Read this

Got this cool one from Brendan tonight:

If you can raed tihs qiukcly tehn it maens taht our bairns are atuo tnued to dceihper isneatd of jsut lokonig. Pssoibly ntaures way to hlep us racet wehn dnaegr is iimmnent. My piont bieng, if it is idneed pssoilbe to jsut look? Myabe we are biult to atuo raect?

Eg. 2+2=

My brain shouts 4.

Is it possible for adults to only see “2+2=” and not answer it?

I could add that I think I would read this just the same without a brain 😉 But the point remains the same.

29 thoughts on “Read this

  1. How An IAS REG Sees 2+2….

    2 = 2:00 o’clcok
    4 = Tuhrsday (4th day of work week)

    Gvie me yuor cedrit crad I got a qouta to raech…I maen we got a palent to claer!!!

  2. Yes. I didn’t put a 4 there. I don’t know what it means but it was no problem that there was just space. When I read the text, my mind was calm and started to put the letters in a way that they would form words. After it did so, the meaning got through. Still calm. My “dyslexic” student came to mind right after this. Who, when I didn’t agree to his having any problem reading and who, after some hours and practice started to read well (luckily, as it turned out he never agreed to it either before) indeed produced some dysgraphic signs like the above. To me it seems it is possible just to look, yet, if we take real obnosis, my mind shouldn’t have started correcting. I don’t find it a problem still, as it is a text. My final answer is: yes, it is possible just to look, even just sense/perceive like fast moving energy particles when standing or moving e.g. in the street and also possible just to “be” and create or perceive nothing. It may depend on the level of consciousness one is in in a given second of time. Funny exercise, like it! Will repeat it if I get a different result.

  3. With practice and mindfulness. This is how I overcome trained in biases, prejudice, etc.,.

    My mind is full of helpful macros; applications; short programs. As a troubleshooter, I see 2+2=4. But that is intentional. I don’t do a lot of “troubleshooting” in the context of zazen.

    Is the relevance a matter of context?

    1. I recommend a book titled “Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain.” My daughter has used the methods in it with success. It has to do with just looking and seeing, by passing the automated responses.

        1. Rafael, this book is about practical exercises that bypass the automaticies. It’s for people who want to learn how to draw objects from life. But you don’t have to read it – I won’t beat you or Declare you or anything like that, if you don’t read it. 🙂

  4. OP: “Pssoibly ntaures way to hlep us racet wehn dnaegr is iimmnent.”

    OP: “My piont bieng, if it is idneed pssoilbe to jsut look?”

    OP: “Eg. 2+2=”

    OP: “Is it possible for adults to only see ‘2+2=’ and not answer it?”

    OP: “My brain shouts 4.”

    OP: “I could add that I think I would read this just the same without a brain ;-)”

    OP: “But the point remains the same.”

    1. My above comment title is:
      An illustrated interpretation 🙂 of the OP.

        1. Marildiv 🙂 is an endless source of high ARC validations, also reported by many posters on this blog.

          1. Well, Ferenc dear, if and when I do that it’s because of “truth dragging itself to truth”, as Marianne would say, Or, as you and I might say, “ARC dragging itself to ARC”. 😉

  5. I’ve observed something similar. If my intention to understand what someone is saying to me isn’t high enough, what they’re saying comes across as mere sounds with no meaning to them. This seems to happen, for example, when the person I’m listening to doesn’t have a strong enough intention to get their communication across (TR 1) and thus it requires me to raise my intention high enough to compensate.

    After I first noticed that phenomenon I tested it out, purposely not intending to understand and then having that intention, back and forth, and one for one it proved out that the intention had to be there and that the sound symbols alone did not transmit meaning or understanding.

    Maybe it’s a similar phenomenon with written words. I noticed in reading the blog post that I sort of had to step away from focusing on the written word symbols and raise my own intention in order to get the original intention of the writer. In other words, it seems you have to have a greater intention when the symbols themselves do not have the intention built into agree-upon spellings

    Actually, the OP example is no more difficult to read that some people’s posts. (LOL :D)

  6. Given the sheer number of automaticities a person ha set up in order to function and make daily living easier, more convenient, and less effortful, I think almost any incoming perception might elicit an autoresponse.

    I don’t think these are all necessarily “in the brain”. I think they can be set up in various ways and that many do have links to the brain, affect the brain, or are reflected in the brain.

  7. Basically the OP is about the cause –> effect chain: Brain –> thetan or Thetan –> brain.

    • Cause –> effect chain: Brain –> thetan

    Maybe we could do not react consciously to some stimuli, but the brain is always reacting to stimuli.

    Brain activity of a zebra fish excited by watching a prey.

    Article :

    • Cause –> effect chain: Thetan –> brain –> body

    This can be illustrated with something the thetan can do, but the body cannot. Unconscious precognition is a good example of this, since precognition is a thetan ability but not a body ability.
    I.e.: Thetan’s (unconscious) precognition –> brain –> body

    In this experiment a computer was randomly displaying 2 kinds of pictures to experimental adult subjects: calm or extreme (violent or sexual) pictures. The subject physiological responses were monitored (a sample every 0.2 seconds) before, during, and after displaying them the pictures. In one experiment, the computer selected the picture 5 seconds before displaying the picture, in another experiment the computer selected the picture immediately before (10 miliseconds) displaying the picture.

