A Little Weird » Science

A Little Weird

reality bizarres the standard

## Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

November 11th, 2010 by Sean Necessity of the Scientific Method (Part 1)

Oh lookie, it’s 11/11! Now what? Warning: Long post.

Something I’ve come to realize is the necessity of the scientific method. I know I’ve written about this topic in the past, but it has a certain clarity with me at this moment.

### Born Ignorant

The problem is that we’re born into this world with very little working knowledge of the reality around us. This is by design - by offloading the learning phase until after birth, it allows humans to better adapt to our environment (and therefore, survive). So instead of biology producing a human that knows everything out of the womb, it produces a human that can learn and adapt to its environment. We don’t come out of the womb with knowledge of how to speak French; we come with the ability to learn language.

Since we are blank slates coming into this world, we need to figure things out. We need to actively pursue truth.

### Truth is Evasive

It is destiny that truth is hard to figure out. Not for some magical reason - I can calculate and prove that truth is inherently hard to figure out.

Truth only has one strength: it can’t die. Humans can die. Ideas can die. Fashion trends can die. Truth can’t die. Because we can die, we need to be strong. We need to be smart. We need to reproduce. We need to adapt. Truth doesn’t need to do any of that. Outside of its immortality, truth is incredibly weak. Truth doesn’t need a job. Truth doesn’t need to be popular. Truth doesn’t need to gather resources. Truth is sitting pretty.

Some truths are obvious… for example, gravity exists. Just about every human and animal has this truth. We might not all agree on the word “gravity”, but we know that we get pulled to the ground. It’s quite obvious.

But many truths are not obvious. For example, did you know that any rubik’s cube can be solved in 20 moves or less? It sounds like a simple fact, but finding the number “20″ took 15 years of research. Was that fact any less true 100 years ago? Was it any less true 10,000 years ago? No. We just didn’t know it. Now we do.

### Necessity of Discovering Truth

Who cares about truth anyways though? Why must we actively pursue it? In short: to survive. Many things threaten our survival, and discovering truth is the only way to overcome these threats. A virus could kill millions of people. We could kill each other using nuclear weapons. We could get hit by an asteroid. Or 23% of us could just die from cancer.

See: discovering truth doesn’t just mean sitting and thinking. It’s not just about meditation (though meditation is definitely a part of it). If we discover the truth that an asteroid will hit us in 12 years, we can take action to survive. An asteroid could be coming at us right now, whether we discover it or not. Discovering truth is a necessity for our survival.

#### Non-Physical Truths

It sounds like I’m describing very physical truths. Cancer, weapons, asteroids, etc. Is it safe to ignore non-physical truths? No.

A group of extremists might believe they will die and be greeted with 72 virgins if they kill themselves in order to propagate their belief system. Non-physical belief systems use physical humans to propagate. Different belief systems have different strategies for survival.

If I somehow came into possession of a nuclear weapon, I would panic and call the police. If a terrorist somehow came into possession of a nuclear weapon, they might decide to kill millions of people, because of their belief system.

Violent belief systems are a threat to our collective survival.

What about non-violent belief systems? I suspect it is very hard to find a non-violent belief system (though we should certainly strive for one). For example, if you believe that freedom of speech isn’t important - is that a non-violent belief? Denying free speech is a form of non-physical violence. I will have to save this piece of the discussion for another day. My point at the time is that it’s important to discover both physical truths (i.e., how cancer works, when an asteroid is going to hit us) and non-physical truths (i.e., whether 72 virgins are waiting for us after death). Both impact our survival.

### Summary

Let’s summarize where we are at this point:

We don’t know the truth. Truth can be obvious, but a lot of times it can be very difficult to figure out. Something is true whether we figure it out or not. Certain undiscovered truths threaten our survival. We must actively pursue truth in order to better adapt and survive. Non-physical truths can have physical manifestations - therefore, we need to actively pursue truth in all our pursuits, not just those that have immediate physical impact.

Moving on…

### Ignorance and Enlightenment

Ignorance is dangerous. If we don’t know that an asteroid is about to hit us, that is an immediate threat. We must actively seek truth, and enlighten our ignorance. We can’t know everything, but we must try to do our best.

