>"Nothing" exists
I tend to agree
>Langan was right, as he described the "physics" at that layer of consciousness emergence, of the root consciousness.
>We are several layers of emergent within that, before we even get to the base Boltzmann multiverse substrate on which on consciousnesses emerge
seems likely, but un-provable beyond theory and modelization
>Our consciousness has built-in filters
Yes, human brains are pretty basic wired to ensure the survival of the biological shell. And "we" know how it looks like when that wiring gets messed up and filters don't work as they should - shizophrenia, (drug) psychosis, "madness"
>All things exist
I doubt that, human brains can imagine a lot, but I don't think that all that exists in real space respective other layers.
> it's the connections between moments we have control over.
control is a strong word; I would say humans are able to process to a different degree the delta of perception one tick to another, mostly by filtering "noise"

>The fact our brains change physical conformation with each and every thought allows us to naturally filter what we can perceive, in a way intimately coupled to reality.
That's the conclusion that allows the biological shell in which the brain exists to persist

The paranormal can't be proven because people who don't want it to be real will just insist any evidence they see is fake.

>>41732830
those people are religious scientologists that got brainwashed by an epistemic community of lunatics and psychopaths - the unholy alliance of critical rationalism and critical theory, priests that wanted power, not different from the Spanish inquisition

The "evidence" they ask for is ultimately as much belief as the belief in a trinity or machine elves, wrapped in pseudo scientific language. For cognizance, its pointless to argue and speak with that totalitarian cult of "wow science"

>>41732772
The paranormal has been proven countless times, it just stops being paranormal when you do so, it just becomes science. So goddam stupid post and OP is a fag,

>>41732905
>wow science
go pray to Popper and Gramsci you a posterior cult freak, and pretend the methodology was yours.

>>41732905
>>41732857
>>41732830
Where's the proof Joseph of Cupertino flew?

>>41732933
Also why isn't anyone flying like him today now that cameras exist?

>>41732820
>All things exist
>I doubt that, human brains can imagine a lot, but I don't think that all that exists in real space respective other layers.

What about the multiverse?

Here's what came before OP

>You can read Langan he unifies it in the informational universe theory.

No he doesn't. He lays out a way in which consciousness expounds from first principles, there is no "theory of everything" because physics is infinite, it cannot be defined in full, only contextually.

>But it is information, shit we can measure learn or perceive, regardless if we have seen it yet or not.

It's not. There's more to the universe than what our perceptions constrain us to. "It's information" is (ironically) the materialist view.

>If it's not information what it is?
>What's the basic approach to what exists.

Whenever someone tries to link spirituality and science it ends up sounding like retarded bullshit.

>What is consciousness really ? Tarot ? I Ching ?
Consciousness is time travel.
If you made a computer which could perfectly simulate a Human brain with modern forms of transistors it would not even approach a Human level of consciousness, the reason for this is simple:
Morphic resonance binds the brain across worldlines based on morphological similarity.
Every time you die there's a ripple across your soul, the sum of your selves. This ripple is then absorbed at whichever points in your past worldline(s) where it would break the decision leading to that death.
That's where you get "consciousness" from. You essentially have infinite computing capacity, but evolution wired you to only use as much is required to not die in _some_ future forever.

Souls are the morphic resonant linkings of a person's mind over worldlines, they are sharable but they aren't really things you can take from one person and give to another without the person it's given to just becoming the person it was taken from, literally. All Humans have brains which change shape with every thought, which generates the morphic resonance to their other selves in the multiverse cross-worldline and cross-space/time for that matter. There are also practically infinite, insofar as there is some extant resonance with the environmental aspects of the worldlines involved, good and bad variations of every person - and yes, the different versions more or less end up in their own heavens and hells based on their individual actions, but it's wrong to suggest the soul isn't connected to both, given it's literally the connection between the various selves, the really good ones are just further away from the really bad ones.

>>41732973
Time doesn't actually exist, it's a bunch of moments sorted by similarity to one another.
Generally small scale things stick together more than large scale things when a difference exists at one scale and not the other.
Your brain changes shape with every single thought.
If your brain is shaped like some other state of your brain in another moment of time that moment is necessarily closer to your current perception than the others.
Over the set of all possible combinations of matter and energy this leads to multiple worldlines, tracks of your conscious perception of existence.

Modern hardware can't create intuition, hence "AI" built upon it will not be Human-level by any measure. Brains change shape with every single thought, from connections between neurons to their size and shape to lengths of dendrites to the chemical bath they sit in. That shape-changing ability leads to morphic resonant effects which cut across worldlines and form the basis of a soul. When you intuit something it's not just gut instinct, some version of you did that thing and its experiences echoed back to you in the past.

