength of the belief in both case.


But I still stand with my previous posts perspective - it matters not :)


As a side note, I'll add that strongly held beliefs are the root of all human suffering, whether secular or religious. Believe Nothing, Consider Everything.

[ZooLife]

Sometimes I wonder if many atheist do not believe in 'God' because of the often perverted use of the concept over the course of human civilization. Having said that, the line between "(self-declared) atheists and (self-declared) believers (of religions)" isn't as clear as even they themselves think.

All the atheists I have been privileged to get to know have had a hatred for religion, and throw "God" into that bucket as well -- "since the religion is obviously BS, the source of them must also be - 'God'". In many discussions, I find many atheists are willing to accept possibly something we don't understand as "God", may actually exist. I tell them that I too find religion as mostly BS that seeks to control people in the name of 'freeing' them, but that I also believe in God because I recognized a distinction between what religion says about creation and logical possibilities; that distinction is required for a better view.

I also note that atheism is a belief, entirely like a religious belief - they are the same. They both require you to 'believe', things un-provable. I get a kick out of when an atheist thinks their belief is the control, merely because of the structure of language is required in that expression -- "I don't believe in God" is how our language requires us to express it. So it looks like the action is "not" doing something vs "doing something" - believing, in the believer crowd. Our language itself is constructed to program our perspectives. Let me break a piece of that programming for you with a little deductive reasoning:


When one says, "I don't believe in God" - it is a generalization. It indicates TWO possibilities are present, that need to be defined with a distinction as only one of these can exist in a mind at any given time. One of the two possibilities is that you "have no belief on the subject at all", and the other is that you "believe that God does not exist". One of those is a belief, and the other is not the definition of an atheist. Basic deduction based on that distinction dictates that being an atheist is indeed a belief, just as religion is - neither can be proven. Interesting how our language hides that? I wonder if this is the same in other languages?

the lack of existence of something is impossible to prove, just as atheists would say God is impossible to prove. ;) Pretty much the same mindset, the variable is the strength of the belief in both case.


But I still stand with my previous posts perspective - it matters not :)


As a side note, I'll add that strongly held beliefs are the root of all human suffering. Believe Nothing, Consider Everything.

Well said, DeDukshyn. That was along the lines I was thinking. The reason I brought it up was that this should be kept in mind when considering the question in the OP.

[Innocent Warrior]

So, how do you know?

Sometimes I don't know, but I don't know that I don't know until my reality and the outer reality collide and clash. I can't recall experiencing hallucinations, none that I wasn't aware were hallucinations anyway (I was ill) but sometimes I confuse my reality with the outer (collective/other people's) reality.

A couple of times I've seen ghosts that look exactly like living people and didn't realise they weren't living people until I made a comment about the ghost, to the living person I was with, who told me nobody just walked by us (or whatever the case may be). The moment I realise the person I saw was a ghost, anomalies quickly rush to my awareness, like how the ghost didn't make any sound as they walked, for example. At times I've heard a news story on the radio as I was waking up, about something that hasn't happened yet, and I don't know it hasn't happened yet until I make a comment about it to another person and they correct me.

In my experience, I cannot always rely on the experience itself to know whether the reality of something within my experience will be considered real to others. I can know by association, comparing with others, or testing it in some way.

For myself personally, I can't recall questioning whether something I was experiencing was real or not, unless I was in a confused state. I think knowing the nature of the reality of something is as effortless and automatic as breathing, unless we doubt, hence confuse ourselves. If I don't understand something I'm experiencing, I simply ask, "what is this?" and immediately the answer follows (at least a pointer), that's how I know. Where the answer comes from and what determines what the answer will be, often largely remains a mystery to me, but I know to trust it because it feels clear and perfect and it comes with a sense of realisation.

I think the fact our brain demonstrates not knowing the difference between what's real or imagined is a reflection of the truth that what's considered real or not is our choice.

Update: Violet, I just saw your post clarifying your question (apologies). How does the atheist know? I'd say (mostly a guess) he knows because that's what he chose to be real for him, in this life experience.

[Violet]

That's profound, Innocent Warrior. I've had some undefined strangeness visiting me myself when I was younger. It lasted for a while. And because of the repetitive occurrence, I'm very sure that I heard what I heard. However, since no one else could at the time, I'm still left to wonder: if I decide this really happened, what then becomes reality for me?