Anything that prevents us from enlightening our ignorance is bad. For example, suppose I believe that asteroids don’t exist. It’s a conspiracy! The truth might be that an asteroid is on it’s way to hit us in 12 years. But my belief is now serving as an obstacle to discovering this truth. My belief is a threat to our survival.

The obstacle doesn’t have to be a belief though. Maybe there is a virus outbreak, and there isn’t enough vaccination to go around. My body is denied the information on how to defeat the virus due to a limited supply. The limited supply is a physical obstacle. In this instance, “enlightenment” is a physical process; it is the transfer of knowledge from the vaccination to my body.

Enlightenment is simply moving from ignorance to truth. Whether it is physical (ex: vaccination) or non-physical (ex: learning something new) depends on the type of ignorance. Ignorance can be physical (ex: the body not knowing how to deal with a virus), or non-physical (ex: the mind not knowing if an asteroid exists).

So, we have two enemies: 1. Ignorance (i.e., not knowing truth), 2. Anything that prevents/delays enlightenment (i.e., not being able to discover truth). These enemies might manifest themselves as physical or non-physical, depending on the situation.

To be continued…

Posted in Belief Systems, Science | 5 Comments »

December 29th, 2009 by Sean Steorn Update

Looks like the Orbo guys have updated their site and added diagrams and videos:

http://www.steorn.com/

I’m not seeing any claims of over-unity… (EDIT: Oh wait, yes they’re still claiming over-unity).

Still waiting on a video where the electrical output is fed back into the machine.

Posted in Random Stuff, Science | 3 Comments »

December 25th, 2009 by Sean Higher Intelligence

I find it interesting that there seems to be this conflict between science and religion. There are times when modern scientific belief seems to spit in the face of spirituality, but really, I derive a lot of spiritual feelings from understanding science.

One thing that continues to amaze me is evolution. The classical argument is always between evolution vs. intelligent design - i.e., did nature randomly produce living creatures, or did some higher intelligence design living creatures?

If you believe in evolution, it usually implies you are denying the existence of some form of higher intelligence. If evolution is true, then God didn’t create everything… natural processes that don’t rely on God’s existence did.

What’s really interesting though is that - if you believe in evolution - it becomes highly probable that higher intelligences do exist.

Evolution is something that happens inside of systems. If a system is flexible enough to have self-replicating objects, then life will eventually evolve. This “system” can be the reality that we live in… or it can be numbers in a computer. The system itself doesn’t matter - just whether the system has enough flexibility to support the process of evolution.

The physical world we live in, on Earth, is flexible enough to support the process of evolution. Self-replicating objects, starting at the molecular level, slowly evolved over millions of years into multi-cellular organisms.

How far-fetched is it to believe that there are other systems in our reality that are flexible enough to support evolution? I would argue that it’s not only possible - it strikes me as quite probable.

For example, perhaps the laws of electro-magnetism have enough flexibility to support evolution. If they do, then non-physical beings of light could exist right now, having evolved for the past 13 billion years. That destroys humanity’s 6 million years of evolution.

It does sound silly to say “non-physical beings of light”, but that’s exactly what it would be. And if the laws of electro-magnetism are flexible enough to support evolution, then these non-physical, highly-evolved light organisms most certainly exist.

How can you justify being an Atheist, other than you’re just pissed off at your dad?

Posted in Consciousness, Science | 5 Comments »

October 3rd, 2009 by Sean Solution to Determinism/Free Will

Hi there… My great friend, Stephen Wolfram, has clued in me to the solution to the apparent contradiction between determinism and free will. He told me about it here.

In philosophy, there is a debate between determinism and free will. The idea goes like this: if the world is deterministic, that means there is a math formula for everything. As a result, if you knew the initial conditions of the universe - you could simulate the entire universe using the math rules. However, if that is true, then free will doesn’t exist. If everything is just a math formula, then YOU don’t really ever make a choice… you are just making pretend choices governed by the chemical reactions in your brain, which are governed by math.

The appeal here is that we all feel like free will exists. I feel like I make choices. I don’t feel like a robot, calculating my next move - I feel like an individual with a soul, that somehow magically makes real decisions. I choose whether to write this article or not… I choose what I’m going to say, or what I will eat, or how I spend my weekends. I choose.

So, if I have free will, where does it come from? If free will exists, then that means reality can’t be deterministic, and that a soul of some sort must exist.

