The Sixth Sense
No, not the movie. A real, live, actual sixth sense. We all know about the 5 senses. Sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing. There are several scientists that are looking at different ways to explain certain things that we just know that we shouldn't have any reason to know. Now, the 5 senses are all conscious senses. We engage them actively. The sixth sense is subconscious. We don't actively engage it. It's just there and giving us information without being conscious of it. I'll talk about these things.
Sight Unseen:
We've all experienced this one. We've been somewhere, minding our own business, and get a strange feeling. We "feel" someone is watching us. We don't have to look in all directions to find out who/what is looking at us. We just look in that direction and catch the person or creature looking at us. But how do we know that? It happens to us all the time! It isn't a random coincidence that we just happen to look in the direction of someone who's starring at us. Explanation... no clue. We just know it happens. Think of it this way: Is it evolutionarily advantageous? Absolutely! Way back in the day when humans were hunters and gatherers, we were exposed to predators all the time. What if while the men were stalking a pig, the men were being stalked by a panther? Wouldn't it be a good thing for them to be able to sense something tracking us? What if while the females are picking berries they're being stalked by a pack of wolves? Wouldn't it be a good thing for them feel like they're being watched, feel uneasy, and retreat to a safe place? Lastly, if someone's attracted to us and is starring at us then wouldn't it be a good thing if feel someone looking at us so that we can look at them and decide if they are an attractive mate? It's about our biological need to survive and our biological need to mate and have children.
The experiment that one scientist does is he puts a person in a chair with a communication device on the opposite side of a glass door with the person in the chair facing away from the scientist. He has a list of a "looking" and "not looking" pattern. If the scientist is "looking" then he is looking at the person and thinking the test subjects name over and over. If the scientist is "not looking" then he looks down at the floor so that he can't see the test subject and thinks about something random. The test subject saying "looking" or "not looking" into the communication device every set number of seconds. Now, there are only 2 possible answers. So if someone is guessing then, statically, their chances are 50/50 of getting it right. However, the test subjects consistently get 66.7% of the answers right. Over and over people beat the odds. That shouldn't happen unless the subject can sense when someone's looking at them.
Which Curtain Is The Picture Behind?:
Another experiment puts a person in front of a computer that has a virtual curtain on the left side and the right side of the screen. They are told that behind one of curtains is a picture and behind the other one is a blank screen. They are to pick the curtain that has the picture behind it. Now, again, there are only 2 choices so the chances are 50/50 if someone's just guessing. Oddly enough, that's exactly what happens. People get about 50% of them right. There is one case in which subjects pick the curtain with the picture behind it 53% of the time. Now, 3% might not seem like much but this is a consistent 3%. It shouldn't be possible to even get a consistent 50.1% of them right. What type of picture do subjects get right 53% of the time? The picture that is of something sexually charged. Not two people having sex but perhaps the chest of a man who works out and a woman who is topless pressed up to his chest while they kiss or something along those lines. Now, it is worth noting that the picture must align with someone's sexual orientation. Straight men and women get 53% of the pictures that show a man and woman together. Gay men get 53% of the pictures that show two men together. Lesbians get 53% of the pictures that show two women together. Bisexual men get 53% of the pictures that show two men or a man and a woman. Bisexual woman get 53% of the pictures that show two woman or a man and a woman. Again, this would be evolutionarily advantageous. It's about finding a mate so that children can be had. Now, the fact that gays/lesbians/bisexuals find two people of their gender together to be stimulating but can't result in more offspring doesn't seem to matter. It's about finding a mate.
Random Number Generator Manipulation & The Collective Human Consciousness:
About 30 years ago a scientist set up a random number generator that would display a digit between 0 and 200 every second. It is equally likely to show any of the numbers. It is random so there is no pattern. Subjects were put in front of the RNG and told to make the number 100 to appear. It was shown that most of the test subjects actually had the number 100 come up more than it, statically, should have. So it seemed that if a person's thoughts can effect the future.
