Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
InnerSpace

Does Our Brain/Environment Create God?

331 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

greggK
Mostly I think they're insane. But not all, and all it takes is for one to be right. Have you ever read about the Law of Confusion? It's definitely fringe but at the same time it seems to me that such a thing must most likely exist. If our existence serves a purpose, then progress that isn't earned would negate that purpose. It seems to me like the most likely situation would be that help can be provided but it would always have to be an active choice to accept such help. Like a diamond buried in a pile of **** (pardon the metaphor, it's the best I could think of). Most people would immediately throw such a thing away without ever bothering to look inside but for those that do, something beautiful would be waiting for them. Just have to be willing to look...

That reminds me of what you eat.

Like a diamond buried in a pile of ****

It's like the American diet. A little good in a whole bunch of crap; fillers, artificial flavors, artificial colors, red dye #5, blue dye #8, oxybovineribitol, albutropukeital, blah blah blah.

It is becoming a supply and demand thing.

And the Americans are demanding this stuff!

It's like they WANT to be idiots!

And guess who the head IDIOT is!

Edited by greggK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greggK

double post again!

Edited by greggK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marietta
Mostly I think they're insane. But not all, and all it takes is for one to be right. Have you ever read about the Law of Confusion? It's definitely fringe but at the same time it seems to me that such a thing must most likely exist. If our existence serves a purpose, then progress that isn't earned would negate that purpose. It seems to me like the most likely situation would be that help can be provided but it would always have to be an active choice to accept such help. Like a diamond buried in a pile of **** (pardon the metaphor, it's the best I could think of). Most people would immediately throw such a thing away without ever bothering to look inside but for those that do, something beautiful would be waiting for them. Just have to be willing to look...

Godsnmb1, Thank you for the reply.

So you think that people who can see subtile energies are mentally deranged. Do you simply think this because they see and hear things you do not?

I'm not clear on what your statement, who should seek help the person having the experience or the person who thinks they are insane? Or your analogy of the diamond buried in the pile. Could you elaborate a bit.

How about those who see and hear things and know things that are going to happen before they happen. What about very young children that just pick up a book actually the news paper at age 2 and read it without every being taught to read, simply because they were told that they needed to be able to read before they could use the computer (mind you I'm speaking about when computers were all in Dos).

Omni Love, Marietta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marietta
Hey Marietta,

I currently have a few irons in the fire, but I will get back with you...k? Just not sure if it will be today, or... :blush:

In the mean time, if you haven't already done so, would you please review the thread and its sources?...as I feel it will help in our dialog and perhaps give you a little more background from which to draw on when I address your question.

Thanks again for taking the time to join UM and participate in this thread. :)

Hello V..., Thank you, I'll be watching for your reply. It might help if you could direct me to a specific post. I read the first three or four pages of posts.

Omni Love, Marietta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marietta
Thank you so kindly. It is original. It comes from my head. That's why you have never heard it before.

Dear greggK, Very good, so you know how to think outside of the box. I find that very refreshing.

Interesting view.

Omni Love, Marietta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greggK
Dear greggK, Very good, so you know how to think outside of the box. I find that very refreshing.

Interesting view.

Omni Love, Marietta

You are so kind Marietta. What does your name mean? Is it 'Little Mary?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marietta
You are so kind Marietta. What does your name mean? Is it 'Little Mary?'

I've never heard that it means "Little Mary". A quick but I've heard that it means "Star of the Sea" or The seven colored Rays from beginning to end.

Why do you ask?

Omni Love, Marietta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanph

Thank you for sharing V! What a terrific post! :yes: It just so happens that I'm reading "The Evolution of God" by Wright at the moment ... and he is giving this topic -- both pro and con -- a thorough going over. Utterly fascinating! Here is just a sample of the so-called search by evolutianary psychologists et al for the "God Gene" and a discussion of the "spandrel", "meme" etc:

The Evolution of God, p., 414:

"Most evolutionary psychologists who consider religion a direct product of natural selection (an “adaptation,” in the terminology developed later in this appendix, as opposed to a “spandrel”) subscribe to a “group-selectionist” explanation. Group-selectionist logic is illustrated by a scientist quoted in the aforementioned Canadian newspaper article: “Survival of our species has demanded a capacity to work together, to form societies. A willingness to live, and if necessary die, for a belief is a powerful selective advantage. I think there is a genetic propensity for us to believe.” As this quote suggests, in group-selection scenarios, “god genes” needn’t earn their keep by directly helping the particular individual possessing them. Indeed, in this case the possessor would “if necessary die” out of religious belief; but such sacrifices would help the larger group, and so genes in this group would on balance do better than genes in alternative groups lacking religion.