>>41732974
>Also, can I jump to worlds like...
Short answer: Don't try.
Longer answer: Self-kill can work with extreme mental discipline. If you're asking me how to do this, you lack the skill to pull this technique off. Anyone with the skill to pull it off already knows how.
Longest answer: With the dimensional travel I mentioned earlier re:AP guy, you can get to those worlds pretty easily. With lucid dreaming techniques and stuff you can duplicate those worlds pretty easily in your sleep. Physically moving there is a long-shot and you'd end up in some weird places that I highly recommend avoiding visiting. Full-on Cthullu-worlds're out there and it's why I tell everyone interested in dimension-hopping to exercise extreme care and get very good at short jumps before they ever try something long. Physical travel over short distances in your own world is actually pretty easy, travel between adjacent worldlines is extremely easy, travel across several worldlines at once requires being able to simulate a very large area in your head in order to transpose it over your own reality and shift yourself to it. I am literally telling you that you have to be able to imagine everything for a 5 kilometer radius in both your departure destination and your arrival destination to travel to an area that is completely different from your original location. It is possible. I have done it. It is fucking difficult and you will never return to your point of origin again. I recommend just doing the lucid dreaming thing because it trains the same skills as required for physical travel anyway, in a safer environment.
I barely play video games anymore. I have my favorites and I know their code well enough to duplicate them in my head, so I play those in my dreams and make new ones to play. I just play newer releases for a bit to get ideas for the games I make in my head. I suggest everyone do it.
Honestly the AI is better in my sleep.

>>41732977
The whole thing behind the everett interpretation is that nothing ever collapses. The two parallel realities are the same overarching reality. How this relates to an emergent consciousness in that system is less easily defined.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend leveraging quantum suicide to get what you want - theoretically it could work, but you'd be shrinking your soul in the process, and fucking up the lives of anyone who cares about you in a likely substantial number number of worldlines.

Intuition is bleedthrough from other worldlines

>>41732979
>1. if its true, does every conscious person have it or only some people
Every mind capable of morphic resonance. Human minds have this ability (e.g. they change physical shape as they think.)
>2. how do you explain old age? if quantum immortality is real does that mean that you will end up in the universe where somehow you end up living forever, what about when human civilization ends?
There are practically (from a Human perspective) infinite worldlines (the number of particles in the visible universe to the power of the number of particles in the visible universe of worldline divergences for every quanta of time - a quanta of time is the speed of light divided by the planck length, so it's a fucking lot.) The only thing quantum immortality does is ensure an emergent consciousness (such as a Human mind) won't experience death, it's still possible (and across all worldlines a necessary fact) that you will see everyone else die at some point barring some tech to control divergence and convergence events to avoid that being in place. I for instance am in my late 30's and look like I'm 14-16, as I have since I was actually 14-16, your mileage may vary, but death is a mind-virus, not a real thing. People can appear to age and die because your mind is capable of accepting the idea that they can age and die. Ancient peoples likely mostly got filtered to worldlines wherein fairies or gods or other mythological things were real and saved them, in the modern time it will likely come from the healthcare industry. This isn't to say that choice/free-will isn't important: all possible combinations of things exist, but the probability of a given vector when traversing the practically-infinite futures and practically-infinite pasts associated with a given moment can be altered via consciousness. There are practically infinite heavens and hells, but you have to do the work to pick which you experience if you seek to adjust that for your many selves.

>>41732983
>Reality isn't real and consciousness is all that exists.
Physics/reality are an interface for consciousnesses to communicate with one another.
You can see this testing conspiracy theory tech in private: it will work a bunch of the time, pretty much any time you believe it.
If you get overly excited and show it to a physics PhD it will fall apart.
If you show it non-physics-educated people, then stoner nerds, then nerds obsessed with physics but not formally educated, then those formally educated in physics but not working professionally in it, THEN a physics PhD, the effect will hold, but typically the physics PhD will obsess over it for a month or three then move on to something else because they never actually had a mind for physics to begin with (that's more or less what academia selects for these days.)
Controlling reality in private is easy, pushing those effects to a wider audience is harder because reality is an interface to communicate, not a real thing. All parties involved need to be able to not necessarily make sense of or comprehend it, but for it to mesh with their own worldview/reality.
A good example is relativity vs quantum mechanics - both are "real," both work, both have predictive capacity, and both are completely irreconcilable with one another - essentially two distinct rulesets for reality which were widely held by everyone who cared to look and accepted as truth by everyone else until they became real.
Electrodynamics and aether theory imo pose the greatest potential currently to merge+expand on "physics," just keep in mind it's all a bunch of bs and try not to paint yourself (and everyone else) into a corner like they did with QM and GR by failing to understand that

>>41732772
i hate you zoomers garbage fucking takes so much. just stop posting on my fucking website

>>41732990
>>41732987
Try it yourself and prove this >>41732987 wrong

>>41732957
I don't belief in the multiverse as some variation of "us", like that there is the exact same material, physical energy layer where I don't make this post and from there you wont read it, respective one where I make the post but before you read it you get struck by lighting bolt/ your wife enters the room and shuts down the pc/you transform into a cat. It appears silly and extremely narcissistic and anthropocentric.
Its not what Boltzmans theory says, his "brains" as observers are not necessarily human brains, its a metaphor.