Luckily, Mr. Wolfram has cleared this up. It turns out determinism is true (despite our ignorance in the field of quantum physics). But there’s a catch…

Reality is something called a “universal computer“. To explain this concept, let’s talk about our intuition…

In our minds, we might think of “problems” on a sliding scale of difficulty. Some problems are really easy to solve. Some problems are a little hard. And other problems are really really hard.

For example, if I give you the length of two sides of a right triangle, you can figure out the length of the third size. You would just use the Pythagorean theorem (a2 + b2 = c2), pull out your calculator, and figure the solution. Fairly simple.

However, if I asked you for a prediction of what the weather will be like in London on 15 March 2010… you can’t just plug that question into a formula and figure it out. You could give a best guess, but you won’t have a definite answer.

Or how about - how will humans evolve in another million years? This question seems much harder than the weather question! How would you even begin to estimate an answer? You might as well just make something up off the top of your head.

Our intuition tells us that there are many different levels of difficulty in answering problems. However, our intuition is wrong. There are really only two: things you can plug and chug in a formula… and things you can’t know for sure, and just have to wait and see.

Predicting the weather is the same level of mathematical difficulty as predicting the evolution of humans. The questions are equivalent. Likewise, any sort of formula-based question is the same level as well - just about all of math, physics, and chemistry is just figuring out which formula to use, and how to use it correctly. Plug and chug.

Now here’s the kicker (if I haven’t bored you already): it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to have a problem with MORE difficulty than predicting the weather. Our intuition tells us that problems can be more and more difficult. This is not true. Once a problem reaches a certain level of complexity, it is basically maxed out. It can’t get more difficult.

That tells us something about reality though: since we witness these difficult problems in reality, then reality must be complex enough to contain them. And since there is a limit to complexity - reality can’t be any MORE complicated. Therefore, the laws that govern reality MUST create a system of maximum complexity.

How does free will fit into this?

When a system reaches maximum complexity, the only way to predict the future is to wait and see. There are no short cuts. For example, I can’t write a computer program that predicts the output of another computer program. I can’t do it. It’s mathematically impossible. The ONLY way to predict how a computer program will run is to run it! You can sit back and analyze it all you want, but you CAN NOT predict the results without actually running it.

We are deterministic. However, we have reached the maximum level of complexity. Therefore, the only way to see what we’re going to do is to wait and see.

In our original thought in the second paragraph, we thought that if the universe was deterministic, then we could simulate the entire universe. Yes - in fact, that’s what we’re doing RIGHT NOW. However, we can’t predict the future. Our universe is moving as fast as it can… we cannot skip ahead, and predict the results before they happen.

Reality is deterministic, but unpredictable. Math saves the day. Thank you, Mr. Wolfram.

Posted in Video, Philosophy, Science | 16 Comments »

August 28th, 2009 by Sean“Virtual Out of Body Experiences”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQAc_Z2OfQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xWowv7Qryc

I applaud scientists for investigating the brain and how our vision plays a role in sensing the location of our body parts.

However.

I do not applaud their use of the term “out of body experience”. What they are investigating is not the same thing as the traditional out of body experience.

The term “out of body experience” is broad enough to describe both phenomenon, but using it for these studies implies a relationship between the two phenomenon. There is no relationship between the optical illusion the scientists are playing with, and the OBE state of mind that Monroe and others have investigated.

What bothers me more is that the second video uses terms like “flashes of light” and “vibrations” - however, they’re just talking about the lights and motors attached to the subjects back! Not visions of flashing lights experienced during meditation (thought to be synapses firing in the eye-lids), or the classical vibrations people feel while having an OBE (which have no scientific explanation yet).

The blurring of terminology will create confusion. This means that if someone is genuinely curious about OBEs, they might read scientific articles about this optical illusion, and mistakenly conclude that OBEs are an optical illusion - for no logical reason… just because the terminology is the same.

OBEs might be an illusion - I’m ok with that. But let that discovery come from investigation of OBEs!

Optical illusions are cool - I’m ok with that too. But let’s stop calling this line of work “out of body experiences” because we already have a separate collection of phenomenon that already uses that term.