The plausibility of “group-selectionist” explanations is controversial. Pretty much all Darwinians agree that group selection is possible under some circumstances. But many evolutionary psychologists (“individual selectionists”) believe that, in human evolution, these circumstances rarely applied; so natural selection rarely favored traits that cause individuals to make big sacrifices for the “good of the group” in the sense of the larger society, beyond the family. (These individual selectionists generally refer to a genetic predisposition to sacrifice for family members as resulting from “kin selection,” and distinguish kin selection from group selection, whereas group selection advocates often label this same dynamic a form of group selection. Terminological squabbles aside, no evolutionary psychologists dispute that sacrifices for kin have been favored by natural selection.) The scientist quoted in the Canadian newspaper article is an atypical group selectionist, because most group selectionists don’t believe natural selection often works for the “survival of the species.

Perhaps the best-known account of religion by a group selectionist is David Sloan Wilson’s book Darwin’s Cathedral. The book doesn’t lay out a rigorous or detailed account of how religious impulses would evolve by group selection, but Wilson is certainly a group selectionist, and the aspects of religion he emphasizes are the aspects group selectionists tend to emphasize — aspects that facilitate the efficient functioning of large social groups. What Wilson doesn’t make clear is why those group-level adaptations couldn’t be explained via cultural evolution (and in some cases, no doubt, he would acknowledge that cultural evolution played a role)."

Regard the "spandrel" and the "meme" -- cultural and gentic evolution, p., 329-30:

"To shift back into less technical terminology: you might say that we were “designed” by natural selection to feel love and awe and joy and fear. (So long as you understand that “designed” is a metaphor; natural selection isn’t like a human designer who consciously envisions the end product and then realizes it, but is rather a blind, dumb process of trial and error.) But to say that these emotions are a product of “design” isn’t to say that when they’re activated by religion they’re working as “designed."

Similarly, humans were “designed” by natural selection to be able to run and were also “designed” to feel competitive spirit, but that doesn’t mean they were “designed” to participate in track meets. Religion, like track, doesn’t seem to be an “adaptation.” Both seem to be what the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould called a “spandrel”—a phenomenon supported by genes that had become part of the species by doing something other than supporting that phenomenon. A spandrel is an incidental by-product of the organic “design” process, whereas an adaptation is a direct product. Religion seems to be a spandrel.

And yet, you might say, religion does have the hallmarks of design. It is a complex, integrated system that seems to serve specific functions. For example, religions almost always handle some key “rites of passage”—getting married, getting buried, and so on—whose ritualized handling is probably good for the society. How do you explain the coherence and functionality of religion without appealing to a designer—or, at least, a “designer”?

You don’t. But biological evolution isn’t the only great “designer” at work on this planet. There is also cultural evolution: the selective transmission of “memes”—beliefs, habits, rituals, songs, technologies, theories, and so forth—from person to person. And one criterion that shapes cultural evolution is social utility; memes that are conducive to smooth functioning at the group level often have an advantage over memes that aren’t. Cultural evolution is what gave us modern corporations, modern government, and modern religion.

For that matter, it gave us nonmodern religion. Whenever we look at a “primitive” religion, we are looking at a religion that has been evolving culturally for a long time. Though observed hunter-gatherer religions give clues about what the average religion was like 12,000 years ago, before the invention of agriculture, none of them much resembles religion in its literally primitive phase, the time (whenever that was) when religious beliefs and practices emerged. Rather, what are called “primitive” religions are bodies of belief and practice that have been evolving—culturally—over tens or even hundreds of millennia. Generation after generation, human minds have been accepting some beliefs, rejecting others, shaping and reshaping religion along the way.

So to explain the existence of “primitive” religion—or for that matter any other kind of religion—we have to first understand what kinds of beliefs and practices the human mind is amenable to. What kinds of information does the mind naturally filter out, and what kinds naturally penetrate it? Before religion appeared and started evolving by cultural evolution, how had genetic evolution shaped the environment in which it would evolve—that is, the human brain?

