It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Language. Subliminal Influence. Caution: This may alter the way you think.

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by a1ex
I tried your signature example my signature
is my first name with scribles on top of it....

well the names mostly stays above the imaginary line
but what got me to wonder was that the scribles..they
go from left ot right then up then down...

left to right
up then down
left to right
up then down

I am of the personality type that thinks of all possible scenarios
before making a decision....
left right up and down before making a decision?

Coincidence?


I would have to see it to fully understand, or more to the point make any kind of evaluation of it.

I have heard from 2 different people who like to analyze handwriting and signatures that when a person takes the last digit of their last name and has it cross over to the beginning of their surname (family name) that it is a sign that they have unresolved issues with their father.

Some people earnestly believe that the first digit of their last name will/does resemble what they think of thier father, while the last digit represents their mother.

When i analyze peoples' handwriting and their signatures this day, i'd say i am around 85 to 90 percent right on my interpretation of them, from only having seen their signature.

i can usually tell if one has siblings.

i can usually tell if a guy has a sister or sisters.

i can usually tell if a female or male has homosexual tendencies.

i can usually tell if they have suffered a great loss in their life.

i can usually tell numerous character traits, and personality traits.

i can usually tell if they have come from a broken home.

i can usually give a ball-park estimate of their I.Q.

i'm not always right, but i am most of the time. I've analyzed thousands of signatures and handwriting types over the years, and have been taught some skills from people i highly respect.

I've read 4 books on the subject, which makes me no expert, but i have practiced and learned through experience.

I forget the name of the book, and i know it went out of print in the late 60's, but it used Abraham Lincoln as an example.

The author(s) looked at about 25 signatures belonging to Abraham Lincoln from his early years, to his time as a lawyer in Illinois, to when his son died, to when his wife was thought to be a traitor, to the time of the Civil War.

It was absolutley amazing how what was transpiring in his life was also decernable in his own signatures.

That case study is probably what turned me on to handwriting/signature analysis big time. But i have not seen the book, nor it's title since probably the late 80s i think. I'm sure i was either a junior or senior in high school at the time.




posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
I'm sorry, but I'm not very impressed.


no need to be sorry on your part at all.

I am sorry you are not very impressed.

The whole premise behind looking into what mankind creates is that mankind creates everything with a mind that does not function as a single unit.

We have minds that are broken, segmented, fractionalized.

And it is my hypothesis or theory that since we are not consciously aware of our own minds thoughts, that perhaps the overwhelming majority of thoughts we have, of which we are not consciously aware of, do in fact influence everything we create, everything we make, to include language.

Now, if we are not aware of over 99% of our own brain functions, does that 99+% affect how we form our languages, and also influence the words we collectively accept?

The point behind these "contrived associations" is that we may be inadvertantly, or more to the point, unknowingly implanting subliminal reasoning to our own language.

whether you are impressed or not is irrelevant.

Do you understand the precept behind the logic?

I don't really know how else to explain it in different terms, but i am sure i can if need be.

You don't have to agree with it, it is merely a theory. an experiment with thought.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
I'm sorry, but I'm not very impressed.

Could you kindly explain again the point of these contrived associations?


loam,

Honestly friend, if this makes little or no sense to you, then perhaps it is best that you just disregard it.

it isn't that important right now anyways.

Sorry for having wasted a bit of your time, but i do sincerely thank you for the contribution.

Thanks,
john



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Do you understand the precept behind the logic?


I do. However, I think a linguist would disagree with your theory operating as a consistent principle in the evolution of language.

(Incidentally, allow me to apologize for appearing so rude. That was not my intention. I re-read my post and realized my brevity could indeed be interpreted that way. I truly was seeking clarification of your concept.
)



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Sorry for having wasted a bit of your time, but i do sincerely thank you for the contribution.


Nonsense. I appeared rude and contributed nothing. Again, I apologize.

Thank you for the clarification... though, I still believe the associations painfully contrived.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Do you understand the precept behind the logic?


I do. However, I think a linguist would disagree with your theory operating as a consistent principle in the evolution of language.


And, i concede the linguist may indeed be correct in making such a statement.

I find it difficult once in awhile to see a consistant pattern myself.

You bring an extremely valid point to the discussion.

Why would the encoding be inconsistant?

I think it is because it depends upon the observer who first wrote the word.

I think the encoding is dependant upon the mood, the conscious mood, of the one who first thought of the word.

Intentionality may superseed some aspects of language.

Sometimes the world seems so big, and we seem so small.

Yet, we are.

and as observers, as watchers, as people who do judge our reality .. . . .

i think we are our co-writers of our shared reality.

your voice is no more insignificant, nor more grand than mine.

and your pointing out the inconsistancy in decoding is a valid one.

