[PenultimateManStanding]

OKAY! (jesus, what a grouch )

[Bobbotov]

Just one last question: give me one belief you hold that you cannot live without.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bobbotov', 'J')ust one last question: give me one belief you hold that you cannot live without.

[Bobbotov]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bobbotov', 'J')ust one last question: give me one belief you hold that you cannot live without.

[PenultimateManStanding]

Tried the experiment myself. Put a piece of paper in front of the monitor and listened to tapes forward and backwards. Less than half of what he had posted as the message was noticable by my own listening. Some was plain enough. Then you read the posted interpretation and listen again and its 'yeah, sure, I can hear it now!' Perhaps there is an element of suggestion at work here. And perhaps the apparent emergence of words from the backwards gibberish is only a fluke of language, coincidence. But the strangest part of it is how these messages have an eerie relationship in a metaphorical way to the normal forward content of the speaking. I don't know, seems to be something going on. Life is strange.

[Bobbotov]

Well, then here is an epiphany for you: DOG is GOD backwards. Perhaps God IS a dog. In that case I have three Gods at home. But I don't believe my dogs are God or gods because I had them all fixed.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bobbotov', 'W')ell, then here is an epiphany for you: DOG is GOD backwards. Perhaps God IS a dog. In that case I have three Gods at home. But I don't believe my dogs are God or gods because I had them all fixed.

[Bobbotov]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'P')erhaps there is an element of suggestion at work here. And perhaps the apparent emergence of words from the backwards gibberish is only a fluke of language, coincidence.

[PenultimateManStanding]

That's as good a critique as I've seen, Bobbotov. Better than the ones I read last night looking for critiques. Its a subtle thing to balance a critical mind with an open mind. If you want to see an outstanding example of what you're talking about, go check out those examples at the reverse speech website. Try the same experiment I just did. Listen to the cuts without looking at the captions and try to hear words, then listen again after you know what Oates thinks they are. Amazing. Sure, it is more likely to be a fluke than a real process, though I'm not totally convinced. Still, its an interesting experiment. (just kidding about the dogs )

[Bobbotov]

There was a book written about twenty years ago by an author who's name escapes me about subliminal messaging in advertising. The focus was primarily on print ads that had sexually suggestive content hidden in the ad. For example, a Dewars Scotch ad would show a whiskey glass with scotch and ice cubes. The author would show that in the ice cubes were figures of nude women. When he traced the patterns it was easy to see. However, since I worked in advertising NO SUCH THING was ever done. This was the product of an over active imagination. Not a bad thing per se but this guy BELIEVED he had stumbled on a Madison Avenue conspiracy to subvert and manipulate the public. What a wacko. I believe he wrote several books on the subject and they were all based around visual illusions or misperceptions.

The exact same thing can happen with audio.

I did the backward experiment many, many times. Starting with when the Beatles came out with Revolution and there was an urban myth that said if you played it backwards it said Paul McCartney was dead. I did my own experiments and found that yes many seemingly meaningful things could be construed but they were just a meaningless illusion.

There is an old myth that states that Satan speaks backwards and doing the Catholic Mass backwards is a Satanic ritual. This is all bogus based on superstition and the compelling nature of how the mind tries to impose meaning on illusions even when it KNOWS better. No matter how many times you look at a particular optical illusion knowing that the two lines with arrow heads facing differnet directions are the same length your mind is convinced because of the geometric arrangement that makes it APPEAR that one is longer than the other. If you allow that to dictate your thinking then a belief will be formed IN SPITE of knowing better. That could result in something quite dangerous.

[PenultimateManStanding]

I am familiar with the phenomena of illusion. Dr. Wilson Bryan Keys wrote those books on subliminal methods in advertising which I believe you are referring to. I'm not sure in which area of advertising you work, Bobbotov. I read those books. There was an interesting item in the news a number of years ago about a scandal involving the Montgomery Wards Catalogue (pretty sure it was MW though perhaps it was Sears). The letters: F U C K could clearly be seen on an advertized headboard for a bed. MW spokesmen said it was a 'disgruntled' employee. More likely it was an incompetent layout designer who used too much acid on the plates. Your not supposed to be able to see the letters. They are supposed to be subliminally percieved. You say the Keys books were an overactive imagination? Now I have a better idea of where you are coming from I guess. Whether you work in advertising or not, I won't be convinced that subliminal tricks are not employed in the advertising world and the magazine printing world such as airbrushing ice cubes to have hidden faces, forming words that can barely be seen, etc. Go ahead and launch your insults, denigrate my intelligence all you like. Subliminal methods are real and they are used.