There's a saying in islamic literature, as reported by the (nowadays) Uzbeq scholar al-Bukhari, which quotes God as saying: "I am to my worshipper* who he thinks I am."

I've always found that intro very powerful.

[kirolak]

ZooLife, you are onto something. . . .many self-professed athiests are good, kind people who revere all of nature, while many god FEARING (Why??) people are mean spirited, ungenerous, ungracious & speciesists, as well!:flower:

[Morbid]

being a little bit experienced with hallucinogenic substances i came to conclusion that once the medicine is administered, the senses go off the charts, therefore its possible to perceive things that are not there in this thick material realm, it doesnt mean that when we go about our business in here things are not happening in the background.. so yeah! - definately hallucinations, and absolutely real at the same time. depends from which perspective one looks at it. personally, it just takes my consciousness into the higher levels of perception where lots of learning is happening outside of ego self.

[Hervé]

Studying this "Third Man In The Room (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?68916-Don-t-go-into-the-light-Discussion-thread&p=806378&viewfull=1#post806378)" experiment might help some understanding what's what?

[Violet]

Thank you, Hervé. I found that example very relevant, and only if you don't mind, I'm pasting it below:



2) The third man in the room on how even "unwilling" subjects are also hypnotizable:

Cosmic Cointelpro Timeline

There is a little known fact about hypnosis that is illustrated by the following story:

A subject was told under hypnosis that when he was awakened he would be unable to see a third man in the room who, it was suggested to him, would have become invisible. All the "proper" suggestions to make this "true" were given, such as "you will NOT see so- and-so" etc... When the subject was awakened, lo and behold! the suggestions did NOT work.

Why? Because they went against his belief system. He did NOT believe that a person could become invisible.

So, another trial was made. The subject was hypnotized again and was told that the third man was leaving the room... that he had been called away on urgent business, and the scene of him getting on his coat and hat was described... the door was opened and shut to provide "sound effects," and then the subject was brought out of the trance.

Guess what happened?

He was UNABLE TO SEE the Third Man.

Why? Because his perceptions were modified according to his beliefs. Certain "censors" in his brain were activated in a manner that was acceptable to his ego survival instincts.

The ways and means that we ensure survival of the ego are established pretty early in life by our parental and societal programming. This conditioning determines what IS or is NOT possible; what we are "allowed" to believe in order to be accepted. We learn this first by learning what pleases our parents and then later we modify our belief based on what pleases our society - our peers - to believe.

Anyway, to return to our story, the Third Man went about the room picking things up and setting them down and doing all sorts of things to test the subject's awareness of his presence, and the subject became utterly hysterical at this "anomalous" activity! He could see objects moving through the air, doors opening and closing, but he could NOT see the SOURCE because he did not believe that there was another man in the room.

So, what are the implications of this factor of human consciousness? (By the way, this is also the reason why most therapies to stop bad habits do not work - they attempt to operate against a "belief system" that is imprinted in the subconscious that this or that habit is essential to survival.)

One of the first things we might observe is that everyone has a different set of beliefs based upon their social and familial conditioning, and that these beliefs determine how much of the OBJECTIVE reality anyone is able to access.

In the above story, the objective reality IS WHAT IT IS, whether it is truly objective, or only a consensus reality. In this story, there is clearly a big part of that reality that is inaccessible to the subject due to a perception censor which was activated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. That is to say, the subject has a strong belief, based upon his CHOICE as to who or what to believe - the hypnotist or his own, unfettered observations of reality. In this case, he has chosen to believe the hypnotist and not what he might be able to observe if he dispensed with the perception censor put in place by the hypnotist who activated his "belief center" - even if that activation was fraudulent.

And so it is with nearly all human beings: we believe the hypnotist - the "official culture" - and we are able, with preternatural cunning, to deny what is often right in front of our faces. And in the case of the hypnosis subject, he is entirely at the mercy of the "Invisible Man" because he chooses not to see him. (full post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?68916-Don-t-go-into-the-light-Discussion-thread&p=806378&viewfull=1#post806378))

[Agape]

Sometimes I wonder if many atheist do not believe in 'God' because of the often perverted use of the concept over the course of human civilization. Having said that, the line between "(self-declared) atheists and (self-declared) believers (of religions)" isn't as clear as even they themselves think.

