Author Topic: Mass Conscious Triangulation with Scanning (By TakeV)  (Read 7410 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

December 01, 2007, 07:27:39 PM
Read 7410 times

XIII

  • Veritas Teacher
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Ḥ̵̲̗̫͈̩͕̐̓͆o͔͚̣͎͚͜ř̶ͦ͒̈̐͂r͍̱ȏ͉̟̱̬̥̩ͤ̎r̮ͨ̽ͫ ̊ͭ

  • 1161
  • Karma:
    10
    • View Profile
Mass Conscious Triangulation with Scanning
By TakeV

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to explain a technique to (hopefully) more accurately find a desired thing that is hidden behind one of several possible choices, with the requirement that a reasonably large number of people also know about said thing, and have desire attached to it.


So, as the abstract says, let's get down to it. Imagine a hypothetical situation, let's say you are on the game show Deal or No Deal.

Note that in this article, I specifically use desire, as it is a great example. However, it could be any type of emotional attachment, such as love, hate, happy, sad, want, do not want, and quite possibly strawberry flavored.


I shall describe this show briefly, for those of you who are unfamiliar with it. The basic premise is that there are around 20 possible cash prized for the contestant to win, which range from one cent, to one million dollars. Obviously, the contestant wishes to win the million dollars. Challenge from the show comes from the fact that there are also 20 identical cases, and each case contains one of the 20 prizes. At the start, the contestant must choose one of the cases, and hopefully, it is the million dollar one. Than, he will start choosing the rest of the cases, and hopes that they are low amount, because throughout the game, "The Banker" will make offers to buy the case, judging from the chance that he has a high amount of money in the original case.

What matters to us with this stops when the contestant chooses the first case. Now, this seems much like a game of chance, and it really is. Yet to a psion, it is a game of scanning. Most psions I know would attempt to scan each case directly, to see what number value is inside. However, this way is problematic for two reasons:


   1.

      This way is greatly subject to analytic overlay, and
   2.

      Even among the best, the ability to accurately scan for something, such as a number, is lackluster at best.


Obviously, with these two issues, the task of scanning the most desirable of the cases (The one containing the million dollars) is difficult; providing a slight edge at best, and horrible misinformation, at worst.


But wait. Notice how I said "the most desirable of the cases". Indeed, the case that contains the million dollars is quite desirable, and you can use this to your advantage. You see, there are a few hidden benefits to being in a situation like this, namely:

   1.

      There are many people viewing this situation, and
   2.

      Almost everyone, whether they know it or not, also desires the million dollar prize, and thus have some emotional attachment to it.


This is your edge. In scanning, it is possible to scan, not only hard information, but also how much emotional attachment is attached to an object. I'm sure you can see where I am going with this. Basically, the entire method relies on the fact that people also desire what you desire, and that desire gives you a much easier target to scan for.

So, back in our game show situation, rather than scanning for the number each show contains, a better way would be to see how much (positive, in this example) emotional attachment is attached to the number inside the case.


Note that you must scan for the attachment on the number, as scanning for the attachment on the case would prove to be disastrous, because everyone has their own preference on cases. You must also scan for the quality of the attachment, for example, both the million dollar case and the one cent case will have great emotional attachment; however, the million dollars with be relatively positive, while the one cent will be relatively negative. Your own judgment and common sense is the best way to decide what you are looking for, in a situation like that.

Now, there is an issue with this method. For one, it involves scanning for the greatest amount of emotional attachment. This is problematic for a few reasons, but the most important is that the least desirable may also have great emotional attachment, usually in the negative (Or the positive, for the really, really cynical people). I doubt that you'll find much in the middle road of choices, so most of the problem comes between deciding which of the two with the greatest attachment is the correct one.


So, how is this practical? Well, there are situations that you could use this for, and it doesn't have to be an object. It could be a person, place, thing, etc, just provided that people have emotional attachment to it, and there are several possible places it could be. Just scan for the desire attached to the object at each place, and the greatest will be your correct answer, provided that your target has the greatest attachment.


I hope that some of you may find this way to be useful.

~V

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2013, 12:22:17 AM by TakeV »
<@kobok> And if you push hard enough, you can shove quite a lot into a chicken.

<@Trowa> When someone told him to jump off a cliff, he argued the semantic meanings of "jump" and "cliff", and then proceeded to do just that.