It gets stranger. For the past 20 years a scientist set up an RNG in his lab and over the years got more and more colleagues to do the same. There are about 80 RNG worldwide (most in Western Europe) that all feed the number that pops up every second to a server in this scientist's lab (with correction for the small time delay of transmitting the data, processing it, and compiling the results). Now, no one number should come up more often than any other. In fact, there's only about a 2.5% chance of two of the RNGs coming up with the same number at the same time. However, at different times there have been peaks during certain events. By "peaks" I mean that multiple RNGs came up with the same number. The top two times that a large number or RNGs generated the same number at the same time were surrounding major events. It happened with a large gathering of people that is emotionally charged or when some horrific event happens. The 2nd highest peak was in 2008 when President Obama started his presidential victory speech. The highest peak was on September 11th, 2001. At the moment the first airplane struck the first World Trade Center tower around 68% of the RNGs came up with the exact same number. Here's where it gets weirder. Starting on September 10th, 2001 there was a trend of a steady increase in the number of RNGs that were coming up with the same number. It peaked on September 11th, 2001 when the first plane stuck the tower. After that was a steady decrease in the number of RNGs that were coming up with the same number that lasted through part of September 12, 2001. It was back "normal/average" by the 13th. So it would seem that there is a Collective Human Consciousness that can predict when something big is happening. The odds that the RNGs would have such a large increase in the same exact number coming up during those moments (and increase steady leading up to September 11th and steadily decrease after September 11th) are very, very low. It's so unlikely that it is considered to be mathematically impossible to happen.
Deja vu, Mother's Intuition, & Connected Twins:
Deja vu... is the feeling that we've done something before or that we know what's going to happen next (and being correct) being considered a person's sixth sense giving a momentary glimpse of future?
Mother's Intuition... how many times have we heard a woman say that she "knew" something had happened to her child (like being hurt or dying) before she was notified? How many of you on the list who are mothers have had this experience? Are some mother's sixth sense attuned more strongly to their children? Are they keyed to strong pain/strong emotion in their children or sense when their child's presence is gone (died)?
How often have we heard about the same thing happen with twins? Are twins sixth sense's more in tune with each other than non-twin siblings? Is it more common in identical twins?
Synchronized EM Fields Effecting Human Experience:
Our brains are electro-chemical based. So our brains produce a very weak EM (electromagnetic) field. So a scientist wondered if two brains had the same (or very nearly the same) EM field, would that have any effect? This scientist put two test subjects (1 male and 1 female) into different rooms that were completely EM shielded from outside EM fields. The test subjects had a band placed around their heads (like a headband). There were 8 spools of copper wire that were conducting electricity attached at equal distances on the headband. This caused a strong EM field around and through each test subject's brain that were very nearly identical. The lights were turned down in each room. There was a digital clock that started counting the seconds that passed when the test started. The test subjects were told to just relax and just watch the clock so that they could say at what point they experienced anything. 3 minutes into the test a strobe light went off for several seconds in the male test subjects that was visible in the peripheral vision of his left eye. 5 minutes the same thing happened in the male test subjects room but it was in the peripheral vision of his right eye. 2 minutes later the test ended. There was no change in the status of the lights or any change in the room with the female test subject. The test subjects were asked what they experienced. The male test subject reported the 2 strobe light events and what time they happened. The female test subject reported seeing a short-lived flashing light in her left peripheral vision at about 3 minutes into the experiment and the same thing in her right peripheral vision about 4 to 5 minutes after that. So it would seem that our sixth sense is connected to the EM field our brain is emitting.
Conclusion:
While not 100% conclusive, it would seem that there is a weak sixth sense and Collective Human Consciousness that involves the weak EM field that our brains produce and can possibly predict or effect future events. Perhaps this subconscious sixth sense will become a conscious sense as we evolve or we'll be able to be able to detect it with quantitative tools in the future. It would make sense that the more humans that are in proximity to each other (on the planet) the stronger the Collective Human Consciousness would be. 1 computer is weak compared to 7 billion computers. So 1 weak sixth sense multiplied by 7 billion would be more powerful. It could be that the more emotionally charged an event and an event experienced by many people is, or is going to be, a bigger shift in the Collective Human Consciousness. Could it be that if we could get every human being to think solely about 1 thing, that we could make that 1 thing happen? If so, what could we achieve as a species by being able to work together towards the same goal? It seems like it's a little far fetched but beating the odds consistently shouldn't ever happen and a high percentage of RNGs giving the same number at the same time as an emotionally charged event that is experienced by many people (who are thinking the same or very similar things) is just too unlikely to be a coincidence.