It occurred to me even that there's natural link between monotheistic religion and a-theism or rise of skepticism in its extreme variety , nihilism of modern society.
The 'singularity' of 'one and only God' collapses to zero at some point , every faith exhausts itself . Singularity collapsing to blackhole .
There you have your 'islamic suicide bomber' and other forms of religious extremism .

No matter what those people claim to be they're not 'of God' . If you think of divine ways you love living beings .
If they are now murdering tens of atheists in Bangladesh - for being atheists - the perpetrators , extremist groups aren't quite 'people of God' .

It's what's so wrong about any organised religion, mass hypnotism that does not care about peoples individual path and lives but gives an impression it does.

Todays internet is one form of 'new religion' for many people . An oracle easy to access :)
No gods before provided immediate answers but internet does . Mass hypnotism again with its priests , shamans and rituals . People will hang in and on here as long as it keeps spilling new convincing opinions .

So was the Christian church of Middle Ages and its crusades . So was the WWII and its holocausts . So is the Islam and the genocide happening in the Middle East .

Who is there to blame ? The God of the Gnostics ? Hardly , it's the God of multitudes .

No advanced civilisation would ever evolve without skeptic check. No deeper understanding would evolve without questioning it , no physical theories , no science , no cosmological perspectives . True or false . Well , it's what humans believe anyway.


It just seems to me that older so called 'polytheistic systems' did not pose so much danger to the society because there was always a choice and a discernment ,
God or Gods were One in Many , associated with certain cosmogenic principles and elements of nature , they symbolised the living force .
Once they were forgotten , forsaken and forbidden people turned them to 'cabal' the oral, whispered teaching .
And indeed what sense do 'Gods of nature' make to people of today living carefully protected from wind, water and fire in steel-n-glass cities they once so read in fiction books. What Gods do come here .

Historically it's interesting to observe though how monotheism replacing polytheism with its dominant power for few centuries , sorting the lack of numbers with help of its 'holy trinities' and other symbolism results in its inevitable collapse .

I can well imagine that after all the extremists wipe out the rest of the civilisation for their own corrupted faith , those who remain will want to believe something new .

[Eram]

Studying this "Third Man In The Room (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?68916-Don-t-go-into-the-light-Discussion-thread&p=806378&viewfull=1#post806378)" experiment might help some understanding what's what?


Hi Herve,

I watched a part of the Derren Brown youtube in your post and I have to say that I have serious reservations as to his credibility.

I've had a very close relationship with a master manipulator during my childhood and teen years and I'm still working on the impact that it had on me.
The struggle for freedom by learning the tricks that were used on me has somehow heightened my sense for con artists I guess.
I can see them coming from a mile away these days, except for the ones that are beyond my level of understanding of course. :)

Derren Brown has all the hallmarks of an illusionist imo.
I don't trust his performance one bit and I don't think that the people in his show are as hypnotizes as he wants us to believe.

As for Sirhan Sirhan: I see no reason to rule out possession, suggestion or hypnotization, but I would suspect the source to be non physical.

[DeDukshyn]

Thank you, Hervé. I found that example very relevant, and only if you don't mind, I'm pasting it below:



2) The third man in the room on how even "unwilling" subjects are also hypnotizable:

Cosmic Cointelpro Timeline

There is a little known fact about hypnosis that is illustrated by the following story:

A subject was told under hypnosis that when he was awakened he would be unable to see a third man in the room who, it was suggested to him, would have become invisible. All the "proper" suggestions to make this "true" were given, such as "you will NOT see so- and-so" etc... When the subject was awakened, lo and behold! the suggestions did NOT work.

Why? Because they went against his belief system. He did NOT believe that a person could become invisible.

So, another trial was made. The subject was hypnotized again and was told that the third man was leaving the room... that he had been called away on urgent business, and the scene of him getting on his coat and hat was described... the door was opened and shut to provide "sound effects," and then the subject was brought out of the trance.

Guess what happened?

He was UNABLE TO SEE the Third Man.

Why? Because his perceptions were modified according to his beliefs. Certain "censors" in his brain were activated in a manner that was acceptable to his ego survival instincts.

The ways and means that we ensure survival of the ego are established pretty early in life by our parental and societal programming. This conditioning determines what IS or is NOT possible; what we are "allowed" to believe in order to be accepted. We learn this first by learning what pleases our parents and then later we modify our belief based on what pleases our society - our peers - to believe.

