Georges Lakhovsky’s Multi-Wave Oscillator

[LuisP]

"All motion is thought, and all force is mind force."
"There is a celestial mind force, a great sympathetic force which is life itself, of which everything is composed."
John Keely

Hobbit
John Keely I discovered soon after having found Hutchison (never had found nobody before, really), and have tried to talk here (viewtopic.php?f=51&t=1094#p31923) about him.

Extraordinary guy.

Are you familiar with a Prof. Daniel Garrison Brinton (b.1837 – d.1899) of University of Pennsylvania and his work “Abstract of Keely's Physical Philosophy in its main features up to the point of practical application” ? (http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/ ... Philosophy).

Some very interesting (I think) excerpts,

- The fundamental conception of the Universe is force manifesting itself in rhythmical relations. This definition is exhaustive, including both thought and extension, matter and mind. The law for the one is the law for the other. The distinction between them is simply relative, i.e. quantitative, not qualitative.
- Insomuch as every mass of matter consists thus, in fact, of vibrations in harmonic equilibrium, related by simple proportions of thirds, it follows that every mass of every description stands in harmonic relations to every other mass.
- It is through the disturbance of this oscillatory equilibrium, by means of resonant impulses, that Keely alters the relations of the vibratory impulses which constitute matter. This he does by striking the same chord in three octaves, representing the third, sixth, and ninth of the scale.
- Of these, the sixth reduces the range of molecular vibrations or oscillations; and, by thus bringing nearer to each other the neutral centers, increases solidification.
- The ninth extends the range of molecular oscillation, and thus tends to give greater tenuity to the mass. It induces "trajectile velocity" from neutral centers, or "neutral radiation."
- The third represents the "dominant," and when brought under control of a harmonic resonant impulse induces a complete rearrangement of the modes of vibration and oscillation; in other words, will transform the mass either into its component initial forces, or into some other form of matter.
- As all molecules and masses are mere centres of harmonized vibrations, temporarily held in suspension by simple laws identical with those of resonance, it follows that these centres can be broken up or divided by certain orders of vibration impinging upon and disturbing them.”


What to say if one adds to the above Pricenton’s University “P.E.A.R” (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) study ?

Maybe some have heard of it, maybe some haven’t.
I hadn’t.

But have, meanwhile. And am fascinated by it.
See in my next post, why.

[LuisP]

PEAR was a parapsychology research program which ran in Pricenton University from 1979 to 2007,a synopsis of which can be read here http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/theory.html .
Adding to Keely this Study’s conclusions, then something quite frightening comes up : maybe what he claims is all true !

I will mention further down in the “Notes” section (Yes, I’m a presentation stickler bastard) an extremely interesting (yep, to me !) 15 minute video which I advise seeing.

In it, Dr. Robert Jahn (PEARL’s Director) at around minute 11, makes this stupefying statement : “The results we find in our composite data base are Unlikely by a chance of better than 1 in a Trillion. This is far more stringent than any scientific experiment I’m aware of or required for its validation”.

Also in it, a PEAR investigator, Prof. Brenda Dunne, around minute 8 says this: “How can we have peer reviews … if there aren’t any peers ?”


Yes, I can well understand her frustration.
And - I’m sure - not only I.

Just for record’s sake and some tail wagging ( ! ) I should mention that Prof. Dunne was in 2005 the recipient of the (in)famous “Pigasus Award” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigasus_Award. Then again, maybe they hadn’t heard about several other wackos out there ….so, no big feat.

Onwards,
From PEAR synopsis, some very interesting – again, to myself - excerpts

"Nearly three decades of intense experimentation leave little doubt that the anomalous physical phenomena appearing in the PEAR studies are valid, and are significantly correlated with such subjective variables as intention, meaning, resonance, and uncertainty. The stark inconsistencies of these results with established physical and psychological presumptions place extraordinary demands on the development of competent new theoretical models for constructive dialogue with the empirical data.
… nothing less than a generously expanded scientific model of reality, one that allows consciousness a proactive role in the establishment of its experience of the physical world, will be required.
…. the basic processes by which consciousness exchanges information with its environment, orders that information, and interprets it, also enable it to bias probabilistic systems and thereby to avail itself of some control over its reality.
… the "anomalous" phenomena observed in the PEAR experiments become quite normal expectations of bonded human/machine and human/human systems, and the door is opened for all manner of creative consciousness/environment interactions.
… an alternative route is proposed, whereby the inherently probabilistic nature of unconscious mind and intangible physical mechanisms are invoked to achieve anomalous acquisition of information about, or anomalous influence upon, otherwise inaccessible material processes
… most importantly, cogent representation of the merging of mental and material dimensions into indistinguishability at their deepest levels.
… Taken together, they can provide a comprehensive conceptual framework for an overarching "science of the subjective" that may one day support a yet more fundamental representation of the full panorama of human experience."

