Listen to this episode by clicking the Play Button above.
The consciousness plays a big role in our interactions with the world, and with the paranormal, as well. But, we are lied to CONSTANTLY about both! Why? Find out in this episode of Open Eyes!
The following are the notes used to record this episode. They are here for your reference and convenience.
Authorities said the official cause of death for the parents, Benjamin and Kristi Strack, is suicide, homicide for the two youngest children and it could not be determined for the 14-year-old son. Police said the autopsies drug toxicity caused all five deaths.
That is not the end of the story however.
Officials said friends and family told them Benjamin and Kristi had said they were concerned with the “evil in world,” a “pending apocalypse” and wanted to escape the “impending doom.”
The old refrain is that a lie spreads halfway around the world before the truth puts its pants on. Facebook declared this week that it wants to help the truth get to the party earlier.
In a blog post Tuesday, Facebook announced that it would start labeling suspected hoaxes and fake news with a warning, as well as reduce the appearance of posts with misinformation in the Newsfeed. You will start seeing this label on Facebook posts with news that is too good (or too horrible) to be true:
Facebook’s decision to help stop the spread of lies started with a study called “Rumor Cascades” conducted in 2013 by its Data Science Team. (That’s the same team that brought us the infamous “emotion contagion study.” ) In the summer of 2013, the Facebook researchers looked at users who had posted false information on the site thinking it was true. They were able to identify fake stuff en masse by pulling in posts where the users’ friends had put links in the comments to rumor-debunking site Snopes.com. Two examples the researchers mention of fake news spreading on the site like wildfire that summer were a photo that claimed to be Trayvon Martin at 17 (it wasn’t) and a receipt suggesting that Obamacare would tax non-medical items like clothes and rifles (it was a bug in the sporting good store’s software). But the researchers also saw very old rumors resurface on the site such as a photo of a bicycle stuck in the trunk of a tree supposedly left behind by a soldier during World War I that was supposed to represent the cost of war (the bike really was “eaten” by the tree but it was actually just left behind by a forgetful dude in the 50s).
The site is crowdsourcing the truth. It’ll identify bad posts in two ways, by reports from users flagging a link as a fake news story but also by taking “into account when many people choose to delete posts.” The finger has long been pointed at the Internet for facilitating the spread of hoaxes and lies. As a huge platform for the social distribution of news and information, Facebook’s move could significantly deter the spread of false information. The label it’s adding to posts is something people have long called for on Twitter, so that tweets containing false information would be flagged to help stop the spread of untruths. Twitter has not yet added such a feature.
At the end of the day, Facebook’s system still relies on human beings to realize information is false and to delete stories they learn are wrong. So it’s only as good as Facebook’s users are at detecting BS. Plus, it only applies to links to outside sites. You can’t use this to report your conservative uncle for a political diatribe with incorrect facts unless he links to an outside source.
Drone technology, already used in other countries, can make farmers more efficient by helping them locate problem spots in vast fields or ranchlands. Increased efficiency could mean lower costs for consumers and less impact on the environment if farmers used fewer chemicals because drones showed them exactly where to spray.
The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a trade group, says agriculture could account for 80 percent of all commercial drone use, once government regulations allow it. That could be a while. The Federal Aviation Administration has been working for years on rules that would balance the desire for commercial flights of small drones with the need to prevent collisions involving manned aircraft.
There are downsides for farmers. Documentary filmmaker Mark Devries has used an unmanned vehicle to fly over large commercial hog operations and film them. He wants consumers to see the buildings full of animals and huge manure pits.
The drones “allow for close-ups and vantage points that satellites and airplanes cannot easily obtain,” Devries says.
R.J. Karney of the American Farm Bureau Federation says there is a “major concern” about those kinds of films and his group intends to work with the Obama administration and Congress to address it. He says such films are not only a privacy violation, but can put farmers at a competitive disadvantage.
The Justice Department has been secretly gathering and storing hundreds of millions of records about motorists in an effort to build a national database that tracks the movement of vehicles across the country, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
The newspaper said the main aim of the license plate tracking program run by the Drug Enforcement Administration was to seize automobiles, money and other assets to fight drug trafficking, according to one government document.
But the use of the database had expanded to include hunting for vehicles linked to other possible crimes, including kidnapping, killings and rape suspects, the paper said, citing current and former officials and government documents.
As a medical researcher at Harvard, Mark Shrime gets a very special kind of spam in his inbox: every day, he receives at least one request from an open-access medical journal promising to publish his research if he would only pay $500.
Shrime was worried that there might be bigger issues at stake: What exactly are these journals publishing and who is taking these journals to be credible sources of medical information?