To put the question another way: What kinds of beliefs was the human mind “designed” by natural selection to harbor? For starters, not true ones.

At least, not true ones per se. To the extent that accurate perception and comprehension of the world helped humanity’s ancestors get genes into the next generation, then of course mental accuracy would be favored by natural selection. And usually mental accuracy is good for the survival and transmission of the genes. That’s why we have excellent equipment for depth perception, for picking up human voices against background noise, and so on. Still, in situations where accurate perception and judgment impede survival and reproduction, you would expect natural selection to militate against accuracy."

Memes and gentic architecture, p., 336-37:

"Boyer believes that the genetic architecture of human cognition helps explain why people conceive of gods as they do. The mind, he says, comes with built-in assumptions about reality. People naturally divide the world into a few basic “ontological categories”—such as plants, animals, human beings—and attribute certain properties to beings that fall into a certain category. In other words, we have a mental “template” that helps us think about plants, and a different template for people, and so on. We assume that if we walk up and whack a person, the person won’t like it and may retaliate, whereas whacking a plant is less hazardous. In Boyer’s view, when people think about a god or spirit, their brains are invoking the template for human beings, but in amended form, with a few of the template’s normal properties changed. Thus, the Abrahamic God is a lot like a person—capable of love, anger, disappointment, jealousy—except that he knows everything and can do anything.

To some people, this last part—omniscience and omnipotence—strains credulity. In a modern scientific culture, that’s no surprise. But Boyer’s work suggests that such scarcely credible features would have been an asset to a god meme that was just getting off the ground tens of thousands of years ago. His experiments show that things with starkly counterintuitive features —things with properties that aren’t part of their template—are especially memorable. If you tell someone about a table “that felt sad when people left the room,” they are more likely to remember it months later than if you tell them about a normal table, one with the unshakable stoicism generically associated with furniture. 14 Presumably they are more likely to tell people about it as well. So memes that depict gods as unlike anything you’ve ever seen would have a kind of advantage over more “plausible” memes.

... In fact, even traits like omniscience and omnipotence seem to press against the limits of imagination. When two psychologists quizzed people about the properties of a supreme being, the answers were overwhelmingly “theologically correct”—omniscience, ubiquity, and so on. But then these same people were led to think more concretely, to imagine God actually exerting influence in specific situations. Suddenly they conjured up a more human deity. They thought of God as occupying a single point in space and being unable to do two things at once, and, in the words of one of the psychologists, “needing to see and hear in order to complete otherwise fallible knowledge.” 15

This points to a problem for modern theology: as divinity is defined more abstractly to fit more comfortably into a scientific worldview, God becomes harder for people to relate to. In the mid-twentieth century, when Paul Tillich defined God as “the ground of being,” some fellow theologians approved, but he was also met with dismay, incomprehension, and the occasional charge of atheism. Still, he could rightly have replied that his critics suffered from innately narrow vision; being humans, they labored under the handicap of minds designed to fathom the social universe, not the universe writ large."

Reciprocal truism, p., 337-39:

"... Thanks to reciprocal altruism, people are “designed” to settle into mutually beneficial relationships with other people, people whom they can count on for things ranging from food to valuable gossip to social support, and who in turn can count on them. We enter these alliances almost without thinking about it, because our genetically based emotions draw us in. We feel gratitude for a favor received, along with a sense of obligation, which may lead us to return the favor. We feel growing trust of and affection for people who prove reliable reciprocators (aka “friends”), which keeps us entwined in beneficial relationships. This is what feelings like gratitude and trust are for—the reason they’re part of human nature.

... Boyer believes that much of religion can be explained this way—a result of our attributing to supernatural causal agents the very human emotions that evolved to regulate reciprocal altruism; like our fellow human beings, gods are bent on enforcing their deals with us. This doesn’t mean that the grievances of gods are always just. Evil deities, Boyer says, are “enforcers of unfair deals.” 20

But it’s only natural that there should be such unfair gods; there are, after all, unfair people. (And people who can get away with being unfair—that is, can get more than they give—tend to be powerful, like gods.)