So,
I mean, WTF ?



Notes:
(a) If into further reading about this “Science of the Subjective”, click here : http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/199 ... ective.pdf
(b) If into trying to understand (?) a direct consequence of all these experiments, called the “Psyleron Technology”, which is a spin-off of Priceton’s research into mind-matter interaction, click here to see a 15 minute very, very interesting video : http://vimeo.com/4359545

[kevin]

LuisP,
I detect nine parallel lines in three groups of three.
3,6,9.....the goose drank wine.
Flowing along each line is variant flows, in variant opposing directions.
Fibonacci sequencing......
Picture those nine lines crossing other self similer nine lines at different orientations.
Picture say 34 sets of such crossing each other...306 lines....all with flows, and the centre fifth line been a nodal point which becomes the central point of least resistance, then the flows react in sort of water down a plug hole fashion spiralling into that central point.
The trees adhore such points.
As above, so below.....
Picture the same exact nodal point also acting in reverse below an equator line with the spiral going in the opposite direction.
Vast amounts of conciousness pounding together to enable mass to remember how to be.

Then it gets ever more complex , which I find simple.
Kevin

[Nancy_Hutchison]

PEAR was a parapsychology research program which ran in Pricenton University from 1979 to 2007,a synopsis of which can be read here http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/theory.html .
Adding to Keely this Study’s conclusions, then something quite frightening comes up : maybe what he claims is all true !

I will mention further down in the “Notes” section (Yes, I’m a presentation stickler bastard) an extremely interesting (yep, to me !) 15 minute video which I advise seeing.

In it, Dr. Robert Jahn (PEARL’s Director) at around minute 11, makes this stupefying statement : “The results we find in our composite data base are Unlikely by a chance of better than 1 in a Trillion. This is far more stringent than any scientific experiment I’m aware of or required for its validation”.

Also in it, a PEAR investigator, Prof. Brenda Dunne, around minute 8 says this: “How can we have peer reviews … if there aren’t any peers ?”


Yes, I can well understand her frustration.
And - I’m sure - not only I.

Just for record’s sake and some tail wagging ( ! ) I should mention that Prof. Dunne was in 2005 the recipient of the (in)famous “Pigasus Award” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigasus_Award. Then again, maybe they hadn’t heard about several other wackos out there ….so, no big feat.

Onwards,
From PEAR synopsis, some very interesting – again, to myself - excerpts

"Nearly three decades of intense experimentation leave little doubt that the anomalous physical phenomena appearing in the PEAR studies are valid, and are significantly correlated with such subjective variables as intention, meaning, resonance, and uncertainty. The stark inconsistencies of these results with established physical and psychological presumptions place extraordinary demands on the development of competent new theoretical models for constructive dialogue with the empirical data.
… nothing less than a generously expanded scientific model of reality, one that allows consciousness a proactive role in the establishment of its experience of the physical world, will be required.
…. the basic processes by which consciousness exchanges information with its environment, orders that information, and interprets it, also enable it to bias probabilistic systems and thereby to avail itself of some control over its reality.
… the "anomalous" phenomena observed in the PEAR experiments become quite normal expectations of bonded human/machine and human/human systems, and the door is opened for all manner of creative consciousness/environment interactions.
… an alternative route is proposed, whereby the inherently probabilistic nature of unconscious mind and intangible physical mechanisms are invoked to achieve anomalous acquisition of information about, or anomalous influence upon, otherwise inaccessible material processes
… most importantly, cogent representation of the merging of mental and material dimensions into indistinguishability at their deepest levels.
… Taken together, they can provide a comprehensive conceptual framework for an overarching "science of the subjective" that may one day support a yet more fundamental representation of the full panorama of human experience."

So,
I mean, WTF ?



Notes:
(a) If into further reading about this “Science of the Subjective”, click here : http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/199 ... ective.pdf
(b) If into trying to understand (?) a direct consequence of all these experiments, called the “Psyleron Technology”, which is a spin-off of Priceton’s research into mind-matter interaction, click here to see a 15 minute very, very interesting video : http://vimeo.com/4359545

the battle for the minds of men.....