>:-|

Posted in Science, Dream Phenomenon | 2 Comments »

April 29th, 2009 by Sean Full Circle, Injustice of Science

I have two thoughts to express:

1. In identifying the unknown in the Atheist belief system, I realize I haven’t really accomplished anything, and have just come full circle. My conclusion is that the best way forward is to experiment with reality in order to convert unknowns into knowns… which is what I thought before I started this line of reasoning. The only benefit I’ve gained is deflating the ego and arrogance of the Atheist… but that doesn’t get me any closer to truth.

This makes me think that all belief systems have a realm of the unknown. In the Theist belief system, “God” is used to catch a lot of these unknowns. In the Atheist belief system, the edges of science showcase the unknowns. Particularly for our time period, quantum physics. Rewind a hundred years, and it was the atom. Fast-forward another hundred, and we’ll have unknowns about the things we invent to explain quantum physics.

At this point, even if we discover the theory of everything, it operates at such a low level that we cannot predict what is possible and what isn’t. And I don’t think we’ll ever discover a theory of everything!

Pursuit of knowledge and understanding is important… but it is never ending. And I don’t mean “never ending” in the poetic sense… I mean it in the literal sense! Hmmmmmm.

Moving on to my second thought…

2. My biggest complaint about science is how inaccessible it is. If I wanted to contribute, I would have to make a career out of it. Stay in college, study under a professor, learn advanced math, draft articles for peer review, etc. And even then, I could work my whole life, and never discover anything of worth. I feel as though it would take me a decade or two just to get up to speed with what’s currently going on.

I think that’s a shame. I think it’s great that people do do that… because I certainly enjoy hearing what they have to say about things. But I hate that “truth” and “unknown” has been sectioned off from the public, and isolated to a select few nerds, speaking a foreign language.

Why is it that I can’t study reality? Why do I have to hold certain qualifications? It’s both science’s strength and weakness. By rejecting laymen, they can search further and more accurately… but in doing so, distance themselves.

We all live in reality. Not just the scientists.

It doesn’t make sense that I need to be smart to understand reality. I am reality. Here I am. Intelligence is just a particular organization of reality… It doesn’t make sense that reality has to be in a particular organization to understand itself. In fact, it seems as though if we force understanding to exist on an intellectual level, then we are destined to never understand reality completely, because it will always be in organizational form. Never direct knowing.

That is the injustice of science. We are reality… everyone. You can’t monopolize understanding. You can’t deny our existence. You create a world that doesn’t include us, and pull out your devices and instruments that we created, and assert dominion! Back the fuck up, buddy!

I wonder how often it occurs to the scientist that they aren’t solving some math problem with billiard balls bouncing everywhere…

The microscope is pointed in the wrong direction. “Learning is not the path.”

Posted in Belief Systems, Science | 5 Comments »

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.

Posted in Belief Systems, Science | 18 Comments »

April 18th, 2009 by Sean Emergence, pt. 2

What is the concept of “emergence”?

First, we create a system based on simple concepts, and simple rules. For example, suppose we have an image. We initialize the image with a random color at each pixel. Then, we randomly choose a pixel, and copy it’s color to a random neighbor. We repeat this process over and over again.

What emerges from these simple rules? It’s actually pretty cool to watch… the image starts to look life-like. At first it’s just random colors everywhere, but soon little pockets of the same color start to emerge. These blobs start small… but over time, they grow and shrink, and move around. They split in half… some die off completely. If the simulation is left to run long enough, sometimes two dominant colors emerge. They battle each other. One color might shrink down to a small section, only to expand again. Eventually, given enough time, one color will take over the entire image.

Why not take a look? I created a simple game where you can see emergence in action.

So what’s the point?

There are a lot of points. The main point is that it exists. Given just some numbers, and some simple rules, unpredictable properties emerge. It’s not a question of “faith” or “opinion” or anything like that. Emergence exists. It’s mathematically proven.

Big deal, numbers simulate stuff… nothing fantastic. What does it mean?

It actually means quite a lot, but it takes some more before we get to that point. The first step is to recognize its existence, and understand that - given a large enough system with some basic rules - things start to happen. And by things I mean life.

