A Little Weird » Blog Archive » Hacking Reality

A Little Weird

reality bizarres the standard

April 26th, 2009 by Sean Hacking Reality

I’ve really been struggling lately, trying to piece together a consistent view of reality. With the introduction of emergence, I’ve finally understood the Atheist belief system. It sounds a little silly, because I can look up Atheism in Wikipedia, and I should be able to just understand the idea instantly. But I’ve discovered that I need to really immerse myself in an idea to truly understand what it’s saying - and this process can take weeks or months. These past months I’ve been focusing on Atheism, and a few minutes ago I feel I’ve finally graduated it.

Let me start by paying respect to this belief system. This Science+Emergence+Evolution concept is beyond revolutionary. I hold deep respect for people who truly study, understand, and apply this belief system in their lives. (Perhaps this “deep respect” is just a way to inflate my own ego, since I still use this belief system!)

The issue I had with Atheism is that I’ve experienced paranormal phenomenon. The modern Atheist would argue that such experiences are delusions. After all, if these experiences are real, then it really flies in the face of what Science and naturalism tells us.

I see that line of reasoning… and 20 minutes ago, I had no way to counter it. I felt utterly confused; unable to reconcile my experiences with such a strong belief system. Atheism offers so much explanation to what we experience, using reason, logic, and evidence, that it is an insurmountable beast. In the world of Atheism vs. Theism, Atheism wins. Sorry folks. The personal God simply does not exist - or at least - the things we witness do not need a personal God to explain. We can explain 99% of modern experiences using naturalistic lines of reasoning.

It’s that remaining 1% that is of interest to me, though. The modern Atheist will simply ignore it, because it’s such an asshole. It ruins everything. If that 1% didn’t exist, Atheism would rein supreme. But it does exist. And I finally have a framework for accepting its existence.

Atheism shows us that - given a system with certain characteristics - life will naturally emerge. Numbers self-organize, on their own. All that’s required is a system flexible enough to sustain it. For example, we already create digital life using computers. It’s not as complex as life in this reality, but as time moves on and computing power increases, we will be able to create more stunning simulations.

The point here is that: Given a flexible enough system, life will naturally emerge.

So, the reality we live in is currently flexible enough to sustain life (obviously). So, we witness life. The atoms have formed molecules, which have organized themselves into viruses and cells, and further organized into community of cells, and multi-cellular organisms, and evolved via natural selection and other undiscovered mechanisms, until finally it’s you sitting in front of your screen, reading this sentence.

All of that. Sitting on top of this flexible system.

Where does the paranormal fit into this? Simple. It’s experiences specific to this particular system.

The best example I can give is to think back to the digital life. The programmer creates a flexible system, runs the simulation, and then life naturally emerges from it. Now, imagine that the programmer has a bug in his code. The life could literally find ways to hack the underlying system, and experience things that would seem “paranormal” to the digital inhabitants. However, these “hacks” are very specific to the system.

The point here is that: The specific system that OUR life is built on might have some neat features that we are unaware of.

So… in conclusion. The Atheist belief system is a perfect model for describing how life is created, how it just follows natural laws, and self-organizes on its own. The Atheist model is simply true - given a system with enough flexibility, life WILL evolve. It’s a mathematic truth.

However, in our particular instance, we aren’t really talking about any willy nilly flexible system. We are talking about our specific system, that has life built on top of it. The Atheist model is correct, but it still doesn’t say anything about our specific system. It can’t. All it says is that our particular system is an example of a system flexible enough to support life.

Just like the digital life could “tap into” the system that is beneath it, so too can we tap into the system we are built on. Who knows what lies beneath the surface.

Atheism has solved a profound problem of thought concerning life and nature. It has provided us with an amazing ability to explain the vast diversity of our experiences. However, beneath the surface, there still exists the dark corner of the unknown. Perhaps I do exist after all.

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 26th, 2009 at 10:07 pm and is filed under Belief Systems, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

### 18 Responses to “Hacking Reality”

1. Mr. Tallyman Says:
   April 27th, 2009 at 4:51 am

   You know about complex protines, and still you say that athiesm is the best way to describe emergant life?

   I dont understand..

   also, you must wonder about the force of gravity, weak force, strong force, electro magnetic spectrum being perfect, and not random.. and you BELIEVE that these forces came together after 15 billion years of random chance, or something like that?

