October 7, did I miss it?

I hope that wasn't directed at me! :O If so I think you are entirely off the mark as my conclusions about the saturation of society through garish media images etc is without doubt rational! I only have to look at my nephew, catatonic when placed in front of Cartoon Network...it takes him hours to 'come round' to his ols self again. If it was up to me he wouldn't watch a fraction as much of the stuff he does.

My interpretation of prophecy is much less rigid, although I can appreciate the want/need to validate a quantifiable prediction.

I see it something more akin to the ability to view the unfolding probabilities of reality without causing a quantum collapse (Heisenberg Uncertainty).

The problem with this method is not having your ego (interpretation) of the unfolding choices direct your probabilistic wave.

And its a big problem and I don't think Cliff fully realizes the quantum implications of this situation. Its like "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it really fall", the ego is inevitable (as humble seeming and balanced as Cliff sounds) and with the ego comes the impossibility of hearing the tree fall without being there.

Thats where the murkiness comes in, to focus in on quantifiable dates/locations/people etc... it becomes more difficult as its almost inversely proportional to the clarity you will recieve with your increased sensitivity.

Its like staring at the sun for 30 seconds then looking away, everything you focus on will have a black circle, yet your peripheral vision will be unaffected. Yet if you see something in your peripheral and go to focus at it, it will be blocked by the black circle.

I propose that psychedelic entheogens can defeat the quantum conundrum of collapsing waves. Allowing the user to experience ego death, which is in essence the removal of the observer in a quantum scenario. This enables the user to view the unfolding realities without causing a collapse. If one believes in a cyclical pattern of moving matter in the universe, then a user and believer would be able to follow realities ripples and predict the future.

Peace

Einstein : "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Originally posted by Mean Red Spider
The Web Bot Project said that something would begin on the 7th and continue through the spring. Did I miss it?

The economy is no worse than yesterday.

The debate was a waste of my time.

Perhaps it was something subtle, something that needs time to become obvious. Russia bailing out Iceland could be the tip of a sinister iceberg. But that's all I got.

I was praying for an anti-climatic day. Perhaps my prayer was answered. I hope so. If not, feel free to shout.

ROFLMAO!!

No you didnt miss a thing..all these gloom and doom types that have been clogging the forums with the sky is gonna fall on Oct 7th junk has more than likely typed in to their little web bot thingy and come up with some other date to spout about.

Its more of a "panic manic attack" than anything else.

Enjoy Oct 8th....just another normal day like Oct 7th.


Cheers!!!!

First, WebBot identified Oct. 7th (specifically 7:10UTC) as the centroid of the model space related to a major, cataclysmic emotional heightening --- likely triggered by some historic-level event; the effects of which are expected to last until early Spring.

Second, WebBot is based upon human precognition. A phenomenon that has been demonstrated in a large number of scientific studies. Like our fellow animals, we have a 'sixth sense'. WebBot attempts to tap into this phenomenon.

Finally, measuring this precognitively driven 'heightened state' on a large (in WebBot's case, global) scale is difficult. Certainly, there's no practical way to measure skin conductivity changes, for example, on a significant sample of the world's population 24/7. Instead, WebBot uses shifts in linguistics as sampled from the internet to detect the subconscious manifestations of this 'heightened state'. Pattern recognition modeling against this proxy (linguistic shifts) would identify these precognitions.

There is a human component to all of this. As robust as pattern recognition modeling may be it still requires human interpretation. The model will identify what is important and what is not (statistically) but a human needs to determine what the pattern shifts mean. Linguistic modeling is a new frontier in data analytics and far more complex than traditional numerical modeling.

Is the October 7th prediction a bust? Not yet. People have run amock with the prediction insisting that it was going to happen on the 7th at 07:10UTC. That's not true. It was never presented that way. Oct. 7th is the center of a narrow window ('the center of the scatterplot' as the WebBot creators have said) so we're still, for the time being, under the gun. As we move away from Oct. 7th the probability that something is going to happen drops off quickly.

Look back at the 'Dot Com Crash'. Inarguably a major event with long-range repercussions. Hell, it has its own name. But no one living through it at the time woke-up one day and said, "Wow. That was the Dot-Com-Crash". It was only in hindsight that it's significance became apparent

We'll see if anything comes of this. I, for one, hope they're wrong. But as someone who has made his living for over two decades doing population pattern recognition modeling, I know it's way too early to be popping the champagne corks. Unless, of course, you work in senior management at AIG.

According to Cliff, he taps into the latent psychic ability in all of us that manifests itself through our mundane online rambling via our subconscious.

So in essence its Spiritual Divination using a larger and more integrated dataset (web/hivemind/global subconscious).

It still doesn't address the problem with data interpretation (ego). Yet the sheer size and amount of overlapping data must increase the granularity regardless of the interpretation.

The question is "Does the increased granularity(focus) really give more precise results, or does it just increase the resolution of an already murky image"???

Peace

Larger data sets do not necessarily translate to greater granularity. As a point of fact, the opposite is usually true. What I understand of their methodology and adding my own expertise in modeling methodologies, they are looking for statistically significant shifts in language around a finite sub-set of terms/phrases. They then interpret the meaning of these shifts (their relative signficances have already been determined by the model). Because of the necessarily subjective nature of the 'seed terms', granularity isn't really possible.

Thanks for re-iterating - "Does the increased granularity(focus) really give more precise results, or does it just increase the resolution of an already murky image"???