Sight Unseen:
We've all experienced this one. We've been somewhere, minding our own business, and get a strange feeling. We "feel" someone is watching us. We don't have to look in all directions to find out who/what is looking at us. We just look in that direction and catch the person or creature looking at us. But how do we know that? It happens to us all the time! It isn't a random coincidence that we just happen to look in the direction of someone who's starring at us. Explanation... no clue. We just know it happens. Think of it this way: Is it evolutionarily advantageous? Absolutely! Way back in the day when humans were hunters and gatherers, we were exposed to predators all the time. What if while the men were stalking a pig, the men were being stalked by a panther? Wouldn't it be a good thing for them to be able to sense something tracking us? What if while the females are picking berries they're being stalked by a pack of wolves? Wouldn't it be a good thing for them feel like they're being watched, feel uneasy, and retreat to a safe place? Lastly, if someone's attracted to us and is starring at us then wouldn't it be a good thing if feel someone looking at us so that we can look at them and decide if they are an attractive mate? It's about our biological need to survive and our biological need to mate and have children.
The experiment that one scientist does is he puts a person in a chair with a communication device on the opposite side of a glass door with the person in the chair facing away from the scientist. He has a list of a "looking" and "not looking" pattern. If the scientist is "looking" then he is looking at the person and thinking the test subjects name over and over. If the scientist is "not looking" then he looks down at the floor so that he can't see the test subject and thinks about something random. The test subject saying "looking" or "not looking" into the communication device every set number of seconds. Now, there are only 2 possible answers. So if someone is guessing then, statically, their chances are 50/50 of getting it right. However, the test subjects consistently get 66.7% of the answers right. Over and over people beat the odds. That shouldn't happen unless the subject can sense when someone's looking at them.
Which Curtain Is The Picture Behind?:
Another experiment puts a person in front of a computer that has a virtual curtain on the left side and the right side of the screen. They are told that behind one of curtains is a picture and behind the other one is a blank screen. They are to pick the curtain that has the picture behind it. Now, again, there are only 2 choices so the chances are 50/50 if someone's just guessing. Oddly enough, that's exactly what happens. People get about 50% of them right. There is one case in which subjects pick the curtain with the picture behind it 53% of the time. Now, 3% might not seem like much but this is a consistent 3%. It shouldn't be possible to even get a consistent 50.1% of them right. What type of picture do subjects get right 53% of the time? The picture that is of something sexually charged. Not two people having sex but perhaps the chest of a man who works out and a woman who is topless pressed up to his chest while they kiss or something along those lines. Now, it is worth noting that the picture must align with someone's sexual orientation. Straight men and women get 53% of the pictures that show a man and woman together. Gay men get 53% of the pictures that show two men together. Lesbians get 53% of the pictures that show two women together. Bisexual men get 53% of the pictures that show two men or a man and a woman. Bisexual woman get 53% of the pictures that show two woman or a man and a woman. Again, this would be evolutionarily advantageous. It's about finding a mate so that children can be had. Now, the fact that gays/lesbians/bisexuals find two people of their gender together to be stimulating but can't result in more offspring doesn't seem to matter. It's about finding a mate.
Random Number Generator Manipulation & The Collective Human Consciousness:
About 30 years ago a scientist set up a random number generator that would display a digit between 0 and 200 every second. It is equally likely to show any of the numbers. It is random so there is no pattern. Subjects were put in front of the RNG and told to make the number 100 to appear. It was shown that most of the test subjects actually had the number 100 come up more than it, statically, should have. So it seemed that if a person's thoughts can effect the future.