   It would have taken too long.. way way way way too long.

   this belief is as rediculous and as guarded as noahs fucking arc, man!

   no offence..

2. Sothilde Says:
   April 27th, 2009 at 8:22 am

   Here is a little something I wrote a while back, I’m curious of your opinion:

   —

   “Some words for the atheists among us”

   Modern man tends to draw philosophical and metaphysical conclusions from this enormous body of knowledge that is called “physics” or nowadays usually just “science”. Because this whole body of knowledge is supposedly based on logic and deductive reasoning, the consensus is that the thus created metaphysical belief system (often called atheism) is far more valuable than any other belief system known to mankind. People ascribing to this belief system (for example Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins) thus defend it by saying it is based on this body of scientific knowledge, which has been shown to work perfectly (of which the computer I’m typing on right now is excellent evidence). What I will attempt to show is that this belief system is not more justified or less justified than any other belief system, hereby undermining the superior credibility that is often given to it just because it is based on science.

   My first argument is to show that science as a whole is incomplete by its very nature, hereby specifically referring to physics. This is done because one of the most powerful arguments for atheism called determinism (from which often the non-existence of free will follows) comes directly from results in physics. Using mainly Newtonian physics, scientists are able to calculate with a high degree of accuracy how any given object will react when forces are applied to it or when it interacts with any other object. This gives rise to the thought that if only we knew the position of and the forces acting upon each atom in the universe, we could calculate exactly what will happen in the future (or equally well what has happened in the past). If that were the case, every event in the universe would be determined in advance, because atoms can’t do anything but obey the laws of nature (hence the name determinism). However, this argument is flawed, because physics is incomplete, it can’t explain everything (as any theoretical physicist can confirm). To accept a philosophical conclusion as far reaching as determinism from an incomplete body of knowledge is in itself quite foolish, however in this case it is even worse because science can never be complete by its very nature! This is illustrated by the fact that at the end of the 19th century scientists like Lord Kelvin advised against studying theoretical physics, because they believed it was almost complete and there wouldn’t be any work left for new students. Indeed, physics at that time could explain and predict every known phenomenon, with the exception of blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect. Now take some time to stop and think. What if these two phenomena had never been discovered? Physics would indeed be complete in the eyes of scientists back then, as everything could be explained! My point here is obvious: you can never know if science is complete or not, so how can you base something so profound as your worldview on it? There can always be some undiscovered phenomenon that could turn around all of science, invalidating the entire previous view.

   My second argument goes against the view that science is based on strict logic and deductive reasoning. Thomas Kuhn has already shown in his main work The Structure of Scientific Revolution how social and cultural aspects (rather than only logic and reasoning) play an important role in the development and acceptance of a scientific theory. I would like to point out how many bits of knowledge that ended up in mainstream science didn’t get there because of logic and deductive reasoning, but because of belief and abductive (also inductive) reasoning. The most obvious example is the currently popular theory of dark matter. It was calculated (among other reasons) out of the rotation of galaxies that the matter we observe accounts for only 4% of the measured gravitational force. According to these calculations there should be a lot more matter than is observed, so scientists invented “dark matter”. Simply said this is a kind of invisible matter, that can only be detected trough it’s gravitational effect (this isn’t the whole story of it, but the exact scientific details are irrelevant for my argument). What happens here is known as abductive reasoning, which is not logically correct: you observe something, then you invent a hypothesis that can explain that something, and then accept that hypothesis as true BECAUSE it can explain that something. Though dark matter is even by many scientists today still regarded as a working hypothesis, other theories are being built upon it already, so it might be eventually accepted and embedded in mainstream thinking.

   Besides flawed reasoning, personal beliefs of the scientists come into the picture. An example of this comes from contemporary quantum physics. What is observed in quantum physics is that the behavior of subatomic particles isn’t strictly deterministic anymore. You can’t have a complete description of a subatomic physical system (Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation), and neither can you predict with certainty how this system will behave (the core of quantum physics is governed by statistical laws). Now as I already stressed, this can’t be used as an argument either for or against determinism, however it is very interesting how different scientists deal with this issue. There are basically two positions, one accepts statistics at the core of reality or simply doesn’t know yet, and the other says there must be hidden variables which we haven’t discovered yet that determine the statistical behavior of the particles and therefore concludes that reality is still deterministic. Especially this last position is interesting, because the leading principle in their reasoning isn’t any discovery about how reality actually is, but their personal believes about how they think reality is. Here again the leading principle of theorizing isn’t pure logic or reason. I would like to stress that these last two examples only serve the purpose of defeating the popular view that science is a body of knowledge that has grown out of pure reason and logic. There are many other factors at work that make it grow, which offcourse doesn’t make its pragmatic value any less. This reduces current scientific thinking up to a certain extent to a bunch of theories that just happen to work, and in a way it is. It is a very interesting question that I am not able to answer up to this day, in what way science is a description of how reality actually is, or just a model that is able to predict how reality will behave. For example, is matter really made out of atoms, or is it just our way of thinking about matter as if it were made out of atoms, that makes science work? Thus is it possible to invent a model of matter that works just as good, but is logically incompatible with the atom-model?