Anyway, to return to our story, the Third Man went about the room picking things up and setting them down and doing all sorts of things to test the subject's awareness of his presence, and the subject became utterly hysterical at this "anomalous" activity! He could see objects moving through the air, doors opening and closing, but he could NOT see the SOURCE because he did not believe that there was another man in the room.

So, what are the implications of this factor of human consciousness? (By the way, this is also the reason why most therapies to stop bad habits do not work - they attempt to operate against a "belief system" that is imprinted in the subconscious that this or that habit is essential to survival.)

One of the first things we might observe is that everyone has a different set of beliefs based upon their social and familial conditioning, and that these beliefs determine how much of the OBJECTIVE reality anyone is able to access.

In the above story, the objective reality IS WHAT IT IS, whether it is truly objective, or only a consensus reality. In this story, there is clearly a big part of that reality that is inaccessible to the subject due to a perception censor which was activated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. That is to say, the subject has a strong belief, based upon his CHOICE as to who or what to believe - the hypnotist or his own, unfettered observations of reality. In this case, he has chosen to believe the hypnotist and not what he might be able to observe if he dispensed with the perception censor put in place by the hypnotist who activated his "belief center" - even if that activation was fraudulent.

And so it is with nearly all human beings: we believe the hypnotist - the "official culture" - and we are able, with preternatural cunning, to deny what is often right in front of our faces. And in the case of the hypnosis subject, he is entirely at the mercy of the "Invisible Man" because he chooses not to see him. (full post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?68916-Don-t-go-into-the-light-Discussion-thread&p=806378&viewfull=1#post806378))

Thanks for the repost ...

For me, this pairs a little bit with this ... interestingly enough ...

oYp5XuGYqqY

[shaberon]

The terminology used by the debaters was that, hallucinations, and used as such to doubt one another's experience of reality. In your bit of text, I tried (for myself) to replace hallucination with the word reality but I'm not sure if it does justice to what you are saying, so I'll leave it to you to judge that.

Additionally: do I understand it correctly if I read: things that fade are not real? How about what follows, equally unreal?


Ultimate reality is real; nothing else.

Conventionally, whatever the mind experiences is real to it. Hallucination is a technical term, whereas this may have been a vision; is there a better description of the conversation?

Chances are, the guy had a vision of conscience; it's easy to get that while sitting in jail after having suppressed it.

To take the chair as a counter-point because it is a solid object belies the fact that there is nothing solid in it, only electro-magnetic forces. And if the atheist claimed he was sitting still there, he missed noticing that he's rotating, orbiting a thing that's orbiting another thing that's orbiting another thing, at an incredibly high rate of speed.

So when those two sides clash in a yes/no God versus the chair, any attempt at clarity is defeated. Probably the only thing that resulted was some irritation. And they clamp a little harder on their mental conditioning, especially because there were other people watching.

[Innocent Warrior]

That's profound, Innocent Warrior. I've had some undefined strangeness visiting me myself when I was younger. It lasted for a while. And because of the repetitive occurrence, I'm very sure that I heard what I heard. However, since no one else could at the time, I'm still left to wonder: if I decide this really happened, what then becomes reality for me?

Oh good, thanks Violet, I wasn't very happy with that post of mine, not clear enough, I'm glad you still understood what I was saying.

That's a brilliant question, your question of what becomes your reality. Speaking of wondering, there's some great interactive demonstrations on perception in the video below. They're all in the first part of the presentation but the ones most relevant here is the "change blindness" section, it begins at the 5:45 mark and ends at 7:15.

dqDP34a-epI

It blew my mind when I first watched that and it made me wonder; how much is there, right in front of our eyes, that's clearly visible to us and yet we don't see it because it doesn't fit our way of perceiving/reality construct? And then notice, once it's pointed out, you can't not see it any more.


There's a saying in islamic literature, as reported by the (nowadays) Uzbeq scholar al-Bukhari, which quotes God as saying: "I am to my worshipper* who he thinks I am."

I've always found that intro very powerful.

That's so cool, I'd never read that before. My son told me the same thing, although not so elegantly. I started musing about God one day and my son interrupted me and said, "oh Mum, God's whoever we want him to be. I like to see him as just some ordinary dude, chillin' on the couch next to me, eating a bag of chips".

If you get the time (35 mins), I highly recommend the entire presentation in the video, his theory is about the dynamics between individuals and a separate (but connected) collective which arises from groups.