Shrime decided to see how easy it would be to publish an article. So he made one up. Like, he literally made one up. He did it using www.randomtextgenerator.com. The article is entitled “Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs?” and its authors are the venerable Pinkerton A. LeBrain and Orson Welles. The subtitle reads: “The surgical and neoplastic role of cacao extract in breakfast cereals.” Shrime submitted it to 37 journals over two weeks and, so far, 17 of them have accepted it. (They have not “published” it, but say they will as soon as Shrime pays the $500. This is often referred to as a “processing fee.” Shrime has no plans to pay them.) Several have already typeset it and given him reviews, as you can see at the end of this article. One publication says his methods are “novel and innovative”!. But when Shrime looked up the physical locations of these publications, he discovered that many had very suspicious addresses; one was actually inside a strip club.
Many anti-supplement articles are published the same way… through use of advertising agencies, by way of the shady system outlined in the article.
1000 year drug sentence
Future biotechnology could be used to trick a prisoner’s mind into thinking they have served a 1,000 year sentence, a group of scientists have claimed.
Philosopher Rebecca Roache is in charge of a team of scholars focused upon the ways futuristic technologies might transform punishment. Dr Roache claims the prison sentence of serious criminals could be made worse by extending their lives.
“There are a number of psychoactive drugs that distort people’s sense of time, so you could imagine developing a pill or a liquid that made someone feel like they were serving a 1,000-year sentence,” she said.
“If the speed-up were a factor of a million, a millennium of thinking would be accomplished in eight and a half hours… Uploading the mind of a convicted criminal and running it a million times faster than normal would enable the uploaded criminal to serve a 1,000 year sentence in eight-and-a-half hours. This would, obviously, be much cheaper for the taxpayer than extending criminals’ lifespans to enable them to serve 1,000 years in real time.”
So let’s talk a little bit about consciousness, shall we?
Consciousness. That thing that makes us “we”.
Science tries to claim that they understnd consciousness.
They try to say that consciousness is a product of the processes of the brain, and that we are nothing more than the sum of our parts.
It’s an extension of the processes the brain has, as it sees and hears and feels everything in the world around us.
But can they point to a spot in the brain that is the center of consciousness?
Can they measure it, weigh it, and point definitively at it and say, “there it is.”
No. No they cannot.
All of reality hinges on our conscious perceptions of it, and yet, science has no explanation for what consciousness is, let alone where it comes from!
We really have been lied to all along.
Take 5 seconds to think about what you will be doing tomorrow.
You just did something that no other organism on earth or even in the universe that we know of, can do. We have predicted an alternate future, an alternate universe or reality for ourselves that we can then lead ourselves towards.
Now, take 10 seconds and stop thinking.
Did you do it? I can’t make it past 3 seconds. This means hat although we have the most powerful evolutionary tool inside of our heads, we cannot turn it off. we cannot stop thinking.
We are, right now, despite all of our technology and all of our knowledge, living in the Dark Ages.
We are all “in the dark” about who we are, what we are, and what it means to be human. What it means to be alive and in this world, right now, at this moment.
Everything, EVERYTHING, is energy. Everything is connected, through the energy surrounding us, flowing through us, connecting us to not only each other, but the entirety of existence.
You think that your 5 senses tell you the world is solid, but what you think is solid is just vibrating at a range that your senses van be aware of, can perceive as real. But that is not reality. That is not even close to the depths of what reality truly is.
Think about it this way… when you “see” something, the visual input of the frequencies and vibrations are entering your pupils and are then “going into the back of your brain”, where it pplays the image on a screen.
That screen, that dark theater inside of your mind, is where the “vision” is processed.
But is that real?
There have been experiments done on the pain centers of the brain.
A surgeon, for example, during a brain operation, placed sensors on the pain response areas of the brain.
These would send a signal to a computer which recorded the output of the brain being worked on, to show when, down to the milliseconds, when the brain responded to stimuli.
Without the patient being able to see, they took needles and applied them to different areas of the body, to see how long it would take the brian to respond to painful stimuli.
The brain actually started to respond to the pain BEFORE the needles were inserted. It literally predicted when the pain would be happening, moments before it actually happened.
It, in essence, foretold the future.
In another experiment, people were tested to see how and why they would respond to certain visual stimuli.
They did this, funnily enough, with pornographic images.
They tested qquite a few people with this, actually, and found the same results nearly every time.
They would put different images on a screen in front of people, while they were attached to sensors, which would test the galvanic skin response, as well as heartrate, etc.
What they found is that people would start acting in a “stimulated” response way BEFORE a porno picture was shown, while any other type of picture they would not.
Those two experiments alone point to some sort of “extra sensory perception”, whether they were responding somehow to a future-seen event, or if they were reading the mind of the researchers before the pictures were shown or whatever.
But still, something was there and something interacted with the consciousness of the people in order to have this type of thing happen.
