Sharing the Facts

W

wizopeva

Guest
"Êthey insist that the site is a search engine and generates the picture that best fits the data. "

LOL, ya know, I hadn't even thought of that before! I suppose if I didn't know anything about PJ or TKR, I might also consider that really. Because there already are many fake psi type joke websites like that card game one out there. It's really not the most outlandish idea to think we might be one. I guess you could get around their assumption by doing a few sessions in which you always only put one word into the computer as your 'session' and then always used only the same word, like maybe 'dull' or some simple blah word. Then do the rest of your session on paper but never input it. This way, a search engine would have nothing unique to search with.

But I think the main prob is that most people will simply avoid believing things they don't want to believe in. They don't want to be weird. They don't want to think they were wrong. They don't want to find out about anything they have been taught from day one is scary, dangerous, and freaky. They don't want to change their world view. These things take a LOT of time to change, just like it took a long time to convince people the world was round. Once people accumulate a fundamental idea around which they base their entire understanding of the world, well that idea is going to have major sticking power, even if it's wrong.

Being a trail breaker, being ahead of your time, is just never easy in anything. I actually did a session for my X bf, back when we were still dating. He showed an interesting mix of interest that varied with fear and skepticism. But it was his idea for me to do a demo session. I was nervous as hell. He picked the target. The target turned out to be me at that moment doing the session! GAH!!!! Tough target!

I actually did OK. I would have done better if I had said everything in my head, but I was worried once I felt the target might be a person that it would be someone he knew and I didn't want to insult that person. I guess in the session, I was getting close to be even worrying about that. So when I got that the person is 'stubborn' well hehe, I didn't say it out loud. Good thing cuz I would have NEVER heard the end of it! I mean, I know I am stubborn already, no need to rub it in! ;-)

I also kept looking around the room and fixating on things that I put in the session like, 'something in the target reminds me of this table leg' and stuff like that. I did describe an inside room with tables, chairs etc and my best part was when I said that someone was drawing something like on paper. Total hit on that one! I don' t think I got anything hidiously wrong, although some things were really vague.

At the end, my bf seemed somewhat satisfied but said it was too vague. I said well what about the part when i said that someone was drawing on paper! And guess what, he TOTALLY didn't remember me saying that at all! It was like he totally blanked it out of his mind. So I then showed it to him on my session and he was totally surprised! He knew I couldn't have cheated with it since he was right there the whole time and he accepted this 'new' info with interest. However I was just amazed cuz I had actually spent a good bit of time describing the whole 'drawing' aspect of the target and he had managed to completely purge it from his memory! Maybe it was just too freaky for him or something. And this from a guy who was probably much more openminded about the idea of psi and whatnot than most people. It was as if the idea of it being 'out there' was OK but once it was staring him in the face and at his doorstep, some major defense mechanisms started kicking in!
-E
 

morgan

Member
anotherdreamer4u wrote

> you could not be a source of putting power of any kind in the
> wrong hands or minds. You and I are more akin to solar panels (a > tool to use sunlight) then the sun itself. That’s what I
> think…anyway. We are not responsible for the choices others
> make just as their glory is not ours

but this is the thing. I'm a solar panel apparently. but even i can think of far more interesting things to do with sunlight. you could reflect and focus it and then you'd have a nice fire. but this is dragging the metaphor too far.
i only feel responsible for negative effects that stem from my actions, in this situation. I dont know what they might be. on a larger scale.. possibly none. But i know that this is a field which calls for some degree of mental stability in order to proceed. there are ideas contained within that are dangerous to unstable people. the equivalent of a psychical kundilini syndrome.
still.. perhaps the situation regulates itself. perhaps progress in psi is accompanied by psychological progress..?? (shrug)

i dont actively disguise my involvement in rving either. it is all there to observe if people make the effort. I just dont take the trouble to actually try and explain it to anyone now. I dont discuss it unless i am specifically questioned on it. and even then i try to keep my answers on the empirical side of the fence. nobody can appreciate what this is and how it works if they do not try it themselves. its a learning-through-doing kind of thing.
Someone who is not willing to try, obviously doesnt want to know enough. I am not here to convert the world.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
They insist that the site is a search engine and generates the picture that best fits the data.

Yeah, that would explain how session images, which are not searchable or XMLd or anything like that, sometimes match astonishingly well.