Peace

As the saying goes...garbage in...garbage out.

Peace.

Cheers!!!!

Heres an example of a larger dataset increasing granularity..

A radio show is having a contest where you have to guess the song based on the first few initial notes (song = wave, note = particle).

Now will you have a easier time figuring out the song (wave,future) with 1 note, 2 notes, 3 notes..??

Peace

Again, there is no 'increased granularity' in the data. You have a subset of terms from the linguistic universe that you analyze. Of those terms, some show varying increases/decreases in (lets call it) resonance. By analyzing the relative resonances of the terms you come up with a predictive set of scenarios (through human interpretation). Their 'term-set' and the manner in which it is built is proprietary so we can't speculate on that. But the modeling is more-or-less straightforward (albeit complex and sophisticated --- no Excel-based linear regression here).

A song is composed of many looping bars (There is exceptions, yet most people would refer to them as ambient (free flowing)). If you increase your data set (1 note vs 2 notes and so on) you will also be increasing your granularity by further dividing the bar into its smaller components.

The system can always be cut and cut and cut (mandelbrot). Which is why in the case of the webbot (and all prophecy) more data doesnt necesarilly mean more granularity.

The problem with my song example is that predicting a song you already have in your conscious (have heard it before) is different than predicting a song you would have in your subconsious (future).

Thats when you get back into the problem of the observer (ego/interpretation) collapsing the waves.

Peace..

Originally posted by TheRealDonPedros
Heres an example of a larger dataset increasing granularity..

A radio show is having a contest where you have to guess the song based on the first few initial notes (song = wave, note = particle).

Now will you have a easier time figuring out the song (wave,future) with 1 note, 2 notes, 3 notes..??

That's not increased granularity. In data modeling that would correlate to a larger training/input sample. Larger granularity would relate to the answer --- how specific it could be made. In your example, the taxonomy of granularity might run: music genre => artist => album/CD => song title

In your example, if the notes were played on the piano it would be more difficult than if the notes were sampled directly from the recording (becasue of all the production clues/musical timbre surrounding the notes).

Here's an alternative example: you are shown an evolving image on your computer and need to identify what it is (it's an apple). As more pixles are turned on you'll identify shape, texture, color, etc. At some point you'll say fruit, then apple, then McIntosh. That's increasing granularity.

To a greater or lesser extent it will usually relate to the breadth of the input dataset (number of descriptors/dimensions [in our example, colour, shading (shows texture), etc.]) but not necessarily the size of the dataset. Keeping in mind that in the case of WebBot the vast majority of the input data is unimportant and superfluous.

The key is the number of items on the 'terms list' which would help define interrelations. The problem is that the model will become geometrically larger as the dimensions increase and require unobtainable amounts of computing power. So, we try and pick the smallest practical set of dimensions/data elements with which to identify our patterns. The challenge for the WebBot is that the universe of those potential elements is huge and a constantly moving target.

"Here's an alternative example: you are shown an evolving image on your computer and need to identify what it is (it's an apple). As more pixles are turned on you'll identify shape, texture, color, etc. At some point you'll say fruit, then apple, then McIntosh. That's increasing granularity."

Exactly... You are shown an evolving song (radio show contest) the first note (pixel) could describe millions of songs, as more notes (pixels) are turned on you seperate it from the other songs that contain those notes (or ratios) until you have increased your granularity to seperate that song from the millions of songs that start with that same ratio (shape) .

All songs start with one note just as all images start with 1 pixel.

True. But also keep in mind that a 'note' has several dimensions to it. The presence or absence of those dimensions will have a much larger impact on predicting the song than the number of notes. A note includes: frequency, attack, amplitude, length, decay, timbre (related to the instrument(s) playing it)... I posit that if the 'notes' used to identify the song were simply 'tones' (frequency with all other qualities set to the same values) it would take far more notes to be able to identify the song than if the notes contained these additional dimensions.

True, but all those same aspects can be applied to your pixel and image analogy.

I try not to look at music, paintings, Starling flight pattern (tons of those birds in my Niagara area) separately. Everything can be viewed under the wave/particle duality, and through that duality an anology can be made to link everything to everything else.

Peace.

PS.. You're a smart cookie, having fun talking with you...

I posted this thread in the hopes of learning something new. Basically, to let both believers and skeptics argue it out, on a day when the truth would have nowhere to hide.

So a special thanks to **RFBurns**, **TheRealDonPedros ** and **jtma508** for teaching me the most. Great discussion guys!!!

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
reply to post by GetOutOfMyRabbitHole

 

That animal in your avatar looks like Yoda. Is that a real animal?

Its called a Cuscus.

And my take on the 7th? Fire webbot and hire me.
We knew YEARS ago the markets were going to do this.
Hell I knew when shrub was elected a second term the markets would crash.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by Memysabu]

I wonder if Bush isn't disappointed that the world didn't blow up. It's not from a lack of trying.

On October 7th, LIBOR jumped by a large factor. Over the next six months, any mortgage tied to LIBOR will increase dramatically and millions of Americans will be put on the streets as they default and are evicted.

LIBOR was the October 7th event.

reply to post by Evasius


I read on this website that around Mid October a "military" event would cause a sudden change in emotions, what if that turned out to be martial law being declared for our own "safety". That would certainly cause a huge drop in emotions...

Then, on about October 15th, we get some other kind of 'military' aspect to the events about to unfold, and if I recall right, another such thing around October 25-27 - someplace in there.

Have a look for yourself:


Link