It gets stranger. For the past 20 years a scientist set up an RNG in his lab and over the years got more and more colleagues to do the same. There are about 80 RNG worldwide (most in Western Europe) that all feed the number that pops up every second to a server in this scientist's lab (with correction for the small time delay of transmitting the data, processing it, and compiling the results). Now, no one number should come up more often than any other. In fact, there's only about a 2.5% chance of two of the RNGs coming up with the same number at the same time. However, at different times there have been peaks during certain events. By "peaks" I mean that multiple RNGs came up with the same number. The top two times that a large number or RNGs generated the same number at the same time were surrounding major events. It happened with a large gathering of people that is emotionally charged or when some horrific event happens. The 2nd highest peak was in 2008 when President Obama started his presidential victory speech. The highest peak was on September 11th, 2001. At the moment the first airplane struck the first World Trade Center tower around 68% of the RNGs came up with the exact same number. Here's where it gets weirder. Starting on September 10th, 2001 there was a trend of a steady increase in the number of RNGs that were coming up with the same number. It peaked on September 11th, 2001 when the first plane stuck the tower. After that was a steady decrease in the number of RNGs that were coming up with the same number that lasted through part of September 12, 2001. It was back "normal/average" by the 13th. So it would seem that there is a Collective Human Consciousness that can predict when something big is happening. The odds that the RNGs would have such a large increase in the same exact number coming up during those moments (and increase steady leading up to September 11th and steadily decrease after September 11th) are very, very low. It's so unlikely that it is considered to be mathematically impossible to happen.
Deja vu, Mother's Intuition, & Connected Twins:
Deja vu... is the feeling that we've done something before or that we know what's going to happen next (and being correct) being considered a person's sixth sense giving a momentary glimpse of future?
Mother's Intuition... how many times have we heard a woman say that she "knew" something had happened to her child (like being hurt or dying) before she was notified? How many of you on the list who are mothers have had this experience? Are some mother's sixth sense attuned more strongly to their children? Are they keyed to strong pain/strong emotion in their children or sense when their child's presence is gone (died)?
How often have we heard about the same thing happen with twins? Are twins sixth sense's more in tune with each other than non-twin siblings? Is it more common in identical twins?
Synchronized EM Fields Effecting Human Experience:
Our brains are electro-chemical based. So our brains produce a very weak EM (electromagnetic) field. So a scientist wondered if two brains had the same (or very nearly the same) EM field, would that have any effect? This scientist put two test subjects (1 male and 1 female) into different rooms that were completely EM shielded from outside EM fields. The test subjects had a band placed around their heads (like a headband). There were 8 spools of copper wire that were conducting electricity attached at equal distances on the headband. This caused a strong EM field around and through each test subject's brain that were very nearly identical. The lights were turned down in each room. There was a digital clock that started counting the seconds that passed when the test started. The test subjects were told to just relax and just watch the clock so that they could say at what point they experienced anything. 3 minutes into the test a strobe light went off for several seconds in the male test subjects that was visible in the peripheral vision of his left eye. 5 minutes the same thing happened in the male test subjects room but it was in the peripheral vision of his right eye. 2 minutes later the test ended. There was no change in the status of the lights or any change in the room with the female test subject. The test subjects were asked what they experienced. The male test subject reported the 2 strobe light events and what time they happened. The female test subject reported seeing a short-lived flashing light in her left peripheral vision at about 3 minutes into the experiment and the same thing in her right peripheral vision about 4 to 5 minutes after that. So it would seem that our sixth sense is connected to the EM field our brain is emitting.
Conclusion:
While not 100% conclusive, it would seem that there is a weak sixth sense and Collective Human Consciousness that involves the weak EM field that our brains produce and can possibly predict or effect future events. Perhaps this subconscious sixth sense will become a conscious sense as we evolve or we'll be able to be able to detect it with quantitative tools in the future. It would make sense that the more humans that are in proximity to each other (on the planet) the stronger the Collective Human Consciousness would be. 1 computer is weak compared to 7 billion computers. So 1 weak sixth sense multiplied by 7 billion would be more powerful. It could be that the more emotionally charged an event and an event experienced by many people is, or is going to be, a bigger shift in the Collective Human Consciousness. Could it be that if we could get every human being to think solely about 1 thing, that we could make that 1 thing happen? If so, what could we achieve as a species by being able to work together towards the same goal? It seems like it's a little far fetched but beating the odds consistently shouldn't ever happen and a high percentage of RNGs giving the same number at the same time as an emotionally charged event that is experienced by many people (who are thinking the same or very similar things) is just too unlikely to be a coincidence.