It takes a certain amount of empathy to contemplate with any amount of certainty how a mind may have been functioning at the birth of a new word, be it an intangible concept, or a touchable thing.


(Incidentally, allow me to apologize for appearing so rude. That was not my intention. I re-read my post and realized my brevity could indeed be interpreted that way. I truly was seeking clarification of your concept.
)


You were not rude.

It is i who have invoked your defensive mechanism.

This is not "light reading" to say the least.

It is i who am wrong for having provoked fear in your mind, not yours.

I did not think for a second you were rude. Just confused at the prospect of a new concept.

Let's be honest with eachother, i fear the unknown, i fear change from time to time.

We are both the same in these personality traits, as are most people.

It is totally natural, and your response was not interpretted as rude by me, nor should anyone else judge you as such.

You thoughts about the evolution of linguistics, and the variables being copnsistant is a valid one.

I get my process of looking into the words from a book that has been the best seller for thousands of years.

i look to the bible for guidance, and understanding, as well as all other sources i am exposed to.

i know the way my brain is wired is different than everyone elses mind.

however, common ground exists.

our brains function the same way, for the most part, through attaching new ideas and new information to the ideas and information that already exists and is stored in my mind.

But, our experiences are not always identical, however the symbolism and metephoric coincidences may be interpretted similarly within our subconscious minds.

We all learn through the process of association, or we could not go from what we know to what we do not know.

We all started this journey under very similar circumstances.

our fist learned truths attached to truths we already had, born into original sin, our first truth was that we are (down to the cellular level) "Self before i serve", aka: "Self Pre-servation"

And from this we can only attach certain knowledge.

Everything new is either good or bad, or aspects of both. But our first response to anything totally new and totally unknown to us is... . . .

Self preservation dictates we see first how a new thing could harm us, then we see how it may be used to benifit us and those we love.

discovering fire had a lot in common with discovering rocket science, or brain surgery.

we measure and integrate immediate threats first, sometimes not consciously, then we look for the pros, and how it will, or can benifit us personally, or the ones we love and hold reverence for.

Your initial response was not rude, by any means.

It was natural. And, having reacted the same way numerous times in my past to new and foreign ideas to me, how could i say your were rude, and not be a hipocrit myself?

I'm just as guilty for the same thing you did, and i have enough un-edited posts available here on ATS to back up my claim.

I'm no better than you, and have reacted the same way, without even knowing it sometimes myself.

No harm, no foul.

Back to the bible for guidance thought. . . . .

"mind of a child"

spell it the way it sounds, like you would have before you were told to "ignore" the silent e's at the end of the words. Spell it out with the simplist aspects of your mind, phonetically, the way it sounds to you. This is usually where is start.

thanks again,
john.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I'm sorry, but this stuff is all nonsense.

This reminds me of when everybody was trying to prove Tupac was still alive by taking numbers of when he died and added them together to predict when he would "return".

By using the same methods, you can get a phrase from anything.

jew g nal? Jews, God's nail?

How the hell did you get that?

Here is one for you to ponder:

U R KRAZY



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by wiergraf

U R KRAZY


Wise are crew

Thanks for the compliment.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Nice little complimation. However, from what I understand a thought isn't just a spark of electricity, it's something in our 'conscious mind', that we know.

Take that in for a sec. Just because we only think 0.000001% of our brain, dosn't mean the rest is in subliminal thoughts making our decisions. It could be like a word processor with automatic spell check, our brains are typing it with our conscious mind and the subconscious mind, this case the processor in the computer is performing the spell check as well as running everything.

Understand?



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I'm sorry but this is nonsence. You are simply takign words and phrases, flipping some letters upsidedown, reversing bits of others and turning other bits into phonetic representations of a word. You then take whatever meaning you want out of them.

There is absolutely no theory here, its just clever(ish) wordplay.

Show me this 'working' in other languages. And please explain how this 'working' is anything other than you drawing your own conclusions from reagranging a word in an arbitory manner?

I am impressed that you have done so much work with this, but i fail to see anything other than a little word play that could undoubtedly be intrepreted in any number of ways. You go from vaguely interesting example to thourighly ridiculous stretches of the imagination...



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vector J
I'm sorry but this is nonsence. You are simply takign words and phrases, flipping some letters upsidedown, reversing bits of others and turning other bits into phonetic representations of a word. You then take whatever meaning you want out of them.

There is absolutely no theory here, its just clever(ish) wordplay.

Show me this 'working' in other languages. And please explain how this 'working' is anything other than you drawing your own conclusions from reagranging a word in an arbitory manner?