    Statistically consistently about 1 or 2 seconds before the picture is displayed, the subjects have a different physiological response to the extreme picture than the physiological response to the calm picture, as shown in the graphs in page 169.

    Click to access jse_11_2_radin.pdf

    1. OP: “Is it possible for adults to only see “2+2=” and not answer it?”

      I think this question needs to be subdivided in 2.

      • Is it possible for adults to only see “2+2=” and not answer it unconsciously?

      It looks like the mind is constantly working subconsciously and reports to the conscious mind after reaching some triggering threshold (which is different for different kind of questions), as reported by researchers at the University of Rochester.

      “Subjects in this test performed exactly as if their brains were subconsciously gathering information before reaching a confidence threshold, which was then reported to the conscious mind as a definite, sure answer. The subjects, however, were never aware of the complex computations going on, instead they simply “realized” suddenly” … “The characteristics of the underlying computation fit with Pouget’s extensive earlier work that suggested the human brain is wired naturally to perform calculations of this kind.” …
      “the brain” … “does not appear to have the same threshold for each kind of question it encounters.“

      • Is it possible for adults to only see “2+2=” and not answer it consciously?

      Maybe with practice, but I suspect while the thetan is in a body this “looking” is done by handling the unconscious mind triggering thresholds.
      On the other hand, somebody (near) Clear Theta Clear should be able to do it at will handling the automaticities.

    2. Ferenc, this is a very interesting subject. A while back I watched a video about Bereitschaftspotential (meaning readiness potential) in muscles, and empathic reactions between people. As you described, there were experiments in which a computer was randomly displaying 2 kinds of pictures to the subject, either very pleasant or quite horrific.

      The most interesting experiment was where two people who had a close connection, like siblings or good friends, were put in separate rooms: The first one was wired to record minute changes in the body and the second one, in the other room, was shown the photos randomly displayed by a computer. What occurred was that even before the photos were shown to the second person, the friend in the other room got the appropriate bodily reaction to the photo (wonderful or horrific) – several seconds before.

      Below is a link to that video. The experiment I described is talked about starting at 3:00 in the video and goes for just a few minutes. The speaker, Tom Campbell, physicist-philosopher, uses the terms Big C (C for consciousness) and Little C, which I think may correspond to theta and thetan, or Oneness and Self (depending how you define those).

  8. I could understand it without a problem. When I went over it again, it was easier, just like another (altered) language.

    I experienced that for me the best way to understand is also not to get bogged down into the significance but to be at ease. Also the INTENTION to understand has also a lot to do with being then ABLE to get it. I experienced this to be especially the case when wanting to understand a language which I do not speak, but which is only similar to a language I speak/understand. There is a certain amount of alteration from the basics; the mind (brain?) should be able to handle that (e.g. Spanish-Portuguese- Italian).

    The above is the same mechanism as with any similar (altered) language. If it doesn’t have any similarities (e.g. Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Hebrew, Arabic etc.) then it doesn’t work anymore. But there the gradient for me is to recognize WHAT language it is.

    And when I see 2+2=, then I think “should be 4”. But still I look for what the significance is all about, for what it stands, to what it relates.

    I think it has less to do with “auto react” than with being able to understand a concept (despite the alterations). When I hit the brakes to stop the car when somebody/something is crossing suddenly – that is “auto react” because of “imminent danger”.

  9. Nothing to laugh, really! It’s a very smart exercise for the brain! Geir, this is a real exercise in logopaedia. Wonderful!

  10. One of the more interesting techniques in Buddhist meditation is to sit and “look” at a path of sense perception, such as hearing, and perceive what is actually coming over that channel, as opposed to your conscious understanding of what is coming over that channel.

    You separate percepts (an actual word, look it up) from conscious perception of that percept.

    It is hard to use words to explain what this did for me, but I think I can get the idea across if I say that sometimes something occurs which is not at all inherently connected to my understanding of it.

    *I* make that connection. But the connection between what I understand, or what I am conscious of, may not have anything to do at all with what physically occurred.

    Anyway, This is hard to describe.

    How about this, the sound, before I process it, is not even close to what I “hear” after I process it with my mind. It’s as if the world is one thing, and what we “see” of it is quite another.

    For more on these techniques, here is a very fascinating book I found many years ago and I am only now beginning to understand even a little bit of it. You may get something completely different than I did out of it.

    Click to access abhidhamma.pdf


    1. It’s basically just an opposite at work. The I want for all she is worth to move around the simplest way to go, namely the most reactive route of nothing, which would be the alternative to holding on to what the I just observed. .)

  11. It suddenly struck my mind, coming from the bottom of my heart, that I should visit my earlier friend sGi’er phageome.
    This post made me realize that this page has sunk to standards I can not be known to be part of. (The answer to the above questions are: It is easy to be just “2+2”.)
    End of story.
    – –
    I refer to this page as one of the most viousde Enthate factories on planet earth.
    Remember – Dvida Casmigvie is doing his best – forget about L. Ron Hubbard and the rest.
    – –
    Have a magic touch, Maria, Alanzo and some of the rest. We will all see who has life’s zest. .)
    – – – freshly converted from the old to some too direct and truthful Slack

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s