[LuisP]

the battle for the minds of men.....

Yes. Maybe.

What is "the mind" ?

[Nancy_Hutchison]

the battle for the minds of men.....

Yes. Maybe.

What is "the mind" ?

We watched the move "Flatliners" a few nights ago.
Pretty basic stuff. I personally prefer the movie "What Dreams May Come".
Robin Williams stars in What Dreams May Come, which makes me doubt that he committed suicide.

What "is" the mind?
IMO...a processor, like a computer.
Data collection and storage. Then "self" chooses what action to take based upon the available information.

Some years ago I was in Hawaii with my relatives. We had hiked to a remote mountain pool, that was fed on one end by a waterfall.
I was the first to arrive at the pool and I walked into the water and began to swim. I was alone.
Got to the middle of the pool and saw an alligator on the shore in front of me.
Had to make a decision.
If I turned and swam back the way I came, the alligator could move into the water, and since it swims faster than me, easily reach me and bite off my legs as I try to get away. I remembered seeing a TV show and alligators have tremendous strength biting down, but not opening. The "alligator wrestler" would get on top of the alligator and with his bare hands could keep the alligator's mouth shut.
I made a decision.
Swim towards the alligator and try to get on top, close its mouth. Better than having my legs bitten off.
As I swam towards the alligator, fear gripped me. Heart racing. Swimming and keeping my eyes on the alligator.
Closer, closer. How to get on top of the alligator running through my mind.
As I nearer the alligator I stopped swimming.
And new information came to my mind, via my eyes.
The alligator was a rock formation on the bank of the pool.

I have told this to many people. Several have said, "There are no alligators in Hawaii".
Maybe that tidbit of information was somewhere in my memory, but I did not access it when I was in the pool.

Who was in control of my mind?
I had been taught/programmed that alligators are dangerous.
I had been taught/programmed what an alligator looks like.
I had been taught/programmed to be alert to danger when you are alone in the wild.
I was in water, not able to run. I had been taught/programmed that alligators swim faster than humans.
I had been taught/programmed how to close the mouth of an alligator.
All of this programming. Created fear.
But I was the One that made the choice.
I choose what action to take.

Fight or Flight
is that instinct?
or free will choice?

Nancy

[kevin]

Nancy-Hutchison,
What do Your eyes see in this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoE98MhU ... e=youtu.be
Kevin

[Nancy_Hutchison]

Nancy-Hutchison,
What do Your eyes see in this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoE98MhU ... e=youtu.be
Kevin

I see "distortions" in the "air".

captured the vid from youtube, put it into my editing software
changed brightness, contrast, blurred it then sharpened it
yep..."distortions in the air"

see pic below, screen shot from my Final Cut Pro

Nancy

[Nancy_Hutchison]

I suggest you zoom in on the pic I just posted

[LuisP]

What "is" the mind?
IMO...a processor, like a computer.
Data collection and storage. Then "self" chooses what action to take based upon the available information.

Fight or Flight
is that instinct?
or free will choice?

Nancy

Excerpts taken for synthesis power of the underlying issue, as I see it.

Nancy
Are you not talking about “the brain” ?

Can “data collection and storage” or a Choice made upon “available information” conditioned by a imposed “programming” ….

explain
Compassion ? explain Love ? or Hate ? not to mention that so innocuous term – “Consciousness” ? I can come to love what I was conditioned to hate ! I can awake one day and “feel” compassion towards what I had only “felt” repulsion ! I can even one day awake to “subjective variables” that are at complete odds with all the “empirical data” I had known before!


What IS the mind ?

Someone goes into a coma and gets out of it speaking Mandarin, another playing the violin , another still painting beautiful, exquisite paintings. The first one never had spoken a word of it, the other never played a simple tamborete and the other even had ever painted a wall !

A kid that can’t even perform the simple task of feeding himself is put inside an helicopter, flown over a landscape he has never seen and upon landing, grabs a pencil and draws a perfect aerial perspective of it without ever lifting the pencil from the board until he’s finished ?

Another kid takes a stick from a tree and with it “feels” water 250 feet below surface ?

Yet another spends his childhood alone and his adolescence tortured by medical science, and ends up having “anomalous influence upon otherwise inaccessible material processes” ?


What IS the mind ?