Two and a half millennia ago the Greek poet Xenophanes speculated that if horses had gods, these gods would be horses. Could be, but we’ll never know, and in any event that’s not quite the point being made here. It isn’t that any imaginable intelligent species, in trying to explain mysterious things, would attribute them to beings like itself. It’s that the history of the human species—notably including the evolution of the human brain in a context of reciprocal altruism, of social exchange —pointed it in that direction. 21 A law of the social jungle in which the human brain evolved is this: when bad things happen to you, it often means someone is mad at you, maybe because you’ve done something to offend them; making amends is often a good way to make the bad things stop happening. If you substitute “some god or spirit” for “someone,” you have a law that is found in every known hunter-gatherer religion."

The Evolution of God

http://evolutionofgod.net/

MK,

Sean

Edited by seanph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greggK
I've never heard that it means "Little Mary". A quick but I've heard that it means "Star of the Sea" or The seven colored Rays from beginning to end.

Why do you ask?

Omni Love, Marietta

I guess just so you could get to your 11th post. Congratulations!

Re, orange, yellow, green, pink, sky-blue, indigo: the rainbow.

Edited by greggK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greggK
> Does Our Brain/Environment Create God?, How can we know for certain it doesn't.

From 'The Evolution of God':

"Boyer believes that the genetic architecture of human cognition helps explain why people conceive of gods as they do. The mind, he says, comes with built-in assumptions about reality.

How can that be? How can a newborn child have a built-in assumption? Is it from the child's DNA? Is the 'assumption' like 'a liking' or 'an attraction?'

Maybe you could base your argument on colors! Thank you, Marietta! Like, you put unruly people in a pink room, what happens? Or maybe, you put very tense people in a room and start piping in a sound frequency of 141 Hz and they start calming down, what does it mean? Well, those wouldn't be assumptions, would they?

My Dad was the first to say to me, 'Never assume anything.' My police trainer told me, 'Never assume anything.' I can see that is true in certain situations like walking in a dark alley, don't assume nobody is there.' When you assume things, you relax your ummm... mental checking procedures . . .

I still don't understand what is meant by 'built-in assumptions.' Built-in presumptions and built-in presuppositions have similar meanings.

The mind, he says, comes with built-in assumptions about reality.

Well, I can see certain things like plugging in your vacuum cleaner you assume it is going to work, you assume there is electricity to that plug. You turn the switch on and it doesn't work, what are you going to do? Well, you assume the vacuum cleaner is tore up so you throw your vacuum cleaner away and go buy a new one and go plug that in and it doesn't work. You think, 'O no, they sold me a torn up vacuum cleaner.' And then it 'dawns' on you, 'Go to the fuse box and check the breaker.' Now, where did that thought come from? You did not fully allow the mental checking to begin with.

You assumptions are based on your level of education. If you did not know anything about electricity or fuse boxes, you would end up going back and forth to the store to get torn up vacuum cleaners.

In that way, assumptions have not a thing to do with reality. But, can you have an 'assumed reality?' I don't think so. Because then it would be a reality made of assumptions which would not be reality.

Edited by greggK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InnerSpace
From 'The Evolution of God':

How can that be? How can a newborn child have a built-in assumption? Is it from the child's DNA? Is the 'assumption' like 'a liking' or 'an attraction?'

Maybe you could base your argument on colors! Thank you, Marietta! Like, you put unruly people in a pink room, what happens? Or maybe, you put very tense people in a room and start piping in a sound frequency of 141 Hz and they start calming down, what does it mean?

Start calming down you say...? :D How 'bout going mad. :wacko:

Try 7.83 hz...straight from nature. It'll get ya every time. :innocent: lol

edited to add:

At the time when Schumann published his research results in the journal `Technische Physik', Dr Ankermueller, a physician, immediately made the connection between the Schumann resonance and the alpha rhythm of brainwaves. He found the thought of the earth having the same natural resonance as the brain very exciting and contacted Professor Schumann, who in turn asked a doctorate candidate to look into this phenomenon.

This candidate was Herbert König who became Schumann's successor at Munich University. König demonstrated a correlation between Schumann Resonances and brain rhythms. He compared human EEG recordings with natural electromagnetic fields of the environment (1979) and found that the main frequency produced by Schumann oscillations is very close to the frequency of alpha rhythms.

http://www.iihr.uiowa.edu/projects/schumann/Index.html
In that way, assumptions have not a thing to do with reality. But, can you have an 'assumed reality?' I don't think so. Because then it would be a reality made of assumptions which would not be reality.