That search logic is interesting but it's like the movie logic where some teen with a laptop pushes 3 buttons and is hacking into the NSA computer or something. Rather unrealistic. The software efforts required to make this happen even at a level that could 1/100th explain the galleries results would probably cost as much as my going out and say, purchasing Google corp.

It's especially amusing considering how poor I am with search stuff, mostly because I'm lousy at regex stuff. Perl programmers tend to be good at that kind of thing. Unfortunately I am not any kind of a programmer -- in 1995 I was an executive manager who was forced by circumstance to learn HTML and graphics so I could work at home as I was having a baby, and then in 1999 I was a web project manager who got forced by circumstance to learn enough SQL/CFML to pull off the project I planned to hire others to build when the market situation suddenly meant there were no others and I still had a deadline. I'm not sorry, since I couldn't have built TKR without the skills, but "real" programmers laugh at hacks like me, the 'jacks of all trades' that can cobble together just enough to do a little of everything and nothing particularly great. ;-) So, I'm a little flattered, 'cause I haven't the skill they're talking about for that kind of site, but if they'd like to believe that's how it works, they are welcome to do so.

At the end, my bf seemed somewhat satisfied but said it was too vague. I said well what about the part when i said that someone was drawing on paper!
This reminds me of a great line somewhere here on the forum. One of the Galleries viewers did a session on two arabic leaders kneeling, with head wraps, and some other detail. In the data along with many other things, I think (I may remember wrong) she said it was people, kneeling, something on the head, and more, and one person said they showed a friend and the friend pointed to another piece of data -- a cross (like a christian cross) and said That isn't in there! LOL. First off, a cross DOES relate to them, secondly even if it didn't, it's a likely symbolic or associational thing for the viewer about the 'religious leaders', and thirdly, even the specific data was completely irrelevent if some other piece of data was not visible or even clearly wrong.

Paul Smith said in his book that -- hang on all I can do is quote myself from his book thread because it was a guess and I haven't the exact quote in front of me:
I can't remember the chapter. It was pg84 lower left side. Something like, 'Saying Remote Viewing is of no use because much of it is incorrect is like saying Satellite Imagery is of no use because much of the take is obscured by cloud cover.' I thought that was a good point, good way to put it.
In the UFOlogy field, sometimes, I have seen the most hilarious responses from people. For example, you can take person A who, with a group of others, experienced a close up sighting, all were treated for serious radiation burns the next day, and all describe the same event as far as the UFO over their car, yada yada yada. EXCEPT, at some point in the overall event, one person will remember something different, and another might remember a few things in a different order. In crime scene cases, this is a GIVEN. It is constant. It is about human memory--let alone how much one takes in (let alone modifies) when an experience is steeped in trauma or contains info never encountered before. Yet, someone will go, "AHA! You see? Person 3 of 8 said that X happened, yet it couldn't have if Y happened, so obviously they all made up this story for attention." The issue that they have a *documented injury of no known cause* with third party verification is just totally ignored! There is endless amounts of this. Oy.

In the end you'd go crazy trying to figure out the psychology of every person who is in denial about something -- and that means all of us last I checked :) -- we are wherever we are, and so are they, and it's all ok, 'cause it takes all kinds.

PJ
 
W

wizopeva

Guest
PJ, so you have a blog eh! I guess that makes sense but I never realized it before!
-E
 

Rocheleh

New Member
they insist that the site is a search engine and generates the picture that best fits the data.

I have commented on this before... this is one of my "areas of expertise", and well duh, the technology just ain't there yet, or it would have revolutionized my field already.

I invite them to try.

Here's my message

I'm a scientific method freak, so I can see how it caused concern in him. However, I don't think this is possible to do with current technology. Let's see how one such system would work!

1.
You have to parse the text
OR
you have to extract handwritten (!) text from scanned images (see my sessions) and THEN parse the text

I'm majoring in psychology and linguistics at university, and for all I know, even this first step is pretty much out of reach

2.
You have to extract meaningful semantic relations from the images (if you can automate that, well, you're in for some serious money! - there are over 1000 images and more and more each day, so doing it by hand would be A PAIN)

3.
You have to match the semantic data from the session to the semantic data in the pictures, and find & display the best match - IF you don't have a good match, you have to... er... search google for a new image to add to the pool?

All 3 stages have to be passed in a very short time, to add, to produce no noticeable delay compared to a simple 'give me a random target image' query.