I am impressed that you have done so much work with this, but i fail to see anything other than a little word play that could undoubtedly be intrepreted in any number of ways. You go from vaguely interesting example to thourighly ridiculous stretches of the imagination...

My words too!

Sorry for this "one line" post...



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
It is i who am wrong for having provoked fear in your mind, not yours.

I did not think for a second you were rude. Just confused at the prospect of a new concept.

Let's be honest with eachother, i fear the unknown, i fear change from time to time.

We are both the same in these personality traits, as are most people.




OK, now you have completely lost me.

Have a nice day.


*loam runs in complete terror from this thread....(



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
It could be like a word processor with automatic spell check, our brains are typing it with our conscious mind and the subconscious mind, this case the processor in the computer is performing the spell check as well as running everything.

Understand?


I do understand, but the "automatic spell check" is a learned behavior, a learned behavior created from the minds of humanity, minds that are not completely conscious of their own thought processes.

When something becomes "automatic", like a reflex, we are not in the "driver's seat" per say, something else within us takes command of our bodily functions during a reflex.

And, no, not all bodily communication (communications between cells) is atributed to electrical impulses.

Emotions are different, they are usually the result of "neuro-peptides", which are microscopic strands of protiens that are created by the "hypothalmus".

The "hypothalmus" is a gland located about 2 to 3 inches into the back center of our skulls.

The hypothalmus is probably the most advanced Pharmacy we have at our disposal.

Emotions such as fear, love, anxiety, rage, anger, hate, happyness, etc, are all the result of these small protiens, aka neuropeptides, which are released into the bloodstream by the hypothalmus.

Now, each of our cells have numerous "receptors", usually 10s of thousands which are all over the external wall of our cells.

Incidently, these same receptors on our cells is how drug addicts become addicted, they are addicted at the cellular level, heroin is an excellent example of this.

But what do these "neuropeptides" actually do?

In some cases they actually change the cellular DNA.

Important part:

So if a person is in the habit of feeling the emotions that symbolize victimization, then our cells may actually become addicted to the chemical protiens produced by the hypothalmus.

The receptors on the cells pick up more than just the chemical protiens, this is also how they recieve their nutrition, their food, and also how they get rid of their wastes.

But, over the course of weeks, months, and years, if we bombard our cellular senses with more of one emotion, such as those representative of feelings of victimization, what happens is the cells become numb to it, but also since the neuropeptides change dna composition, when that cell creates a sister cell or daughter cell through mitosis, the next cell will have more receptors dedicated to recieving the neuropeptides it has recieved more of, and less receptors for actually taking in the nutrition to sustain it.

How do you define ADDICTION?

My definition of addiction is simple: Something you cannot stop.

Think of blood cells that average a 30 day lifespan, on average.

Say the cell has 8 receptors dedicated towards recieving nutrition, and 2 dedicated towards recieving chemical protiens created by the hypothalmus.

Over the course of 30 years, we look at the same persons cells and we may find that the cellular evolution over generations has now created cells that have 4 receptors dedicated to recieving it's own food, and 6 receptors dedicated towards recieving the body's own created drugs.


What happens to skin cells as a person ages?

Why does peoples skin get more brittle, and wrinkled as they get older?

The skin cells are not longer capable of recing the protien "elastin" which is a protien they need to have in order to remain vital.

A person's diet really has little effect if the cells are no longer capable of recieving the food they need, because over the course of 40, 50, or 60 years they have cells that have far more receptors dedicated to recieving the chemicals they have become genetically addicted to, than they do receptors that are capable of recieving the food they need.

If the cells were not conditioned to change the amount of receptors to take in the drugs that make them feel good, or feel bad, we would live far longer, and be closer to immortality.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Guys, i concede that multiple meanings can be pulled out of words and phrases, but i do not think my "theory" nor methods are entirely "arbitrary".

A persons conscious state of mind, and the emotions that rule over their current state of mind will be consistant with what they find.

If they are currently operating with a negative attitute, negativity is all they will observe.

If they are currently operating with a positive attitude, positivity is all they will observe.

If they are merely observing their shared reality, they will simply observe.

It is dependant upon the mood of the observer. Although all variables may not be known, a pattern does form in numerous cases.

As for the "show me this in other languages", find me 1 language that is totally untainted, and totally un-influenced by other languages.

Find me 1 language that has nothing in common with other languages.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Our subconscious mind can recognize patterns we consciously can not, or more to the point, usually do not.

Source/Link:
www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk...



Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Or rather...