In a way, your assumptions have nothing to do with free as the studies seem to suggest.

Hello there Gregg.

I have hundreds and hundreds of studies in my files, and I am still looking for a study, I'll post here as well when I locate them. But basically, what the research shows is that mothers can pass down their own perceptions about their reality around them onto the fetus in utero. In doing so, her perceptions or perhaps 'assumptions' can cause to turn on certain genes in the baby, totally based on her perceptions of her reality.

One of the reasons understood thus far is to help the baby adapt to its environment, so that if the mother is in a fight or flight situation...survival mode, if you will, the baby will not be so shocked when it comes into the world. So it is prepared for its hostile environment before it comes into the world.

Now, if the mother is under undue stress say 'domestically being abused', but the world around her is not...that baby is still going to assume that ALL the world is in distress...and will take on a predisposition of institutional fight or flight reflexes. In other-words, it's going to come out fighting & kicking. :gun::D

Marietta...please forgive me for the delay in response. You ask a very interesting question. I want to give you my full and undivided attention when addressing you, but I'm a little scattered brain right now, only because I have spread myself out to thin these days, lol. I've got your number though. :D

I will look for those sources and get back with you, then we can continue, I hope. Thanks for your patience. :)

Kind regards.

Edited by V...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marietta

""""""This candidate was Herbert König who became Schumann's successor at Munich University. König demonstrated a correlation between Schumann Resonances and brain rhythms. He compared human EEG recordings with natural electromagnetic fields of the environment (1979) and found that the main frequency produced by Schumann oscillations is very close to the frequency of alpha rhythms."""""""

Why is it that people assume that just because something occurs in nature it is correct? What part of nature are you assuming to be the first cause or proper order of things and why?

Isn't what is truly being said is that majority rules or if you see a lot of this or that it must be correct? Does the majority make it the correct order of things? Just because something happens in nature does not mean that it is the correct order or things.

Lets consider that we are living in an environment that is very twisted and reversed, causing things to die, do we wish to align ourselves with these reversals or grow beyond them? Do we wish to be in alignment with the distorted planet and "WILDLIFE" of the planet and solar system or do we wish to heal and restore true health and well being to a dying system?

Omni Love, Marietta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marietta
Marietta...please forgive me for the delay in response. You ask a very interesting question. I want to give you my full and undivided attention when addressing you, but I'm a little scattered brain right now, only because I have spread myself out to thin these days, lol. I've got your number though. :D

I will look for those sources and get back with you, then we can continue, I hope. Thanks for your patience. :)

Kind regards.

Thank you for the response. Take your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greggK
Start calming down you say...? grin2.gif How 'bout going mad. wacko.gif

Try 7.83 hz...straight from nature. It'll get ya every time. innocent.gif lol

:D Well, OK.

7.83 Hz is the earth resonance, some people call it the Schumann Resonance, but some people say the Schumann Resonance is 7.8. 7.7 Hz induces long-term potentiation in the pre-frontal cortex. Maybe 7.83 Hz would be a good frequency to play over speakers in jets to keep jet-lag down. But, that is below the hearing threshold. The bottom limit of hearing is 16 Hz. Change my statement to the frequency of 136.1.

But actually, the frequency I was originally talking about is 441 Hz. 441 Hz is also called the 'King's Chamber Frequency.' They probably play over the speakers throughout the white house. :lol:

Edited by greggK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MysticOnion
:D Well, OK.

7.83 Hz is the earth resonance, some people call it the Schumann Resonance, but some people say the Schumann Resonance is 7.8. 7.7 Hz induces long-term potentiation in the pre-frontal cortex. Maybe 7.83 Hz would be a good frequency to play over speakers in jets to keep jet-lag down. But, that is below the hearing threshold. The bottom limit of hearing is 16 Hz. Change my statement to the frequency of 136.1.

But actually, the frequency I was originally talking about is 441 Hz. 441 Hz is also called the 'King's Chamber Frequency.' They probably play over the speakers throughout the white house. :lol:

*creepy laugh* Seven Hertz realy Hurtz... muhahahahaha listen and weep..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqn32PVtsV4

But this will really annoy you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP5mUPbgnmI...925&index=1

Edited by Oriana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greggK
Hello there Gregg.