Consciousness problems and concepts
An example is a patient that has lost the ability to raise their right hand. When asked to raise their left, they will raise it. But when asked to raise the right one, they will do nothing. When asked why they didn’t raise it, they will give some excuse as to why they didn’t. Such as, they didn’t feel like it or there was a fly on the wall and they ddin’t wantr it to land on the arm.
Patients are cortically blind, but deny being blind. They will do everything they can do to claim they see just fine.
There is some disconnect between what they are experiencing, and what is actually happening in the mind. The dramatic part of this disorder is that they don’t KNOW that they can’t see. The part of their brain that monitors visual input is not telling the rest of the brain anything. It isn’t even aware that there is no visual input. This means that the rest of the brain has to make every excuse to compensate for the lack of vision.
What part of us is “us”? If a person were to replace every single cell from me, and replace it with yours, what point is reached where I become you and you become me? Is the consciousness transferred between?
Most of the time, we are looking at our lives like a little 8×10 picture. We can’t see around it or past it, and we can’t come to grips with the fact that everything in the universe has a purpose and that everything happens for a reason.
WE have an electromagnetic field, as well, correct? It’s created each and every moment that we are alive.
People who say they can see auras, for example (I am one of them, byt he way), I think are just tuned, somehow, consciously, into seeing a bit of tha telectromagnetic feild.
Impossible, you say?
We’re not built that way, you say?
Consider the case of Concetta Antico.
When Concetta Antico looks at a leaf, she sees much more than just green. “Around the edge I’ll see orange or red or purple in the shadow; you might see dark green but I’ll see violet, turquoise, blue,” she said. “It’s like a mosaic of color.”
Antico doesn’t just perceive these colors because she’s an artist who paints in the impressionist style. She’s also a tetrachromat, which means that she has more receptors in her eyes to absorb color. The difference lies in Antico’s cones, structures in the eyes that are calibrated to absorb particular wavelengths of light and transmit them to the brain. The average person has three cones, which enables him to see about one million colors. But Antico has four cones, so her eyes are capable of picking up dimensions and nuances of color—an estimated 100 million of them—that the average person cannot. “It’s shocking to me how little color people are seeing,” she said.
In the article, they claim that researchers have said for years that it is impossible for something like tetrachromacy to exist, and yet, here we go. And now they say that at least 1% of the population is tetrachromatic.
Why is there, then, not the possibility that people like me that have been able to see auras to exist?
But this is something that science does really well, right?
JBS Haldane said,
“The four stages of acceptance:
1. This is worthless nonsense.
2. This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
3. This is true, but quite unimportant.
4. I always said so.”
and this is EXACTLY how it is, isn’t it?
How much of what was said to not be possible 50 years ago exists now?
“There’s no water on the moon, how can you even believe something like that? You’re a conspiracy nut.”
“Oh of course there’s water on the moon.l We’ve known that all along.”
Propaganda. They are GREAT players of that game
After all, they’re called Social Scientists for a reason, no?
And, remember earlier, the news article I talked about?
How much scientific bunk is put out there, and yet we’re supposed to accept it on blind faith.
A great example is Global Warming and the facade that it is.
In 1970 they said that we will be in an ice age by the year 2000.
In 1976 they said global cooling will cause a world war by 2000.
1989 they said global warming and rising sea levels will wipe entire nations off the map by 2000.
1990 they said that we had 5 to 10 years left to save the rainforests.
1999 they said the Himalayan glaciers would be gone in ten years.
2000 they said snow would be a thing of the past by 2005. (snowmageddon)
2007 they said global warming would cause fewer hurricanes.
2008 they said the arctic would be ice free by 2012.
2012 they said global warming would cause more hirricanes.
and in 2014 they screamed from the rafters that the science is settled.
Do you guys get it yet?
They love to lie.
It’s either that, or the scientists are the most inept people on the face of the planet.
Well, aside from Congress. But I digress.
Most scientists out there do not know their butts from a hole in the ground, and they will claim the entire time they have mastery over their field.
So, what are or where do spirits fit into this picture?
Here’s my thought on things.
The way people look at the world is this… matter, mind, consciousness.
However, I think a little differently.
Consciousness, mind, matter.
I’ve had a lot of dealings with spirits over the years, myself, as many of you already know by now.
In my experience, these spirits, these entities, are consciousness. They are self aware beings who try to communicate.
A lot of times, they act and seem like they are in a type of “dream state”.
Like they are not quite awake enough to see and understand that they have passed on, or that they are more emotional.
Perhaps their consciousnesses, upon passing through death, have “imprinted themselves” on the electromagnetic field surrounding us. Maybe the electromagnetic field is the universal consciousness field that I talk about occasionally.
I mean, if we are all energy, then they are as well, and they are just as able to interact with the world as we are, since we and they are all energy, either way. They just interact with it in different ways than we do in these meat suits.
Does not mean they do not exist, though, right?