PDA

View Full Version : Monday Night's Class...



Glenn B. Wheaton
2007-May-22 Tue, 11:03
Aloha All,

Monday Night's Class was a continuation of our look at "Observation", "Randomness", "Entrainment", and Remote Viewing. The video was provided compliments of Jason. The lecture portion of the class was intended to increase our awareness on an issue that will grow in our community as time goes by. There is evidence that Randomness exists actually as a field of effects. When we discussed that which is definable and those things that are not definable we used mass as our measuring stick. Objects that have mass seem definable in certain terms of physical law. The list we constructed of the indefinable dealt with issues related to effects; which have no discernable mass. We discussed the gray zone of small mass such as light, electricity, magnetism, and gravity.

What becomes apparent is that perhaps "Randomness" is more than it seems to be at first look. There is interplay afoot between "Randomness", "Mass", and "Consciousness". The clues began to surface as we examine the "Observer's Effect". In the video we watched an excellent entrainment dealing with "Placement" and "Order". The general understanding of Randomness would have fated that the entrainment would fail because of odds, chance, and preference. The entrainment did not fail but was completely successful and one must wonder why. It is possible that "Randomness" has the ability to react to mass and consciousness in ways that suggest that it can react with consciousness to affect mass or those objects in mass. It also suggests that mass does cooperate with not only consciousness, but also with randomness. If we think a bit further we may start thinking that perhaps Randomness is a gray zone of consciousness much like light is in the gray zone between definable and indefinable mass.

I think thoughts, which seem to be telling me that in this Universe there really is only Mass and Consciousness. Each has its' shades of effects and a level of chaos as they interact or react to each other. We have always thought of Randomness as being a clean effect with no bias. We have linked an understanding of what is statistical chance to Randomness. When statistical chance fails when it should not, then something else is happening. Take some time to remember those things you have seen in class, the entrainments, the projects, the viewings, the analysis, and the products. What you have witnessed and done speaks more to what could be possible if our minds are right.

It's time to think thoughts that are more out than in. Thoughts that aren't lost in the chaos of the consciousness noise, but make the leap across the randomness pool into the world of the definable. Once we have a pathway we can certainly travel it.

Glenn

Sita
2007-May-22 Tue, 18:52
I wanted to expound on Glenn's comments regarding last night's class, primarily to reinforce what we learned and discussed and secondly to state my understanding of the lecture and demonstration presented by Derrin Brown.

We first watched an excerpt from Derrin Brown's video which related to our entrainment exercise and Glenn's prior talk on the constitution of randomness. To recap the episode, there were 4 men seated around a table with Derrin at the head. On a tray were 5 packets of chocolate logs. The scene opens with Derrin sitting at the head of the table and the 4 men walking in. He tells them to sit anywhere they want, there is no set order to where they will sit. He then asks them to each randomly select one of the packets of chocolate. Each person is shown choosing a packet. He selects one member to take the remaining packet of chocolate and asks him to place it in his pocket for now.

Derrin then pulls out 4 cards with a white backing, face down. He moves them around and asks them to select any card they want, again, the selection doesn't follow any orderly process-totally random. He then asks them to look at their cards and memorize the instructions on each of their respective cards. After giving them a few moments to read and memorize the instructions, he turns to one man and asks him to reveal what his card stated. The first man said that his card stated, "I choose blue." Derrin asked him why he thought that card was selected and the man said that blue is his favorite color. But the card was faced down and he could not have known to select that particular card. Derrin instructed the man to pull up the cushion from the chair in which he was seated and pull out the colored card beneath the cushion. The card was blue. The next man had one that had the same instructions with the color green and the card under his cushion was green. Likewise the next man who was instructed to choose a yellow color and his card was also yellow and finally, the last man was instructed to choose red and his card was also red.

Derrin then asked each man one by one to open their selected chocolate packets and take a small bite. After they took a small bite, he asked them to take a bigger bite and they complied. When each man had eaten his chocolate, he asked the man who had the 5th chocolate packet in hs pocket to pull it out. He handed the man a pair of thick work gloves and asked the man to carefully open the chocolate piece. Embedded inside was a double edged razor.

Glenn asked us if we believe in randomness. I am not sure if he really wanted an answer because he then illustrated a formula that stated OBSERVATION + RANDOMNESS= ENTRAINMENT. That is what Derrin Brown accomplished in that episode. Glenn further taught us that THE CULMINATION OF ENTRAINMENT=ENTANGLEMENT. Entanglement in this sense is that abstract state affecting 2 inert pieces of mass.

Randomness affects mass and its corresponding effects in mass. So, how we think, and what we think matters.

Jeffrey Satinover, in his book on The Quantum Brain (2001) mentions that Einstein describes reality as "local." He states that according to mechanical determinism, every molecule in an air filled balloon moves along a "predetermined" and absolutely fixed path. If one molecule hits another, only loosely do we call it a "chance" collision. In other words the two paths did not share any common causes. Their collision was incidental in the sense that their paths were in no way related to one another. And because the paths of both molecules are wholly determined, neither could do anything but collide. Afterward their paths are related in being affected by the collision but still mechanical and determined. The interaction between these 2 molecules occurs only in an extremely brief period of time-space--the point and moment of collision.

There is nothing random about the machine like picture he depicted. He states that ONLY when we restrict our attention to just one of the two molecules does the other seem to appear out of the blue, or, at random. He implies that is happens like that because we were not paying enough attention (observation). When we don't need to pay close attention to the details, or can't for that matter, and if we are dealing with large enough numbers of identical things, we replace the exacting, mechanical laws with approximations, and statiscal ones. Bottom line: We pretend that the many identical things interact randomly, knowing full well that they don't.

All in all, a very interesting class.

Sita