[Violet]

I was in a bit of a hurry yesterday, and wanted to ask, about the Third Man in the Room.

Let's take that idea and stretch it out to a larger scene, our shared reality. Assuming, by analogy to the experiment, that what we (sub)consciously perceive as real/surreal/subreal/invisible to be the direct result of an in this case broad-scale hypnotism or mass hypnotism, as Agape mentions above.

How can we know that we are in a moment of a state of being unhypnotised and apt to make clear judgment on sensory perception?

[Hervé]

... Assuming, by analogy to the experiment, that what we (sub)consciously perceive as real/surreal/subreal/invisible to be the direct result of an in this case broad-scale hypnotism or mass hypnotism...

For the extrapolation, see this post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?52785-A-Soul-Cannot-Be-Captured&p=1065715&viewfull=1#post1065715) <---

[Hervé]

[...]

I watched a part of the Derren Brown youtube in your post and I have to say that I have serious reservations as to his credibility.

[...]

Hello Eram,

The Derren Brown videos are there to underline that, that "Third Man In The Room" experiment has been duplicated numerous time with similar results.

I don't doubt that Derren Brown uses artifices and tricks of the trade to be able to turn his skills into live shows :)

[RunningDeer]

How can we know that we are in a moment of a state of being unhypnotised and apt to make clear judgment on sensory perception?
Over the years, I’ve experienced being a non-participant of the auto-suggestive, hypnotic matrix. What they all had in common was brief but full on awareness of stepping out of time. For new members, here are some reposts:

- Winter, 1990

I participated in a fire walk. I didn’t get burned, but it was was transformative and cathartic. Belief system was suspended.

- Summer, 2004

I helped my brother, ‘Pete’, from time to time build his home. This one day he lay plywood to the roof. It was hot and he was tired and impatient. Rather than be around him, I asked for another job. He had me pick up the excess straps of 2’x4’s and plywood around the property.

I had been practicing how to move “out of time”, where I'd watch the body do it’s work in a rhythmic flow. No emotional attachment to the job or the result. I reported back to Pete. He couldn’t believe the job was done but he could see the huge pile of wood. Pete had only laid two sheets of plywood. And as I write this I want to say maybe three sheets because it seems impossible for those two events to match up in a 3D world.

He asked how I could've gotten so much done. My response was that I got out of my own way. The body worked while a part of me watched on.

- Summer, 1988

My foot went through the stair. After form work, the Tai Chi teacher had us move to the stage which was three steps higher than the main floor.

I stepped on the first step and tripped because my foot went through the stair about 4-6 in/10-16 cm deep. I tried to catch myself with the other foot up the next stair. I tripped again. The foot went through the second one only 2-3 in/5-7 cm. Then logic took over and I caught myself with my hands. It all happened so fast that there was no time only an unfolding of a movie.

I learned that when mind is suspended from the 3D beliefs, it opens one self to the greater possibility of the human experience.

- Summer, 2012

Stopping time. Wolfie, my dog, and I were out for a walk at the local shopping mall. There’s patch of woods on the outskirts where he does his business. He couldn’t wait and picked a spot where everyone is out and about doing their Saturday to-dos.

I’m looking down to see if he’s finished and feeling embarrassed. I’m aware of the inner dialogue of, “I hope no one comes by.” With my head still down, and eyes raised, I saw four cars suspended in time; two on the other side of the median and two with several car lengthens between coming in our direction. Then, in the next nano second, they drove on.

It took about 30 seconds for me to recollect what just happened. After the initial “can’t be, that’s impossible”, I let it alone and walked for a few moments. Then asked, “What happened just before that point in time?” I ran the tape backwards and came up with the emotion of embarrassment, coupled with wanting a different outcome.


Emotion + Desire = a powerful affirmation of I choose my reality.

Spring, 1998 (Slightly different, but still out of the hypnotic matrix)

I had a heavy, oak butcher block delivered because it’d be too heavy to carry up two flights of stairs. What I didn’t know was that I had to assemble and then turn it right side up.

It was top heavy. I'm glad I hadn't figured that out before I finished adding the legs. I tried a pulley system; hoisting inch by inch, sneaking another book to the already zig-zag pile. The butcher block continued to slide out from the little progress I made. So, I put a call out to my invisible friends and the butcher block mostly lifted itself. I was only there to guide it.