June 29, 2012, 04:57:37 AM
Reply #1

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Well, to be frank, it seems impractical in that one can simply use clairvoyance instead of using telepathy to find out where people think the object is. You have to keep in mind that the ability to think about and expect things also underlies the ability to conceive of false things, so if the actual location is counter-intuitive to the people involved, you will be lead down the wrong route. I would say it would be easier, and more practical, to use clairvoyance to sense out things out in the situations you outlined at the start of this article. Yes, everyone wants the prize. Yes, everyone is thinking about the prize, but that doesn't mean which box they expect to be in is the right one, and people can, collectively, expect the wrong outcome. I'm not sure what privileged role emotions would play in this circumstance, either. Yes, people desire what you desire; however, what they think about when they think about what they desire could have subtle differences that may be pointing away from you. Not only that, as I said earlier, their expectations can be wrong where you picked up the correct information from the audience where what they audience thought, or felt, was wrong.  A technique like this would be useful if the group, or person, knows which selection out of many is the correct one. For example, say a person placed $1,000 in one box out of twenty boxes where the audience was clued in on which one contained the $1,000. The audience and the person who set it up would know which one it is, so their thoughts, and implicit desires, about the money would point to it where one could quickly pick that up and then select the correct one. It is not useful for sensing information about a physical object that did not involve an agent or sensing information from agents not involved with the set up. While desires and expectations can play a role in influencing physical events, it is highly unlikely that the collective expectation, or intuition, of the audience will be enough to influence which container the object is in. That being said, this technique is not very practical for sensing out objects behind a barrier since one can simply use clairvoyance to seek out information about the physical properties of the object without looking for how it seems in the thoughts, or emotions, of others.

Quote

   1.

      This way is greatly subject to analytic overlay, and
   2.

      Even among the best, the ability to accurately scan for something, such as a number, is lackluster at best.



It is not a problem if we look at the values in terms of qualitative value over quantitative value where a person would get impressions of the later that point them towards the right case. They would get impressions, qualitatively, that result in them making a correct decision. Say, for example, we have numbers 1-10. Versus seeing them as discrete values, a person's mind may seem it as a spectrum of dark to light colors where the dark colors are the highest value and the light colors the lowest. If one wants to pick the highest value, one would pick the darkest color, thus, a person is able to easily pin point which case has the highest amount of money without knowing the precise numerical value.  As far as AOL, that can happen with any form of extrasensory perception.

Say, for example, say there are three boxes in there with checks written for values that are the image of the numbers $500, $100, and $1000. Say that we have associations, that are qualitative, with a dark to light spectrum, where the highest value would be the darkest and indexed as black representing $1000, red representing $500, and yellow representing $100. We can break it down into two sets of queries:

"Which box has checks in them?"

"What are the values of the checks?"

A response to the first question could, in this example, result in imagery involving the boxes turning black, red, and yellow where you know the numerical value based on the indexing. Now the issue is that these associations may not be intuitive and also of very little use impromptu. How can you use these associations if you have no prior experience with which to give them meaning? So, what a person can do, with numbers, is come up with an index of explicit and formal associations in which qualities are associated with say 0-9 where these are strongly anchored and practiced with and tested repetitively so that when one has say the number one, it goes with some sort of quality so that one can interpret it. Say one is red, two is yellow, and green is three. Say a person is asked to sense the numbers written on a piece of paper. The approximate images would correspond to red, yellow, and green which can be translated into 123 thus allowing someone to read what is on the paper since the paper would show up as a series of red, yellow, and green colors.

As far as AOL goes, you have analytical overlay and then you have associative overlay. Analytical overlay happens as a result of interpretation errors whereas associative overall happens as a result of not being able to tell what is and is not a psi mediated experience. The former can be overcome with feedback and the later can be overcome with learning what subtle cues in one's experience point to an experience of using psi from feedback. If a person practices with a formal index of this sort, one can gradually become better. Experiential cues, in this sense, can be how one experiences seeing the colors where variations in this allow one to tell when they are and are not using psi, and testing associations in terms of their meaning relative to accuracy will also help.

Quote
Now, there is an issue with this method. For one, it involves scanning for the greatest amount of emotional attachment. This is problematic for a few reasons, but the most important is that the least desirable may also have great emotional attachment, usually in the negative (Or the positive, for the really, really cynical people). I doubt that you'll find much in the middle road of choices, so most of the problem comes between deciding which of the two with the greatest attachment is the correct one.


So, how is this practical? Well, there are situations that you could use this for, and it doesn't have to be an object. It could be a person, place, thing, etc, just provided that people have emotional attachment to it, and there are several possible places it could be. Just scan for the desire attached to the object at each place, and the greatest will be your correct answer, provided that your target has the greatest attachment.

People can have an emotional attachment to something they fear. For example, a person can fear they will be bald; however, this doesn't mean they will be bald or they are going bald. A person may like a car(and thus be happy about that thought and desire the object of this thought) they think about getting in the future, but this does not mean they have or will have a car in the future. Or, a person can think about something entirely nonexistent and feel a certain way about. For example, the thought about dragons can make a person happy. The point is that people can think about, refer to, and thus point to objects that only reflect their own mental states or do not exists; therefore, scanning for the emotional attachment an object has only tells you what the people who have that emotion feel about the object, but it tells you nothing about the object directly. While this is practical when one attempts to answer the questions "What does x feel about y?" or "What does x think about y?", it does not answer the question of what the objective referent is in reality. In this instance, the technique would answer the questions "What do the onlookers think about the box?" and "What do the onlookers expect?", but it does not answer the question of "What is in the box?". Since it does not directly answer "What is in the box?" it is impractical and of not of much use in the case you outlined. 
« Last Edit: June 29, 2012, 05:28:03 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.