You can see that each subcomponent requires some pretty heavy AI stuff, and we just don't have that yet! There has been some research re: analysing sessions using expert systems, I don't know how far they've gotten, but I doubt that this far...
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Well Rocheleh you know more than I do about it!

Yeah Eva, I have a blog, but I've only just started using it occasionally. I am trying to work up to using it daily just to get in the habit but so far am not doing great lol.

The website that goes with it, none of it's ever been put 'live' after years. It's like the joke about how if you marry a mechanic you'll always need auto work (as he won't pay for retail and won't get around to fixing it). If you make webstuff your own stuff always comes last, so if you're busy you just never get to it!

PJ
 

morgan

Member
actually i have thought about it while i was trying to refute it. It is not entirely ridiculous for the uninformed to first suspect a search engine. It is from their perspective more likely than the laws of physics (such as they see them) to be wrong or incomplete.

Hypothetically it could probably work the same as any other search engine - UNDER THE PROVISION that only comp-text sessions were considered (which from these peoples perspectives was probably implicitly assumed.. i dont do many paper sessions really.. although i did do several once i realised the problem with only text sessions to the assumption that the site is a search engine).
you would just label all the feedbacks with long lists of word descriptives. eg.. the picture is the statue of liberty
tall, hard, monument, america, patriotism, green, fire, woman, hollow, etc etc etc..
and then the search function would pick the FB pic with the most descriptive hits.

The logical problems are huge though.

firstly - WHY on earth would anyone invest time and money into tricking people into believing they have psi powers. What could anyone possibly gain from such a fruitless endeavour. the idea itself is ridiculous.

secondly - if this would be the case then everyone would have continually near perfect results. that would be suspicious and counter productive, and it doesnt account for the evidence in reality. Assuming that efforts were made to average out the successes of viewers - this would be impossible to organise and still wouldnt explain why some viewers consistently have more successes than others.

thirdly, it doesnt account for the use of symbology (eg an empty cup for a hole in the ground or a bullet for a missile.) and it doesnt account for accuracies in sessions which are written in a foreign language (something else i did to try and convince them that it was really not a trick)

fourthly.. these people just suck. they're tiring and irrational. let em think and do what they want. i'm unfortunately selfish and am only too happy to let the world continue in blissful willful ignorance of psi, provided i get to use it to my advantage even so.
 

workerant

Lost, Out of sync., On a different wave length.
Ive shared it with only two of my friends. The female friend from work is by nature a bit of a 'naysayer' and just can't get her mind around it.
The guy actually has gone on the site and looked at our work a little, but he is too entrenched in the conscious here and now to really attempt it. Not that he disbelieves, he's just too practicle to accept this new thing into his mentality.
Afraid I haven't had much success at campaigning for the "force" :-/
 
W

wizopeva

Guest
I would disagree. I think assuming a fake is logical on their part. There are already websites devoted to fake psi. That card game one comes to mind. No reason to suspect that is the only one. Joke sites are in fact quite popular. If you needed a really good reason for a site to exist, most of the internet would not exist. And most people would not understand the programming limitations that would be in the way. Heck, I don' t even think I really understand it!

People may not have near perfect results if their chosen adjectives did not well match the words a psi faker decided to append to a photo, especially if the site designer did not put huge amounts of effort into the lists and photos.

Some amounts of symbology could be easily written off as coincidence. And most if not all people in the world have some issues on which they are likely to think irrationally on. Basically we all suck a little bit, hehe.
-E




The logical problems are huge though. Ê

firstly - WHY on earth would anyone invest time and money into tricking people into believing they have psi powers. What could anyone possibly gain from such a fruitless endeavour. the idea itself is ridiculous.

secondly - if this would be the case then everyone would have continually near perfect results. Êthat would be suspicious and counter productive, and it doesnt account for the evidence in reality. ÊAssuming that efforts were made to average out the successes of viewers - this would be impossible to organise and still wouldnt explain why some viewers consistently have more successes than others.

thirdly, it doesnt account for the use of symbology (eg an empty cup for a hole in the ground or a bullet for a missile.) and it doesnt account for accuracies in sessions which are written in a foreign language (something else i did to try and convince them that it was really not a trick)

fourthly.. these people just suck. they're tiring and irrational. Êlet em think and do what they want. Êi'm unfortunately selfish and am only too happy to let the world continue in blissful willful ignorance of psi, provided i get to use it to my advantage even so.
 
Top