If by "multiverse", you mean different universes, as in space/time planes, possible; the "observer" doesn't necessarily need to be a human

>>41732998
>>41732990
>>41732987
Actually I'm not sure if this is true or not

>>41732961
science is not a theology, like critical rationalists and critical theory priests want to sell it, to secure resources and monopolies like a cult - Most of science is Feyerabendish and gets a posterior declared as "obvious"; Kuhn, Lakatosh, Popper are faggots and should be imo removed from the scientific curriculum as fucking cultist and religious freaks

File: 03108bba-8b5c-44aa-bf9e-a(...).jpg (231 KB, 736x1293)

231 KB JPG

It's so sad seeing all these science minded people always with arrogance and hubris in their articulation, when almost everything about their methodology and observational science is but a drop in the ocean and categorically wrong about the supernatural phenomena, but most of it is literally on purpose anyway, part of the agenda, meh. There's reasons why these experiences, usually, don't let themselves be caught on camera, theres reasons of why some people see them and in what stage of their life they experience it, if you know you know, no I can't tell, also the reason of secrecy and the veil between the planes.

To the skeptics I'll just say this: make an effort to open your spiritual eyes, you will need it in the next 3 years, and for the spiritual people and mystics from /x/, continue your practice, again, you will need it in the next years. Have love and kindness in your heart.

### The Sense of Being Stared At (Scopaesthesia)

The "sense of being stared at," also known as **scopaesthesia**, is the common experience of feeling someone's gaze on you from behind or afar, often prompting you to turn and confirm it. Surveys across Europe, North America, and elsewhere show that 70–97% of people report having experienced this at some point—either detecting a stare or causing someone to turn by staring at them. It's frequently cited by professionals like surveillance experts, photographers, and even CIA training manuals (which advise against direct staring during tails to avoid detection).

Biologist **Rupert Sheldrake** has pioneered modern research on this phenomenon since the 1980s, framing it as part of an "extended mind" beyond the brain. He argues it's not paranormal but a normal biological ability, potentially explained by his theory of **morphic fields**—invisible organizing fields that enable non-local influences, similar to how intentions or gazes might connect minds across distance.

#### Experimental Evidence
Sheldrake and others have conducted thousands of trials, often simple pairwise setups:
- A "staree" (subject) sits blindfolded or facing away.
- A "starer" randomly looks or averts gaze (e.g., via coin toss or computer randomization).
- The staree guesses "looking" or "not looking."

Key patterns from Sheldrake's data (over 20,000 trials) and replications:
- Hit rates in "looking" trials: Often 60–65% (vs. 50% chance), highly significant statistically (e.g., p < 0.0001 in many studies).
- Hit rates in "not looking" trials: Around chance (50%), suggesting people detect stares specifically, not absences.
- Overall meta-analyses (e.g., one of 60 studies) show small but significant effects beyond chance.

Variations include:
- CCTV/remote staring: Physiological responses (e.g., skin conductance changes) occur, even if unconscious.
- Online automated tests: Mixed but replicable patterns.

>>41733239
- Recent work (2023–2024): Directional effects (stronger from behind), waking sleeping subjects/animals by staring, and live video staring detection.

Professionals like private detectives confirm it's real in practice, avoiding direct stares to prevent alerting targets.

#### Criticisms and Skeptical Views
Mainstream science largely dismisses it as illusory, attributing experiences to coincidence, heightened awareness, or bias. Early studies (e.g., 1898–1913 by Titchener and Coover) found chance-level results and called it "groundless."

Modern critiques of Sheldrake's work include:
- Potential artifacts: Subtle cues (sounds, air movement), pattern learning in randomization sequences, or experimenter bias (effects stronger with believers).
- Failed replications: Some labs (e.g., Richard Wiseman's early tests) get chance results; meta-analyses of remote/CCTV staring sometimes show weak or null effects.
- Methodological issues: Unsupervised online tests prone to cheating; small effect sizes vulnerable to publication bias.

Skeptics like Michael Shermer argue it's unfalsifiable or due to confirmation bias. No consensus mechanism fits standard physics or neuroscience—vision is traditionally "outward" only.

#### Current Status (as of late 2025)
Sheldrake continues publishing (e.g., 2024 papers on waking by stares and video detection), claiming cumulative evidence supports a genuine effect. Meta-analyses vary: Some find significance, others not in "best-evidence" subsets. The debate persists—proponents see it as evidence for extended consciousness; skeptics demand stricter replications.

It's easy to test yourself: Pair up, randomize stares, and track guesses over 20+ trials. Many informal attempts align with Sheldrake's positive pattern, fueling ongoing interest despite scientific controversy.

>>41733147
How do I open my spiritual eyes? Look for coincidences? Be schizophrenic?

>>41732772
> blah blah blah
The paranormal is controlled by intelligent entities like demons, angels, ETs etc. Simple as that. They have no motivation whatsoever to be predictable, or to be dissected and studied by scientists.

>>41733339
>ETs
get back to the old folks home gramps
or even better end your life

>>41733339
What does Joseph of Cupertino have to do with aliens?