I have hundreds and hundreds of studies in my files, and I am still looking for a study, I'll post here as well when I locate them. But basically, what the research shows is that mothers can pass down their own perceptions about their reality around them onto the fetus in utero. In doing so, her perceptions or perhaps 'assumptions' can cause to turn on certain genes in the baby, totally based on her perceptions of her reality.

One of the reasons understood thus far is to help the baby adapt to its environment, so that if the mother is in a fight or flight situation...survival mode, if you will, the baby will not be so shocked when it comes into the world. So it is prepared for its hostile environment before it comes into the world.

Now, if the mother is under undue stress say 'domestically being abused', but the world around her is not...that baby is still going to assume that ALL the world is in distress...and will take on a predisposition of institutional fight or flight reflexes. In other-words, it's going to come out fighting & kicking.

The mind, he says, comes with built-in assumptions about reality.

I made no assumptions about that statement. But, V... you have brought out something very interesting and I visualize the people I know to verify your statements. In my mind, it does not pertain to me since I was 'born again' through my accident and subsequent coma in the hospital. Not taking anything to the extreme, there are people I know intimately and they are rebels. I know their parents also and these are not young men; they are capable of causing much trouble, but it is like they are restrained by circumstance; i.e. they run businesses and they are held back from being so outspoken because of the economic situation. And maybe that is a good thing. But, the economy is becoming the mother and the babies are the businesses these men are running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InnerSpace
""""""This candidate was Herbert König who became Schumann's successor at Munich University. König demonstrated a correlation between Schumann Resonances and brain rhythms. He compared human EEG recordings with natural electromagnetic fields of the environment (1979) and found that the main frequency produced by Schumann oscillations is very close to the frequency of alpha rhythms."""""""

Why is it that people assume that just because something occurs in nature it is correct? What part of nature are you assuming to be the first cause or proper order of things and why?

Isn't what is truly being said is that majority rules or if you see a lot of this or that it must be correct? Does the majority make it the correct order of things? Just because something happens in nature does not mean that it is the correct order or things.

Lets consider that we are living in an environment that is very twisted and reversed, causing things to die, do we wish to align ourselves with these reversals or grow beyond them? Do we wish to be in alignment with the distorted planet and "WILDLIFE" of the planet and solar system or do we wish to heal and restore true health and well being to a dying system?

Omni Love, Marietta

Hey Marietta. I just want to make it clear that I am not assuming anything but rather stating that our bodies can 'entrain' or ocillate with our environment...even our cells. A frequency following response caused by the frequencies coming from our environment (geomagnetic activity, electromagnetic fields, solar activity, cosmic rays, radio frequencies, etc) can 'out you' without your awareness. I've posted a good bit of data on this throughout the thread.

Check out this >> source for starters. Todd Murphy is a behavioral neuroscientist, and even though this particular research is about 10 years old...it still stands unchallenged to date. We live in exciting times...as we learn more about how our environment affects us. Our brain contains magnetite. This does affect how we interact with our environment, ourselves and others.

also >>http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2979427

:D Well, OK.

7.83 Hz is the earth resonance, some people call it the Schumann Resonance, but some people say the Schumann Resonance is 7.8. 7.7 Hz induces long-term potentiation in the pre-frontal cortex. Maybe 7.83 Hz would be a good frequency to play over speakers in jets to keep jet-lag down. But, that is below the hearing threshold. The bottom limit of hearing is 16 Hz. Change my statement to the frequency of 136.1.

But actually, the frequency I was originally talking about is 441 Hz. 441 Hz is also called the 'King's Chamber Frequency.' They probably play over the speakers throughout the white house. :lol:

The Schumann Resonance also fluxs at 13.8 Hz, 19.7 Hz, 25.7 Hz, 31.7 Hz, 39 Hz, and 45 Hz, with slight variations. All affect our behavior if we go into default with the environment's frequencies. We can entrain with these frequencies. Even our cells. It doesn't matter if your can hear them or not.

Also, check this out...just to give you an idea of what we are bombarded with 24/7.

*creepy laugh* Seven Hertz realy Hurtz... muhahahahaha listen and weep..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqn32PVtsV4

But this will really annoy you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP5mUPbgnmI...925&index=1

Yep, you've got it. I wouldn't recommend anyone listening to these videos unless they have professional help or they do extensive research. They will actually need a read-out of their own brainwaves.

