Reality and the Extended Mind
7.36
Ratings: 7.36/10 from 153
users.
From the author: The inspiration came from many years of personal research into a range of scientific fields including consciousness and psi research, psychology, biology, cosmology, quantum physics and philosophy of mind.
This documentary focuses on experiments exploring what is known by researchers as psi phenomena. These are anomalous extended properties of consciousness that have been measured under experimental conditions by highly qualified scientists.
Their existence signal far-reaching implications to our understanding of both consciousness and reality itself.
The Reality and the Extended Mind documentary is loosely based on a highly researched and in-depth book by the same title.
Directed by: Adrian Nelson
The Reality and the Extended Mind documentary is loosely based on The Extended Mind: The Power of Thinking Outside the Brain by Annie Murphy Paulhttps://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Outside-Brain-Annie-Murphy-ebook/dp/B07FKB3V5S
Completely unconvincing. Well done.
I have psi powers that would be hard to imagine by you mere mortals. So I won't go into it so as not to upset you. Just trust me on this, I'm better than you by a long shot. Have a nice day.
Great documentary. Thanks for uploading. But the background music is a bit too loud and intrusive.
By the way the Admiral Byrd ESP experiment was conducted EVERY night at the same time. So they had a number of journal entries to compare.
Back in the day there was a thing called ESP (Extra Sensory Perception). An ESP researcher pre arranged with Admiral Byrd, who was going on an expedition to Antarctica, to set aside 10 minutes (I think that was the amount) at a particular time to think about something and try to project those thoughts to the research who would try to receive them. They would both write down in a journal the thoughts. When Admiral Byrd returned the compared journals and supposedly they corresponded quite well. This was written in a book by the ESP researcher. I read about it some 30 years ago in his book which I cannot recall the name of. As someone said above. Just because you don't want to believe such things because the evidence, the journals are not in front of you, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means that for an intelligent person it may be filed in the "unknown" file, waiting for more evidence. I certainly don't need to see more studies, nor this documentary to know first hand that ESP is real, having experienced it enough times myself. Along a street I've walked for years, the same street lights turning off most every time I walk by. I assume that these lamps have weak controller connections or something since I've read about individuals that shut down a whole row along a street. Maybe that whole row is on the same weak connector. If I actually TRY to make them go off, it doesn't work. So it isn't a frontal lobe phenomenon as the docu mentioned. I've experienced a few other types of ESP. Again, not something willed, just observed.
I would imagine that most women would laugh at any man, like some of those above, who flat out deny PSI or ESP. What is intuition? What is the phenomenon between identical twins? Buckle your seat belt ladies but just because you were correct once with your intuition doesn't mean you are every time ...or any other time. Too many gals are creating hell on earth for their guy or family because they assume their intuition is correct when it was just projections of negative thoughts. ALWAYS be neutral about your thoughts and intuitions until you can confirm. Unless of course it is life threatening and you feel very strongly that your intuition is telling you to not take some mode of transport. (Or walk in front of a gun ;)
To all the nay sayers and haters, who think they are superior because they don't believe in nonsensical things... you are the nonsensical thing. You have a self fulfilling prophesy or method of mental clamp down which prohibits experiencing many things. If I live in a windowless house and never go outside I can say there is no sun, etc. Whoever designed our minds did so to prevent the unenlightened (most all of us including myself) from having mental powers that we should not until ready. Somewhat similar as being of a certain age before allowed to get a driver's license. Would it be wise to hand out Gatling guns to 3 year olds? Or too much info about individuals to the govt and their helpers; like Gaggle me with a backhoe dude.
PeSO821 - And exactly what do you attribute that placebo effect to if not to psi?
This makes complete sense, sometimes when you randomly think of someone you haven't spoken to in a long time, then later come to find out they send you a random message or call you unexpected ( and this is someone you rarely even talk to ). So I do believe we can sense and send signals to each other, perhaps even in dreams we can reach out to to others but this has to be a high energy and without pausing or interacting with other energy's. The pathway has to be clear and not filled with other energies or thoughts to reach that one hit wonder and to be able to sense it. Like he said he used individuals who meditated and were brought to a state that was clear to catch the other persons signals. With enough practice, I believe we as humans will evolve even more by this very practice! very exciting. Maybe one day we will not even need phones anymore to communicate, maybe we will reach the level we always wanted to. LOL
I want to know more about the Global Consciousness Projects observation of a spike BEFORE the 911 event. Whaddup?!
I just spent a good deal of time reaching these incredible studies, and unfortunately its all nonsense.
The good news is we don't have to worry about someone inevitably building a global mind control machine.
Brain waves are measured by their electrical impulses, the same as the heart. So it is possible that telepathy is just a transference of energy from one receiver to another, (one person to another). Furthermore, we are all made of the same biological components, and in that sense connected from a single source. Perhaps this genetic/biological link allows us to effect each other through Consciousness, much like in the quantum entanglement theory, where each particle is effected by the other regardless of locality.
I was hoping for something about human relationships and interaction. But when they talk about predicting what a computer might do, it just turns into a load of rubbish. The methods they use to measure or details of the way they interpret data / results is not explained and therefore not valid. They say people know when they are being stared at about 50% of the time!!!!!! Not the same as guessing a flipped coin? I wish it were true, but the program demonstrates bad science / evidence only.
its unscientific b cos its religious superstition, but hey who cares its funny! autonomic haha weird word. automatic autonomous!!!