   Setting these last questions aside, I have here attempted to show that the belief system of atheists isn’t in any way more or less probable than any other (consistent and coherent) belief system. There is no way that the scientific origin of the beliefs of many atheists makes their beliefs “better” in comparison to any other set of beliefs. Sadly this is still the attitude that many atheists have when debating their world view. It mostly comes down to them being smarter than non-atheists, and whoever isn’t an atheist must learn to think logically and read some science books because it is all “proven”. Offcourse the same goes for many fundamentalist Christians or Muslims, but their worldviews are a lot more open to relativity, simply holding for example “why should your book be true and not their book?”. The bottom line is that people in the modern world often can’t recognize beliefs anymore for what they are, thinking that many things beliefs they hold are actually facts. Many are falling into the trap of confusing their abstractions about reality with reality itself.

   —

   In case it isn’t clear yet, I’m neither and atheist nor a theist (probably an philosophical agnost is the closest stereotype), I don’t let anyone tell me anything about reality except me.
   I’ve followed your path almost from the beginning (it has been almost parallell to mine up to two years ago), and if you ask my opinion you are going in the wrong direction now (though you’ll probably learn a LOT from it). Science and intellectualism can never give real answers, they are way too relative, based on too many assumptions I’m not prepared to make. If you’d ask me, I would say you should stop trying to form so many opinions about reality to start seeing it for what it really is. You don’t have to put any opinions about reality in your head, because if you learn to look in the right way everything is already there. You have probably gone trough at least as many paradigm shifts as I have so you should know how profound it’s influence is. How I got out of the mess is by completely “emptying” my paradigm, pulling a Descartes so to say. I threw out everything I ever put in there myself, maybe that’s the only way (but probably not).
   I hope this rather long post can help you, if not, just ignore it

3. Sean Says:
   April 27th, 2009 at 9:31 am

   Sothilde - thanks for the well thought out post. Here is a summary of your points (correct me if I’m wrong), and my response:

   1. Science is incomplete, therefore, it’s equivalent to any belief system that is incomplete.

   I agree that our modern understanding of reality is incomplete… and I will go even further to state that it will ALWAYS be incomplete (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems). However, just because it’s incomplete doesn’t mean that it should be discarded completely. Resistors inside your computer use quantum tunneling to function - something the best scientific minds don’t understand. But it works, and you use it. We don’t need this illusive “100% complete” understanding of reality in order to proclaim its superiority.

   To demonstrate this, I will make an extreme example: suppose I believe that the Earth is round, and you believe that the Earth is flat. Which belief is superior? Or are they equivalent?

   2. Science doesn’t adhere to strict logic, therefore its inherently flawed.

   Since when do things have to adhere to strict logic in order to be correct? Truth is truth, whether it’s discovered through inductive or deductive reasoning, or some other means.

   3. Scientists are biased, therefore we can’t trust what they say.

   That’s why there’s peer review. If you have the opposite bias, or no bias (which is impossible), then you are free to challenge the modern scientific understanding.

   —

   Basically, I think you’ve set up impossible standards. You hold science, along with any other belief system, to these impossible standards… and they all fail equally. So you believe the belief systems are equal. But they aren’t.

   Science doesn’t claim to have 100% truth over reality. Science is just a method for protecting against illusion. Other belief systems that don’t incorporate protections against illusion will ultimately be consumed by false beliefs.

   I would write more, but I do agree with a lot of your criticisms, and I’d have to think some more too. Good stuff.