I always want to add a qualifier to these kinds of accounts. Like it's okay if it sounds too far fetched. If I wasn't present, my analytical side would be working overtime, too.

♡

[Carmody]

The third man story also takes you to the point of understanding how media and globalists, and what is behind them---how that all works.

People I know... whom I know for a fact, have been introduced to the fact that all media is a form of subtle to gross lies as a matrix of control and creation of borders and ranges of awareness..those same people will not step out of the mainstream media to look at other sources of data.

Even though they know the mainstream media, as it stands, is literally a hypnotic trap (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJYxeZ8EZRc). I say the words, they nod, and they wince and ponder but they do not shift. They even try, try to step away....but alas.

Why does the elite not allow their children to get involved in mainstream media or television? Because it is a hypnotic. A trap/loop. It's not meant for their children or themselves. It is meant for the reader of this post.

[OMG]

Obviously only you can know your own subjective experience.

But unless you have objective proof of your experience then it's social value will always be in question.

Which make me wonder why people who have subjective experience AND SHARE IT SOCIALLY without any validating external/objective power feel they are contributing socially in some beneficial way? Outside of sharing the "benefits" of subjective experience.

[shaberon]

How can we know that we are in a moment of a state of being unhypnotised and apt to make clear judgment on sensory perception?

Unlearning has something to do with it. And who is "I"? If not one of the most powerful hallucinations or hypnotic tricks there is. In the post Herve' linked, if those monks doing Tum'wo (melting the snow) succumbed to that trick, they would freeze to death.

[Violet]

Yes, who is "I"? And who is "them"?

I recently quoted from Jung's archetypes on the Here and Now, copying below:


"(PATTERN OF BEHAVIOUR AND ARCHETYPES; relating to matters of "the shadow"; 'the inferior part of one's personality')

The expression 'the inferior part of the personality" is inappropriate and misleading, while the term 'shadow' does not indicate anything that would fix its content. The 'man with no shadow' is statistically the most frequent type of human. The human who claims to be just that which he wishes to know of himself. Unfortunately, neither the so-called religious man nor the uncontested scientist are exceptions to this rule.

The confrontation with the archetype or the urge implies an ethical problem of the first order, the urgency of which is only felt by people who by necessity see themselves forced to assimilate the unconscious, and to integrate their personality. This, by the way, is the faith only of those who realise they are suffering from neurosis, or realise their psyche isn't doing too well. We're certainly not dealing with a majority. Those who are more of a mass type of human (cf. the masses) don't realise anything, and don't need to, because the only one who can really make mistakes is the unknown person, traditionally 'state' or 'society'. But as soon as a person realises that something depends on themselves, or should, he starts feeling responsible for his mental condition. "
(Link (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?30405-Here-and-Now...What-s-Happening&p=1063619&viewfull=1#post1063619) to post)

In suggesting that we're living in the universe of the hypnotist - whoever that then ultimately turns out to be - what then remains of "free will" and "reason".

[Agape]

Obviously only you can know your own subjective experience.

But unless you have objective proof of your experience then it's social value will always be in question.

Which make me wonder why people who have subjective experience without any validating external/objective power feel they are contributing socially in some beneficial way? Outside of sharing the "benefits" of subjective experience.

I agree with what you've said but with respect to the discussion above .. the word 'social' ( as in 'social media' and so forth ) stands out for me with red alarm .

Makes me think that perhaps the whole concept of being 'social' is flawed .

Nothing is new under the Sun so to say and the new age 'socialism' can't be so different from its previous version or can it .
I remember how the political systems in so called 'communist countries' of last century was officially called 'socialism with human face' ( or something like that ).
The idea behind really was not too far from the idea of todays 'social media' . Beware mixing of terms .. there's no 'socialism vs capitalism' . Socialism vs individualism yes .
Capitalism is economical pathway .
Socialism is ideology , good in its beginnings , disastrous in its ends. The important momentum for socialism is breaking down individualities and bringing them ( people ) together to the 'beehive' of common social experience.

From social media to the political cabinets and party meetings , that's where you are , the stress is on 'being useful' , 'being subservient to collective' , 'being no one but part of the whole' .

Some people never got a clear distinction of how this possibly differs from 'spiritual' and many people i know of are practically disabled from individual growth after spending years in such regimes and societies where no 'individual experience' that would surpass 'social experience' is permitted .
They'll always hang on movements for guidance, wait for their friends to join in , follow the flow .