This is a potentially rich discussion, so why is the sound accompaniment so profoundly irritating and distracting? why do so many aspiring documentary film-makers feel it is necessary to impose musical blandness, in conjunction with irrelevant stock imagery? Is it because the actual narrative is so inadequate it needs to be bulked out & "sweetened" with schmaltzy banality?
A sensible production rule-of-thumb might be to generate content first in radio format (much cheaper and invariably more informative,) and then see if additional images & sound accompaniment augment or detract, so that such elaborate film components are sufficiently well justified in terms of cognitive & qualitative content.
statistically significant...good luck with additional research
Reminds me of a Darren Brown experiment where he simulates how religious experiences can be evoked under the right conditions. Interesting how convinced people are that the Mind/Soul is separate from the Brain. Can our individual, unique souls (thoughts, emotions, attitudes, memories, beliefs) be explained by physical brain structures? Am I who I am because my amygdala happened to store a certain memory or a certain interaction? There's sort of a sense of spirituality in networks of neurons and how beautifully intricate our minds are, so for me, the brain and the soul could be one and the same. But i guess religious belief in the idea that human beings possess a transcendent "soul" which can be reunited with its divine Creator would encourage a separation of the two (i.e. if my brain is merely an animate object that will someday die, then it can't be my soul, because my soul has an afterlife). So I can understand a specific rift between neuroscience and religion, but not the same conflict between science and spirituality in a wider sense. Humanity seems just as connected and sacred and meaningful when seen as a planet of incredibly complex organisms- organisms which don't necessarily transcend their material existence.
whoa, this post just became an existential rant…my bad
The 1st experiment they discuss seems to be flawed. Sit someone down and show them a series of pics, some calm, some emotional. After a while, the person would start to get a feel for the experiment: how long each pic is shown, the nature of the pics, the spectrum of emotion that is portrayed in the pics. It would then be completely natural for the person to begin to anticipate the kind of pic that would be coming next and when it would come, no "psi" required. I definitely believe that there's much more to our minds and reality than what we can perceive, but this is more to do with trickery than actually probing the depths of our mind's capabilities.
Comfortably, the article is in reality the greatest on this noteworthy topic.
I want to know more about these random number generators they speak of. The explanation was so vague. I want to believe them, but it all ends up smelling a little fishy when they fail to explain the basic design of their experiments.
I wish this narrator guy would speak up
There are an infinite number of things that humans will never understand, about the nature of the universe and of time. Like how an fish will never understand how a computer works.
Sadly new ideas tend to be dismissed on the grounds that they are too vague, too lofty, too mystical. This is a natural reaction to anomalies in our worldview. The interesting thing is that usually when several anomalies show up in your theory it shows there's something missing. There are patterns in the data not predicted by your theory and this means your theory needs to change. The scientific theory of matter was pretty airtight around the days of Newton but now there are small leaks here and there where the theory fails to predict the data. Most likely the theory of matter is wrong. Most likely any theory we have at this point will undergo fundamental change in the coming centuries. It is unlikely that we could successfully predict all the factors in a complex system such as the universe at such an early stage of our scientific development. The problem is that the only alternative to scientific materialism is the cheesy new-age take on spirituality. It will probably take a lot more anomalies in the years to come before we can glimpse the contour of the emerging new paradigm.
Okay, this was a somewhat interesting little amateur documentary, and I've been wading through a sea of comments by people debating what the researchers in the film are proposing. There seem to be two camps on the matter:
1. Those who are standing behind lofty ideas such as "global consciousness" and some kind of mind/universe relationship, and ideas bordering on new-age spiritualism.
2. Rational thinkers who are criticizing this kind of irrational thought, saying that the whole documentary is utter nonsense, the product of wishful thinking and well... new-age spiritualism.
But I haven't seen any discussion on the actual data. Yes, the "researchers" in the film are making huge leaps of conclusion in the same breath as they say very disciplined statements as "incomplete scientific model." And I generally get the feeling that these people have no real scientific background and are simply speculating on an effect they are observing.
But what is that effect? Can these so-called experiments be verified reliably? Critics have called the results of these statistical experiments flawed by selective reporting, but I would like to hear both sides of that argument as well, and I would like to know how this data was gathered, and if there were in fact negative tests that were discarded in favor of the tests that supported results. Forgetting for a moment what the proponents and critics are saying about each other, would it be possible to see some real science involving the data itself? Because if some kind of test like the ones described here were to really produce some kind of result under sharp and critical scrutiny, no matter how small that result may be, if it were verifiable and repeatable then it would indeed have absolutely amazing implications for our understanding of the universe.
This documentary is a good example of how we humans are less inclined towards cautious rational thinking than we're inclined to rationalize our thinking.
Cognitive bias...
Cognitive dissonance...
Conflation of cause and effect and rediness to assign specific agency without the evidence to necessarily indicate such...
Modelling way out on the mytical fringe... in the realm of wishful thinking.
Go where the evidence leads. Use immagination as a vital tool, but not as a guide.
The problem is in finding the words and concepts to explain these phenomena. Obviously, there is energy and frequencies that become harmonized when a large group of people feel the same way. Another obvious one is that people haven't have a clue of their intentions. This is a problem because there only think of the obvious and hardly understand it. Intention is the original frequency sent into the world/cosmos and will react with similar vibrations because they will find each other, being on the same plane.... Lots to learn here, most of all get rid of simplistic views such as these. The staring experiment is a joke btw.