The reason I say this Oriana, is because some people suffer from what is known as 'slow wave' disorders. This means that people with this condition have slower than normal brainwaves on a regular basis. Many people with these slower brainwaves suffer from depression, ADD/ADHD, fibromyalgia, anxiety, etc. The video you presented would slow keep their brainwaves at a state that is not conducive to mental and physical well being for that particular person. Everyone's neurological profile is uniquely different, and requires evaluation, impo.

So it's really important that people know what they are doing before incorporating this practice of brainwave entrainment. It takes a lot of study to use this effectively and without possible neurological side-effects. I personally wouldn't recommend this without proper education and an EEG. There are just too many people out there who want to make a quick buck with this technology and could lead you in the wrong direction.

Cheers. =)

Edited by V...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MysticOnion
Hey Marietta. I just want to make it clear that I am not assuming anything but rather stating that our bodies can 'entrain' or ocillate with our environment...even our cells. A frequency following response caused by the frequencies coming from our environment (geomagnetic activity, electromagnetic fields, solar activity, cosmic rays, radio frequencies, etc) can 'out you' without your awareness. I've posted a good bit of data on this throughout the thread.

Check out this >> source for starters. Todd Murphy is a behavioral neuroscientist, and even though this particular research is about 10 years old...it still stands unchallenged to date. We live in exciting times...as we learn more about how our environment affects us. Our brain contains magnetite. This does affect how we interact with our environment, ourselves and others.

also >>http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2979427

The Schumann Resonance fluxs from 13.8 Hz, 19.7 Hz, 25.7 Hz, 31.7 Hz, 39 Hz, and 45 Hz, with slight variations. All affect our behavior if we go into default with the environment's frequencies. We can entrain with these frequencies. Even our cells. It doesn't matter if your can hear them or not.

Also, check this out...just to give you an idea of what we are bombarded with 24/7.

Yep, you've got it. I wouldn't recommend anyone listening to these videos unless they have professional help or they do extensive research. They will actually need a read-out of their own brainwaves.

The reason I say this Oriana, is because some people suffer from what is known as 'slow wave' disorders. This means that people with this condition have slower than normal brainwaves on a regular basis. Many people with these slower brainwaves suffer from depression, ADD/ADHD, fibromyalgia, anxiety, etc.

So it's really important that people know what they are doing before incorporated this practice of brainwave entrainment. It takes a lot of study to use this properly. I personally wouldn't recommend this without proper education and an EEG. There are just too many people out there to make a quick buck with this technology and could lead you in the wrong direction.

Cheers. =)

Hmm.. if somebody that was ADHD heard these would it make them temporarily smarter? I couldn't listen to them for very long they were drivin' me mad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InnerSpace
Hmm.. if somebody that was ADHD heard these would it make them temporarily smarter? I couldn't listen to them for very long they were drivin' me mad!

LOL. It brings blood/oxygen to the brain, so it can make you smarter in a sense, lol...but as far as them ADHD's driving you more mad...that I wouldn't know. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MysticOnion
LOL. It brings blood/oxygen to the brain, so it can make you smarter in a sense, lol...but as far as them ADHD's driving you more mad...that I wouldn't know. :lol:

What if you were REALLY really smart like Einstein or something and you heard this.. would it drive you insane or would it make you be able to see stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greggK
*creepy laugh* Seven Hertz realy Hurtz... muhahahahaha listen and weep..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqn32PVtsV4

But this will really annoy you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP5mUPbgnmI...925&index=1

Ohh, thank you Oriana. I could listen to those all day long! What I have done is clicked on both to where I have 2 going at one time. And man, is it beautiful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InnerSpace
What if you were REALLY really smart like Einstein or something and you heard this.. would it drive you insane or would it make you be able to see stuff?

Well, I believe Einstein was the way he was because he had lower latent inhibition than most in his field. Scientist tend to have higher latent inhibition, so that they block out stimuli that is not necessarily relevant to their studies. This has pros and cons with it.

Inventors, for an example..tend to have lower latent inhibition which means they take in a lot more stimuli from their environment and process it...giving them a bigger picture than if they were more narrowly focused (higher latent inhabition).