4. Sothilde Says:
   April 27th, 2009 at 4:32 pm

   In general, yes, but you are putting my points a bit blunt though. I’m not trying to say science is flawed or incorrect, nor that scientists can’t be trusted. My point is to say its value is pragmatic (building computers etc), not metaphysical (tell you what reality is like).
   All science can tell you is what output reality gives when you give it a certain input (trough experiments etc). What happens inbetween is mere speculation, something of which you can only say that it is what it is (as far as my current understanding reaches), reality doesn’t solve equations so to say.

   I don’t think I hold an impossible standard, I’m only trying to make plausable my opinion that intellectiual or rational thought can never lead to true knowledge. It is precisely this way of thinking which imposes the impossible standard, of which it’s incompleteness by nature is just an expression. Gödels incompleteness theorems are indeed another example of this principle, although in a more limited sense, it stays within the bounds of abstract logic.

   I’m quite tired while writing this, so sorry if I’m not making too much sense

5. X-Master Says:
   April 28th, 2009 at 1:22 pm

   As I have said before, science can only corroborate certain ideas through experiments, it can sprial closer and closer to the truth of whatever it is you are trying to explain, but will most likely never reach it. So yes, science will probably always be incomplete, because if it was ever declared complete, how would anyone know that it is?

   But overall, beliefs and paradigms are really just ways to view and organize reality and most likely will never be truth in and of themselves, but I don’t know, because like everyone else, I do not know what the absolute truth about anything is. I think that is something we forget in trying to discover truth, is that those things are but tools that we use in our quest to find it.

   Atheism is just another pair of glasses to put on to view reality through, like all other belief systems and paradigms, and in all honesty has some good ideas. Above all the best thing to do, is to think for yourself, do not let others blind you with their version of the truth.

   More about the blog post above though, I have been thinking about that myself also, hacking reality, since I had thought that there were hidden features, like in many other systems, that could be accessed and used. It is just that many different belief systems would come in and say that using such things are ‘bad’ or ‘evil’, or that you are consorting with Satan or something like that. So they would blind you to these features, and they would remain hidden. Kinda like how hacking a piece of software or overclocking a piece of computer hardware could void your warranty or get you labeled as criminal just because you want to push the preformance of said software/hardware to its operational limits or get the most out of your product that you paid for.

   In closing, I just want you leave all of you with some words of wisdom.

   “Believe those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it; doubt all, but do not doubt yourself.”

   - André Gide

6. mrj Says:
   April 28th, 2009 at 6:17 pm

   It seems to me now, that psionics is not quite tied to its assigned abilities. You said that the life could “Tap into” the hidden features of said system of life above. Could that mean then that psionics is not telekinesis, telepathy, and other assorted skills, but rather the ABILITY to tap into a systems bugs,(or “hidden features” if you prefer) and extort them? (Although I don’t like using that word for it)

7. NeoPsychic Says:
   April 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pm

   It’s interesting that some people believe that “Atheism is just another pair of glasses to put on to view reality through, like all other belief systems and paradigms, and in all honesty has some good ideas.”

   I’m an Atheist and have been one for many years. The idea that atheism is just another belief system is wrong on so many levels. Atheism is, nothing more and nothing less, then not believing in god. Although many atheist believe in a sort of scientific naturalism. It’s NOT like other belief systems AT ALL.

   Only an idiot would try to say that idea on prayer is equal to a qualified doctor. So why would you claim that that God diddit and big bang are the same? There is a vast difference in evidence.

8. X-Master Says:
   April 30th, 2009 at 4:09 pm

   Thats not exactly what I am saying. Atheism can be considered a belief system because it is founded on science, and science, like most other things is just a different way to view the world. You believe the results a scientist gets in an experiment because he/she is an authority figure of science, not much different than Catholics believing whatever the pope says. At least in respect to the obvious differences between each.

   And I am not exactly sure where you got the idea that I mentioned anything about God in my comment, I may have made some allusions to Theological dogma that people blindly believe in, but thats it.

   Basically what I am trying to say is that Atheism is a different way to look at reality, I am not trying to attack it or anything, if thats how you want to see things then that is fine with me.

9. Sean Says:
   May 1st, 2009 at 4:13 am

   NeoPsychic - When I say “Atheism”, I am almost always referring to “Scientific Naturalism”. I realize that’s not the EXACT definition. Technically speaking, someone who believes that little elves created the world is an Atheist… as long as they don’t believe in God. But practically speaking, most Atheists believe in the Big Bang, Evolution, and whatever else Science says.