From my innermost perspective , biologically n psychologically speaking , it's not how it works with 'advanced life' .
'Social' ( 'society' ) does not mean 'everyone' or 'large group of people' ( the more the better ).
I've seen friends on the forums who were decent and life matured and yet , something ( and yes, speaking of mass hypnotism here ) gave them the impression that they're obliged to appeal to 'everyone' they can .

In real life it does not really work that way . If you have quality 'character' or skills or being crystallised otherwise in certain direction, you need to find even one friend or two to start with and build your comfortable 'social circle' from there .

It's the whole difference between 'intranet' and the 'internet' and 'larger internet of things' .
What a close friend or friends can appreciate the 'whole society' may not . We are not 'all the same' but the software here gives that impression.
It's partially designed for people to be trapped in the 'matrix' of 'social experience' .


Life could be 1000 times more enriching if people could match their ideas and personalities through the digital systems to make use of their own 'wholeness' and allow individuality to mature .

Can't really 'love' something for seeing to its deep innards even once . Laptops looking fancy on outside are the same batch of screws from within.

[Violet]

How can we know that we are in a moment of a state of being unhypnotised and apt to make clear judgment on sensory perception?
Over the years, I’ve experienced being a non-participant of the auto-suggestive, hypnotic matrix. What they all had in common was brief but full on awareness of stepping out of time. For new members, here are some reposts:

- Winter, 1990

I participated in a fire walk. I didn’t get burned, but it was was transformative and cathartic. Belief system was suspended.

- Summer, 2004

I helped my brother, ‘Pete’, from time to time build his home. This one day he lay plywood to the roof. It was hot and he was tired and impatient. Rather than be around him, I asked for another job. He had me pick up the excess straps of 2’x4’s and plywood around the property.

I had been practicing how to move “out of time”, where I'd watch the body do it’s work in a rhythmic flow. No emotional attachment to the job or the result. I reported back to Pete. He couldn’t believe the job was done but he could see the huge pile of wood. Pete had only laid two sheets of plywood. And as I write this I want to say maybe three sheets because it seems impossible for those two events to match up in a 3D world.

He asked how I could've gotten so much done. My response was that I got out of my own way. The body worked while a part of me watched on.

- Summer, 1988

My foot went through the stair. After form work, the Tai Chi teacher had us move to the stage which was three steps higher than the main floor.

I stepped on the first step and tripped because my foot went through the stair about 4-6 in/10-16 cm deep. I tried to catch myself with the other foot up the next stair. I tripped again. The foot went through the second one only 2-3 in/5-7 cm. Then logic took over and I caught myself with my hands. It all happened so fast that there was no time only an unfolding of a movie.

I learned that when mind is suspended from the 3D beliefs, it opens one self to the greater possibility of the human experience.

- Summer, 2012

Stopping time. Wolfie, my dog, and I were out for a walk at the local shopping mall. There’s patch of woods on the outskirts where he does his business. He couldn’t wait and picked a spot where everyone is out and about doing their Saturday to-dos.

I’m looking down to see if he’s finished and feeling embarrassed. I’m aware of the inner dialogue of, “I hope no one comes by.” With my head still down, and eyes raised, I saw four cars suspended in time; two on the other side of the median and two with several car lengthens between coming in our direction. Then, in the next nano second, they drove on.

It took about 30 seconds for me to recollect what just happened. After the initial “can’t be, that’s impossible”, I let it alone and walked for a few moments. Then asked, “What happened just before that point in time?” I ran the tape backwards and came up with the emotion of embarrassment, coupled with wanting a different outcome.


Emotion + Desire = a powerful affirmation of I choose my reality.

Spring, 1998 (Slightly different, but still out of the hypnotic matrix)

I had a heavy, oak butcher block delivered because it’d be too heavy to carry up two flights of stairs. What I didn’t know was that I had to assemble and then turn it right side up.

It was top heavy. I'm glad I hadn't figured that out before I finished adding the legs. I tried a pulley system; hoisting inch by inch, sneaking another book to the already zig-zag pile. The butcher block continued to slide out from the little progress I made. So, I put a call out to my invisible friends and the butcher block mostly lifted itself. I was only there to guide it.

I always want to add a qualifier to these kinds of accounts. Like it's okay if it sounds too far fetched. If I wasn't present, my analytical side would be working overtime, too.

♡

That's a lot of wood, Paula.