[Bobbotov]

Phylip Wylie wrote a book called Opus One in which he speaks of clouds forming curse words. At the end of the book in some kind of cosmic joke the stars started to form the words FUCK YOU!

People who can get away with jokes in any form whether it be in subliminal form or overtly are doing just that. Disgruntled employees or pranksters are the exception and do not negate my point. The compelling nature of the illusory messages are what I am talking about; the ones no one intended to mean anything. That is the difference - intention. IN fact intentional subliminal advertising is a lot more overt. Originally it was used in theaters to encourage people to spend money on junk food snacks by flashing a few frames of a message on the screen like "Thirsty?". Motion pictures themselves are an illusion as they are comprised of 24 still frames per second. So a subliminal message was buried inside an illusion.

The term subliminal means something that is just below perception. Advertisers quickly found out (like looking at stereograms) not everybody "got it." So it was pretty much dropped as an effective tool. The tendency for people to suspect there is subliminal messaging going on in all manner of manifestations is just plain paranoid. I have done many ads for many companies over twenty five years and no one has ever introduced subliminal messaging in any serious manner. I am not saying it hasn't happened as I just cited how it was introduced but it is not in the effective grab bag of choices one makes to advertise. Inculcation is a much more effective means of advertising. Inculcation through saturation advertising. Why does Coke spend so much money advertising when it is already number one? The answer is inculcation or brainwashing through ubiquitous repetition.

Advertising is way too expensive to be so subtle. If you only have a person's attention for a second or two you do not have their attention long enough to bury arcane messages in your ads and expect anyone to be turned into a Stepford consumer. That author spent hours pouring over ads specifically looking for (projecting really) what he "wanted" to see to make his point. That doesn't make it real or even practical. If I want to equate cars with sex I don't want to be subtle about it nor do I have to. I put a beautiful babe in the picture with not too much clothing on. While women have nothing to so with the car's attributes it is the association planted in the mind of the viewer (targeted demographic consumer) that is what I am after. Sex sells and in this society and it is really not necessary to be subtle to the point of being subliminal.

You say that subliminal methods are used but there is a difference between seeing something that is intentional and imagining you see something that is not there. That is the perfect difference between knowing and believing. Knowing is discerning awareness of the intentional and believing imposes or projects meaning on the unintentional. That is why it is false and can be dangerous.

Belief is also an expression of desire. We want things to happen so we believe they will happen. We may not in fact ever know if they will happen but we can deceive ourselves into thinking they will.

You have a lot to learn grasshopper. But first you must drop your illusions. Especially about me.

[PenultimateManStanding]

I'm not sure just what illusions you seem to feel that I entertain about you. Could you spell it out so I can say yes or no? I just formed an impression of you today as a result of our exchange earlier in the day. We all do it - form impressions of one another based on the words we read. My favorite example of subliminal methods is the one about REEBOK shoes. It was Keys who pointed this out. What the hell is a reebok? Unless somebody has some special knowledge of what a reebok is then I'm gonna go with notion that it is formed by splicing the letters BO inside the word REEK. Why would they do that since BO and REEK are words about offensive smells? Answer: create an association subliminally in the public's minds between their feet and those shoes. If the overt associations were picked up it would repel people. Because its subliminal, however, it works to create the desired association. Lots of other interesting stuff on this topic that I could relate, but I'll save it for now.

[PenultimateManStanding]

Well OK its a south african antelope. Could Keys still be right? you bet

[PenultimateManStanding]

Perhaps you've notice, Bobbotov, that I don't cling dogmatically to any of this. It isn't my nature to be dogmatic about anything. But it would be interesting to compare and contrast the notions of knowledge and belief in the light of this reverse speech issue. Of course I don't 'know' reverse speech to be a real phenomenon. Neither does Oates. Could it be 'true'? Damn straight it could, but it hasn't been proven. In fact, as a hypothetical idea, one has to say that it is in fact either true or false. It lies outside of our realm of knowledge (which is always imperfect anyway). But questions about reality such as this one do have, in principle, a correct answer. But since we don't have that correct answer we can only surmise and perhaps study it and consider the evidence. In the meantime, one can decide if one wants to believe it or not. I said early on in this thread that I have things I believe, things I don't believe and things in between. Probably for just about any idea I can think of, when push comes to shove, I have to put them all in the in-between category. They may tend more one way or the other, but everything is indeterminate if you stop and think of it. If you say, no, reverse speech is not real, then I have to say, how do you know?
In fact, you don't know any more than I do about the actual truth of this. If you choose not to believe it, fine. I give it, say 60/40 its true.