10. Sothilde Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 6:11 am

    NeoPsychic - I’m sorry to have to disappoint you, but that’s exactly what it is. It’s just another way to viw the world, it makes just another pair of assumptions about how reality works. Those assumptions are only burried deeper than the assumptions that a christian makes for example, but in essence it’s just the same thing.

    Sean - I was thinking about this again today, and there is something I maybe should add. It’s basicly the same point I have been making, but formulated in a more accessible way.
    What it all boils down to when looking for the “true nature of reality” is the constant switching and refining of paradigms (or “glasses”). That really is the largest common denominator so to say. You find a new idea which offers a new entrance point for understanding reality, and you build a new paradigm around it. It all sounds great in the beginning, you’re excited at discovering something new, but when you’ve worked it all out, filled in the details, you discovered you’ve created just another paradigm. And you get frustrated, look for new ideas, and start all over again. At least, that’s what I’ve been doing for years, and I think that’s what you’re doing too.
    When you think about it, when you really break trough to it’s essence, you know that you can never find truth in this way, you find just another pair of glasses to look at reality. What you really want to achieve is take off the glasses, and see reality for what it is. I have been struggling really long with this, I couldn’t understand why I could not bypass this paradigm, it’s the bottom of what it means to be human in one way or another.
    I have found that you can never take off the glasses, unfortunatly. That seems to be impossible, it’s a vital part of what it means to be human. But what you can do is remove all it’s coloring, make it a transparent, non-distorting glasses, trough which you can see reality as it really is. I accomplished this by throwing everything out that I ever put in my head myself. I just stopped believing everything that I ever believed to be the case. This was really depressing for a time, I threw away everything I ever worked at in my life, I was back at zero. But after that initial shock, when I got used to that way of viewing the world, it turned out to be the best decision I ever made. It took maybe a month or more before I realised that, but when you view the world with REALLY no beliefs, you can see what the world is really like, it’s as simple as that. I’m not going to wrap that up in fluffy terms, the last thing I am is a fluff bunny, but that’s simply how it is. At least, that’s how it worked for me. I can move on now, so to say.
    I have learned a lot, really a lot, by going trough all these different paradigms. It really showed me how profound the influence of your paradigm is on what seems normal or logical, what seems possible or impossible, your whole way of thinking etc. That’s what made me realise I should stop looking for “the perfect paradigm” (it made me realise that that is what I was doing actualy), because that doesn’t exist. You have reality on the one hadn, and the paradigm on the other. You should be working on getting to know reality, not just another paradigm (as atheism is for example too, just another way to look at reality, not reality itsself).

11. X-Master Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    Very interesting Sothilde. It does make sense about undistoring your glasses. But then again, how do you know that they are undistorted?

12. Sothilde Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 5:10 pm

    All I can say about it is that you should stop believing everything you think you know about reality… It brings you in a completely “clean” state of mind, you get completely “in the center” so to say… These are things that can’t be described in language, unfortunatly

13. Raathuus Says:
    May 3rd, 2009 at 6:15 pm

    Hmmm… Atheism… changing your beliefs on the world based on what science says. Sounds like doublethink to me…

    That said, what do I believe? Whenever a question like that comes to mind, this phrase comes to mind: “Why do today what I can do hmmm…”

14. PotentiaL Says:
    May 9th, 2009 at 7:06 pm

    The idea that consciousness is able to exploit certain loopholes in reality seems like an incomplete theory. A theory formed not due to the presence of evidence but a lack thereof.

    With that being said, my own, as well as others experiences tend to support the idea that our “specific system” can indeed be exploited. However I believe the truth is something bigger than simple Atheistic loopholes.

    My problem with Atheism has always had to do with our “specific system” itself. Look around you… see all that stuff? Where the hell did it come from? Something somewhere somehow had to have gave birth to substance… matter. Atheism is supposedly based on science, which specifically prohibits the creation of matter. Whether it was some flatulent inter dimensional frog or an old man in white robes is up for debate, but the fact that all this stuff came out of nowhere 15 billion years ago is undeniable.

15. Psikillion Says:
    May 19th, 2009 at 8:38 am

    @ Sothilde

    Very good metaphor with the glasses and how it relates to beliefs. May I ask, “How do you use your lack of beliefs in everyday life?”

    @ PotentiaL

    I agree that there must there must be something bigger than simple Atheistic loopholes, and any religious system for that matter. Religions and Atheism all try to confine that “something bigger” to something that everyone can understand and use. This can serve a purpose for a time, but if one stays there for too long then the “something bigger” becomes nothing more than an imaginary friend whose attributes anyone can determine. Once religions and Atheism are done serving their purpose in one’s life then it is time to reach out and know this “something bigger” for who or what this is.

