HOME | DD
paradigm-shifting — Blind Observations
by
Published: 2013-08-14 20:20:22 +0000 UTC; Views: 1217; Favourites: 8; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
Even science reluctantly admits that we can only see 4% of the Universe around us. Yet we base what is supposedly real or not real on what we can perceive using the 5 senses.Science has also proven that the human eye is mechanically capable of seeing 100% but seeing as the brain operates just like a computer, the software of our belief systems has hard wired our neural networks to only allow a 4% operation of the total potential of our perceptions.
Open yourself up to more expanded programming to perceive more of reality, or cower in the corner of your 4% reality. That choice is yours alone to make. No one can make it for you.
But my advise would be: THINK FOR YOURSELF. Stop letting society tell you who you are supposed to be. Live life instead of letting life live you.
Browse =paradigm-shifting 's Gallery: Paradigm Shift - An Educational Comedy | Pondscape | Ocean Design Aquarium | Fence Witch | Pop Tarts of DOOM | Legal Music Search | Myself | Journeys With Rebecca | Good Stuff | Best Stuff | WTF?! | Chickzillas | Activism, Sarcastic Humor and Controversy | This Is SPPAAAATTTTTAAAA!! | deviantART | Geek Stuff | BBS Scene / Text[ography] | Regarding The Ladies | Regarding The Guys
[ Featured | Full Browse | Friends & Watchers | YouTube Accounts | PSEC via Empower | PSEC via BubbleWS | PSEC via Tumblr | PSEC and Time Warrior via ReverbNation | Pondscape via BlueHost & WordPress | Our StumbleUpon ]
*note: all deviations created under Ubuntu Linux using a bare minimum of one of the following: kdenlive , winff , devede , openmpt , wine , audacity , gimp .
Related content
Comments: 5
Well, Bill was never wery open minded peron (his media personae at least).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Not to nit-pick, since I agree with the general text of your description, but science doesn't "reluctantly" admit that we can only see 4% of the universe - science openly admits it 
Also, the receptors in our eyes don't really catch 100% (of light, I'm assuming). The visible light spectrum that our optical receptors can detect is a tiny little band in the EM spectrum. By comparison, other organisms which have more advanced eyes - like say, the mantis shrimp, can detect hundreds of thousands more "colors" than we can see. However, it's true that our brains don't process everything that comes in through our eyes. We typically process about 8 to 20% of the visual information our eyes catch, and we store only a tiny fraction of that (in memory). So after a couple of days go by, you will no longer have a mental picture of over 99% of what you saw.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not to nit pick, but a "reluctant admission" is different than "reluctant to admit". A reluctant admission is more like "forced to admit" or "seems to have no other choice but to admit" sort of context. Many "Billiard Ball Physics Scientists" have gotten their egos bruised by these sorts of things, because it continues to become more clear that the universe is an electro-magnetic, dynamic, frequency-based thing and does not work like the 19th Century Coo-Coo-Clock with the precise gears, switches and levers that they had hoped for.
Even Einstein made many "reluctant admissions" as he was not a proponent of new science but rather an adversary of it. Him and Heisenberg were not buddies
But Einstein was a big enough man to admit when he was wrong.
The brain processes billions of bits per second of information, yet we we're only consciously aware of thousands (if even that) of bits per second of information. Needless to say, so-called psychic awareness tends to be contained in those billions of bits but we in our addictions to complacency hard wire our neural networks to access a very limited amount of data.
There is much research that is done and evidences quantified that the main stream would rather most people not know about, because as an old colleague of mine who happens to BE a scientist likes to say "modern science is the pursuit of funding through ego".
Seeing as "scientific theory" is an INDUSTRY with corporate share holders to keep happy with their increasingly greedy bottom lines, it is actually imperative that new knowledge be suppressed in favor of obsolete knowledge, so that the corporate investors can keep going to the bank.
This is how the real world operates, and its not pretty.
I don't mean that as a negative or pessimistic statement, but rather an opportunity for the current and new generations of humanity to become increasingly more aware of the problems so that things can be set right.
Its like Heisenberg once said: "It is not that new science is ever accepted by the main stream, it is simply a fact that its opponents eventually die"
So as long as we can break our addiction to the "tools being our masters" and go back to being the masters of the tools, humanity should be alright. Otherwise, we'll destroy ourselves as the intensity of the dichotomy reaches critical mass and can no longer maintain itself. Just stating the obvious
I would also recommend watching a documentary called "What The Bleep Do We Know" if you haven't already. Its quite good!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0