This particular technology does bring blood to the brain, and can cause one to become more aware of their surroundings, increasing latent inhibition. The side effects of low latent inhibition are that it can lead to possible psychosis if you don't' have the intelligence or neurological profile (thicker corpus callosum to process the stimuli.) Research has shown that this kind of entrainment can increase the corpus callosum, but again...one needs to be well read on this technology before they go messing with their heads. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greggK
What if you were REALLY really smart like Einstein or something and you heard this.. would it drive you insane or would it make you be able to see stuff?

It does not cause any external thing. I watched somebody who started listening to some frequencies and they are pretty smart and when they started hearing the frequency, they ripped off those headphones and said, 'My God, that drives me crazy!' Well, I guess it depends on what you can take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marietta

Hey Marietta. I just want to make it clear that I am not assuming anything but rather stating that our bodies can 'entrain' or ocillate with our environment...even our cells. A frequency following response caused by the frequencies coming from our environment (geomagnetic activity, electromagnetic fields, solar activity, cosmic rays, radio frequencies, etc) can 'out you' without your awareness. I've posted a good bit of data on this throughout the thread.

Hi V..., Thanks for the reply.

Sorry if I offended you. The statement about assuming things was not intended to be directed at you personally. I was speaking in general as to the so called professionals who put all this stuff together. It seems to me (personally) from what I have read that they assume that just because certain things are found in Nature this makes it the correct order of things. Like the fibonacci spiral. No part of the fibonacci sprial has a relation to its center. Its a closed ended spiral, which only sucks in energy. It doesn't allow for the inflow and out flow of perpetual energy flow that sustains all things. Things in nature run off of the fibonocci spiral and all things in nature die. Death is caused by Molecular Compaction and is the ultimate cause of Death behind every single malady, as far as health. Due to shield reversals and thus the inability of the shields and DNA, and therefore the body, to be able to receive and synthesize naturally the normal currents from the Soul (our 6th Dimensional identity). Molecular Compaction is the process by which higher frequency energy comes in but the receiving part of the shields below it are not functioning so it crushes the remaining parts of the dysfunctional receivers in the shields and then spreads erratic whacky energy out through the shield, and when that happens the next set of currents that tries to come in will do the same thing but now there is more damage because of the erratic frequency that is flying around from the previous time.

I agree that our bodies and even our cells can ocillate with our environment but I don't agree that this is in our best interest.

The effects that the environment (the geomagnetic activity, electromagnetic fields, solar activity, comic rays, and radio frequency) all play in the reason we die. We should be able to transmute the body at will and move from probability to probability or dimension to dimension, so on at will.

Vibration is electrical and causes expansion while ocillation is magnet and causes contraction, in order to product the correct vibration to ocillation ratio needed in order to raise our frequency, we need to lower our rate vibration and raise our rate of ocillation, in turn causing a rise in frequency.

A dimension is a frequency band and dimensions work much like a TV set. You have to tune into the frequency in order to view the picture. When a person has a head trauma it opens nuero-transmitters that allow this frequency accretion to temporary happen which in turn enables them to see other realities and if the body is not ready for the incoming frequency it can do harm which can actually inhibit our natural ability to accrete higher frequencies. Primal Order is the correct alignment if one strives to come into alignment of the original intended divine blueprint of life. Not alignment with the planetary harmonics. The Primal order of manifestation template (Morphogenetic Field) represents the core mathematical and geometrical interrelationships of energy that consciousness takes on in order to enter the holographically projected experience of external space, time, matter and individuation. No thing is truly manifest it only appears to be so, due to the refraction of consciousness within the energetic relationships inherent to the holographic template- the original thought-form construct upon which our universal structure is perpetually created.

The earth has a complex of energy portals called lay lines, meridians which serve as conduits for energy to pass through the planet. These can be used as a means to mind control entire populations of people on the planet using Scalar wave (also called "electromagnetic longitudinal waves", "Maxwellian waves", or "Teslawellen" ("Tesla waves").[ technology along with the energy of these systems and other thing such as light and sound that I will not go into here. This does not in any way negate the fact that not all people having experiences of the nature we are speaking have them because of manipulation.

Omni Love, Marietta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greggK
We should be able to transmute the body at will and move from probability to probability or dimension to dimension, so on at will.

Transmutation, transmigration, transfiguration . . . we have no example of that. There have been experiments to try those things, but none successful that I know of. The flesh and blood that we have is for a purpose. There is no way to bypass it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.