16. Sothilde Says:
    June 30th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

    @ Psikiollion

    A bit of a late reply, not sure if you’ll still read this, but here she goes:
    I don’t “use” it, it has a (quite profound I must say) effect on how you view reality, and the opinions formed about it. By that last statement I mean that it becomes easier to evaluate or see the “truth” of statements about reality. All statements that are based upon a certain assumption must be viewed as only true within the context of these assumptions.

    A more difficult thing to describe is how it in a weird sense “sets you free”. Your thinking becomes disconnected from any such contexts (or dogma, which I mean in the broadest sense possible). You can really think independent of any context about things or concepts. Therefore it is much more “absolute”, it consists more out of the things that are there already and the things you put in there yourself. This is a difference in thinking that I only realised after I stopped making any assumptions about the nature of reality. There is a difference in thinking in concepts that really are “a part of reality”, and concepts that are “manmade”, or put into reality by tought. And those manmade concepts only have meaning within their context of creation, which is I think a very important point many people don’t realise.

    Offcourse this is only a description of what I experience, it won’t necessarily have the same effect on anyone else offcourse, altough I think you should experience similar things over time. Anyway, I do think this is one of the first steps anyone who is looking for the truth about reality should take. You could say that you shouldn’t create your image of reality (always based on certain assumptions), let reality show it to you. It certainly put me on the right track again, and offcourse that’s only the beginning. I’m really curious what will happen in the future because I can feel my insight in things and consciouness about what really happens rise more and more, altough that is something that’s very difficult to express in words.

17. illiterate hippie Says:
    July 10th, 2009 at 4:06 am

    I don’t think atheism should be called a belief system. It’s a dismissal of something unseeable and esoteric.

18. Sothilde Says:
    July 16th, 2009 at 8:51 pm

    @illiterate hippie

    I feel obliged to respond to that. Please tell me, what, in it’s pure essence, is the difference between a worldview created around the idea that there IS a god, and a worldview created around the idea that there IS NOT a god? Both are in exactly the same way founded in a certain belief, and therefore both are a certain belief system.

    Somehow people who proud themselves as atheists find that very hard to grasp… It’s exactly that notion that I aim at with my first post here, the idea many atheists have that their worldview is somehow superior because it is based on a different set of assumptions.

    Why would you even want to make any assumptions about reality? That only places a limit on the range of what you can perceive or even think about…

### Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

- ## Pages

  - Welcome!
  - Blog
  - Forums
  - Games
    - Emergence Game
    - Geiger Game
    - Lottery Game
  - Contact

- ## Experiments

  - Lottery Project, Part 1
  - Lottery Project, Part 2

- ## Categories

  - Belief Systems (28)
  - Books (7)
  - Consciousness (4)
  - Conspiracy (5)
  - Dream Phenomenon (24)
  - ESP (17)
  - How-To (11)
  - Lottery (32)
  - Note to Self (21)
  - Personal Development (17)
  - Philosophy (31)
  - Random Stuff (11)
  - Science (26)
  - Subconscious (14)
  - Uncategorized (1)
  - Video (16)
  - Website (13)

- ## Archives

  - November 2011
  - November 2010
  - June 2010
  - February 2010
  - December 2009
  - November 2009
  - October 2009
  - August 2009
  - July 2009
  - May 2009
  - April 2009
  - March 2009
  - February 2009
  - January 2009
  - November 2008
  - October 2008
  - September 2008
  - August 2008
  - July 2008
  - June 2008
  - May 2008
  - April 2008
  - March 2008
  - February 2008
  - January 2008
  - December 2007
  - November 2007
  - October 2007
  - September 2007
  - August 2007
  - July 2007
  - June 2007
  - May 2007
  - April 2007

- ## Links

  - A State of Mind
  - Dreaming to Infinity
  - Monroe Institute on YouTube
  - Shifted Perspectives
  - UC Berkeley on YouTube

- ## Meta

  - Login
  - Valid XHTML

All Content, Images, Video, Text, and Software is © Copyright 2007-2009 Sean Connelly and their respective authors. All Rights Reserved.
Best viewed with Firefox, with minimum resolution of 1024 x 768. Microsoft can suck my balls.
A Little Weird is proudly powered by WordPress - Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).