According to a researcher (sic) at Cambridge University, it doesn't matter in what order the letters in a word are, the only important thing is that the first and last letter be at the right place. The rest can be a total mess and you can still read it without problem. This is because the human mind does not read every letter by itself but the word as a whole.



Again, guys. The patterns are not always the same patterns, but whether consistant or not, our minds do not "abitrarily" recognize patterns.

The intentionality in the above example supplied by a Cambridge University study is an excellent example.

The words are not always spelled right, but the intended meaning is retrievable regardless.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

As for the "show me this in other languages", find me 1 language that is totally untainted, and totally un-influenced by other languages.

Find me 1 language that has nothing in common with other languages.


Uh, you do realise that according to what you say there, this shouldn;t be possible in english? Or are you saying that because languages influence each other of course its possible?

I'm sorry but i'm finding it hard to find what point you are making by saying that?


You are ofcourse quite right that if your in a good frame of mind you'll find something good, and if bad then bad. This is because you are looking for patterns and are most likely to find a pattern that is in tune with your current mind set. What you don;t seem to realise is that you aren;t 'finding' anything, your just drawing conclusions from something that doesn;t offer you any.

Although this is a bad comparison, this reminds me of the whole 'backwards speech' thing. The idea that your unconcious mind betrays its thoughts as backwards langue when you speak forward, and that when what is spoken is reversed you can hear 'true intentions'. You are doing the same but with words, not speech. Your reversing words or parts of words, having flipped letters upside down to fit in with what you are trying to find.

You are looking for patterns where there are none. If this 'worked' for every written language, then maybe you'd be onto something. But as it stands right now you are 'finding' patterns in this process (which certainly seems arbitry, as there is no structure process to decoding words and phrases), simply because you desire to find them, not because they are neccesarily there...



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Perhaps adopting the "It's all Greek to me" angle of looking at it, you could at least acknowledge the possibility of it, because if you cannot acknowledge the possibility of it, it is not possible.

In mythology in ancient times the God of Wars was called Mars whose symbol was the Ram and to this day the Ram is still the symbol in astronomy for the planet Mars.

Some examples may be a stretch for some to see, but since people are not consciously aware of the entirety of the processes that are occuring inside their own mind, can they really say it is absolutley false?

Their judgment and objectivity are subject to what they have available at the conscious level of the mind, which is not processing, nor even listening to the other 99.9999997% of their own mind.

Ever opinion formed, every judgement passed within your mind is you comparing new information to what you already have decided or accepted as truthful and fact. All new information is automatically subject to being held up for comparison, and what you are comparing the new information to is what you already know is true.

And those truths started with something.


Speaking of greek, Mars is the Roman name for a greek god, which they adopted from greek culture. His name was Ares. Can you find a relationship between the word Ares and Wars and Ram? Or how about Ares, embolo, and polemo?

Or let's take your logic further.

Mars is the latin term for their god of war.

Bellum is the latin word for war.

Aries is the latin word for ram.

any relation there?

This is just bad logic and stretches of the imagination.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
People of nobility were said to be descendants of God(s), but to invoke the name of God was too be able to invoke God, which was the justification for the response to Moses's question when he asked "Who is sending me to pharoh?", the response was merely "i am".


You need to study up on your biblical history and hebrew. The reason he said "I am", is the ancient hebrew word for "I am" is "YHWH", which is also a translation of "Jehovah" or "God".

This is why in John chapter 8, when Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am" was sacreliege to the crowd listening, and they immediately called for his death. Jesus was claiming to be Jehovah, the god of Abraham and of the Old Testament.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   


the idea that your unconcious mind betrays its thoughts as backwards langue when you speak forward, and that when what is spoken is reversed you can hear 'true intentions'


I believe the eye (retina, iris) not sure which one view objects upside down and the brain flips it right side up. So why would it be such a stretch to have the brain do somthing similar with language?



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion

But here's my example of a subliminal message.

Those who use subliminal messages enjoy stew and cheese dip.

dip reversed is pid

Stew pid
also pronounces
Stupid


Athenion,

Nice tag to my thread.

Actually friend, all i was trying to prove to you is that if you judge information as not pertinant to your intentions that there is an internal mechanism that Puts information deep into your mind for storage.

There is a mechanism that puts information in deep into your mind, if your choose not to pay attention to it.

There is a mechanism within your own mind that puts information deep into your mind.

the 3 key words in the above sentence would be puts, information, and deep

But, you are not paying attention to the information, so we can take that word out.

which leaves us with what you did with the information:

Puts, and deep

Phoenetically, like a child would spell it:

Puts dep

reverse each sylllable:

stup ped

stupped

STUPID

Thanks for coming into one of my threads with an OPEN MIND



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join