Posted in Philosophy, Science | 5 Comments »

March 10th, 2009 by Sean Emergence

I’ve been on vacation the last two weeks. As is my routine, I like to buy an interesting book to read during the down times. It just so happens I stumbled upon a fantastic book that discusses many of the things I find interesting concerning the philosophy of science:

Reinventing the Sacred, by Stuart A. Kauffman

At first I was skeptical, but the author eventually won me over. Not by using some New Age mumbo-jumbo and dangerous thoughts… but by appealing to logic, reason, mathematics, science, and evidence! Fantastic! (On the down side, some areas become very hard to read because it can almost be too technical, and he is very long-winded.)

His argument is against the modern addiction to “reductionism”, which basically says: whatever object we want to study, we just need to take it apart, and study the parts. Kauffman argues against it by giving example after example of emergent properties of complicated systems. These properties are unpredictable. Not because we aren’t smart enough - Kauffman argues they are inherently unpredictable.

One example to demonstrate this is music. For example, your average song is around three minutes long, which is about three megabytes of information when stored in mp3 format. Therefore, given enough time, we could sit and listen to all three minute songs - simply by enumerating all the computer bits on and off, in all combinations. So, on the surface, it looks like there is a limit to our creativity, and reductionism is the winner.

Kauffman’s response is: it’s impossible to actually do that. The numbers are too large. So the only way to move forward is to creatively make new music, because this “listen to every song” experiment is utterly useless.

However, in creating new music, even more music becomes accessible. So there is actually an ebb and flow to this creativity process. Technically speaking, all songs created will fit in our three megabytes… so it’s not like we’re breaking any rules. But this process of creating is insanely important, because it finds the best and most diverse range of songs, in the most efficient matter.

Now, read that all again, but replace “music” with “protein strands”, or “economy”, or “evolution”, and you get the idea of what Kauffman is talking about. Except he is much more scientific, and actually has the data to back it up.

It’s a very interesting read, and I highly recommend it. I may talk more about it latter, if I can compress his ideas down into readable chunks.

Posted in Books, Science | 7 Comments »

November 11th, 2008 by Sean Uncertainty vs. Determinism

Happy 11-11! And now for something completely different…

If you study philosophy, then you are familiar with the collection of beliefs that fall under the label of “Determinism”. Determinism states that everything in the world is simply cause and effect, and we can predict the future with 100% accuracy if we know the position of every little thing involved. We just have to apply the math, and calculate the result. The ability to “make decisions” is simply an illusion - your decisions aren’t an exercise of free-will, they are just the results of all the different chemicals in your head, and electricity bouncing around.

Determinism is anti-intuitive, because when we make decisions, it feels like we are making a choice. It doesn’t feel like our choice is just a result of the different neurons in our brain, and chemicals pumping through our blood stream. It feels like we are genuinely making a conscious decision - that we have free-will.

The argument of Free-Will vs. Determinism is a popular amoung philosophers. I don’t think I’ll be able to solve the riddle with this post, but I do believe that quantum physics provides us with a framework for making the argument for free-will, based on our scientific understanding of reality.

“God does not play dice with the Universe.” - Albert Einstein, arguing in favor of Determinism.

Einstein, like many scientists at the time, believed that reality was deterministic. He believed that scientists would eventually be able to figure out every math formula for how things work, and given enough knowledge, could calculate the exact future. What instigated Einstein to make such an argument in the first place, was the Copenhager interpretation of quantum physics, and the Uncertainty principle.

Prior to the discovery of quantum physics, it was hard to make the case for free-will. Sir Isaac Newton showed us that objects in reality move according to mathmatical formulas. When you throw a ball in the air, it has a parabolic curve, and we can plot the location of the ball, and predict where it will land. Sure, there are unknown processes in the world that still needed to be discovered, but it was believed that it was just a matter of time before we had a formula for everything.

The Uncertainty principle changed that. It’s discovery told us that we could never reach the holy-land of Determinism. We could never learn all the formulas, and predict the future with 100% accuracy, because reality wouldn’t let us. Uncertainty wasn’t due to our ignorance - it was hard-coded into reality itself.

While scientists try to remain objective, one couldn’t help but see the philisophical implications. If Uncertainty is true, then reality isn’t deterministic, and there just might be room for free-will in the laboratory. If free-will does exist, then it is exercised inside the realm of quantum physics. And if we have free-will, then consciousness must operate on a quantum level.

Posted in Philosophy, Science | 6 Comments »

- You are currently browsing the archives for the Science category.

- ## 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).