[Bobbotov]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'P')erhaps you've notice, Bobbotov, that I don't cling dogmatically to any of this. It isn't my nature to be dogmatic about anything. But it would be interesting to compare and contrast the notions of knowledge and belief in the light of this reverse speech issue. Of course I don't 'know' reverse speech to be a real phenomenon. Neither does Oates. Could it be 'true'? Damn straight it could, but it hasn't been proven. In fact, as a hypothetical idea, one has to say that it is in fact either true or false. It lies outside of our realm of knowledge (which is always imperfect anyway). But questions about reality such as this one do have, in principle, a correct answer. But since we don't have that correct answer we can only surmise and perhaps study it and consider the evidence. In the meantime, one can decide if one wants to believe it or not. I said early on in this thread that I have things I believe, things I don't believe and things in between. Probably for just about any idea I can think of, when push comes to shove, I have to put them all in the in-between category. They may tend more one way or the other, but everything is indeterminate if you stop and think of it. If you say, no, reverse speech is not real, then I have to say, how do you know?
In fact, you don't know any more than I do about the actual truth of this. If you choose not to believe it, fine. I give it, say 60/40 its true.

[Bobbotov]

When I say I do not believe in anything what I really mean is that I kill all belief. It is unnecssary to believe in anything to live. In fact it is detrimental to living as it is the cause of most interpersonal conflict. People will kill for their beliefs, will become righteous, narrow focused, dogmatic. These are not attributes to promote understanding but rather polarization or dominance. The temptation to believe is very strong because the forces that enable belief are compelling: desire, misperceptions, ready made answers, etc.

When you eradicate beliefs you are left with knowledge and it quickly becomes evident you do not know much first hand. This is unsettling to the hubris of human beings who "believe" that everything is knowable. That in itself is a delusion.

If it is raining today what is there to believe in? Do I need to convince others? Do I need to kill for that fact if others deny it? No. All I need to do is plan my day accordingly. But if someone believes that it CANNOT rain today and in fact it actually does they will make great effort to deny the truth to save their precious belief which they have conviced themselves they cannot live without. Have you known people to be so stubburn in the face of truth as to deny its existence despite all evidence to the contrary? Do not these people defend their position by throwing up all manner of beliefs to substitute for the truth so they can righteously maintain their adamant stance. This is another aspect of how dangerous beliefs are.

People put on beliefs the same way they put on clothes. Without beliefs they feel naked to the world. They strut their beliefs around like high fashion to send signals to others that they are superior. They will defend to death their beliefs because without them they are vulnerable as it is with being naked in a hostile world. Yet isn't it interesting that aborginals who embody a great deal of innocence, who live in most inhospitable environments are usually naked or near naked. I think that is a good metaphor between clothes and beliefs - artificial contrivances people think they need to put on to provide some necessity of protection from the envrionment in which they live.

[SidneyTawl]

UHHHHHHH, oh no no no no ,,.. no no no.

Peak oil is a myth,..that is what my daddy says.

My daddy,.. Mr. Corporate America, always tells me the truth, and he told me Peak Oil was a myth.

And he buys me candy, and I have learned if people buy you candy then its best to believe him.

Peak Oil ...no no no, its a myth.

Why the next thing your gonna tell me is that there is no Santa Claus.

And I know that's not true, because every Christmas I get gift after I go to sleep.

And the cookies and milk are gone.

so don't tell me that Peak oil is not a myth or the FOOLISH thought that there is no Santa Claus.

Now, lets drive to the beach, get in my daddy's yacht and go snorkling on that reef 50 miles out. That will prove Peak Oil is a myth, because see, we have gas, and we can do what we want.

Its my potty and I'll go if I want too...lalalalalalal. you can't tell me about Peak oil because I have my fingers in my ears, just like my Daddy taught me to do when people try to tell me things that arent' true.

[MD]

bbbotov-
You claim belief is dangerous, but what is really dangerous is not belief, but individual reluctance to modify belief based on new facts.
From my world view, belief is an inescapable requirement. You cannot effectively "kill all belief", as you state.

For instance your rain example: I may believe it is raining, because I hear pattering on the roof. An assocaite then comes in and mentions how beautiful and sunny it is outside, I must now modify my belief if I am to avoid delusional thinking. In neither case have I actually looked outside to factually confirm whether or not it is raining.

Or the common example of asking the "expert witness", "What color is the house?" Answer: "The side that I can see is blue".
There is nothing dangerous or delusional in believing the other side of the house is also blue, unless new facts appear indicating otherwise.

The delusion appears to lie more in thinking you can divorce yourself completely from belief

[MD]

Bobbolov,
Actually your problem is worse. You have expressed belief in dismissing all belief.

What you are proposing sounds suspiciously like fundamentalist atheism, which is a dogmatic belief system in its own right.