So I have a theory about mathematical talent or any other talent. I say that in humans there is a neural mechanism behind generating proofs, but rather than generating a sequence of steps, brain generate a higher level sequence of goals subconsciously. The steps in between these higher level goals require conscious logical reductions, but the goals themselves are just practically magic coming from subconscious. People with talent for a particular field is better at the higher level goals and that is not something they can ever learn from books, its just something they are born with. For example, Einstein out of no where assumed that mass curve space time and spent 10 years proving it, he had a feeling for what is possible and what is not. There were tons of smart people, but no one had a higher level intuition like that. Similarly, Mathematics Olympiad questions can only be solved by people who get these higher level goals by magic. The in between steps are just logical reductions. What do you think from your experience?

People that become good mathematicians or anything else have a magical feeling about what works and what doesn't. So they don't get stucked in tying out all unnecessary combinations. When they have figured out the higher level goals, they fill the gaps by logical reductions. But its all in the neural network, just not all in consciousness.

Are there reports of NDEs where the experiencer saw their own funeral?

So University of Virginia is looking for American cases and not global cases like Ian Stevenson did was a mistake in my opinion. It might seem that reincarnation in eastern cultures has to do with their belief in reincarnation. But that is not an excuse to not study them. Also the right way to investigate reincarnation is not by assuming it is true, but by assuming it is false, and trying to find the simplest explanation. It is only when you fail to find it, you can truly be taken seriously. You can write a good case report while collaborating with someone famous like Sir Roger Penrose, and Skeptics about your finding of a case in these countries.

American Reincarnation is too vague few statements. Other parts where Stevenson was investigating like Burma had children telling where their previous personality was buried. These are the rich cases that must be studied. But there are problems if you found a simple explanation and published it, it might damage the country's cultural believes, they might find it offensive.

The point is, reincarnation doesn't have to be true to be interesting. Finding an explanation is a challenge to even the skeptical mind because how such an ellaborate phenomenon happen is worthy of studying even from a skeptical view point.

We will never prove paranormal cases by trying to prove they are real, but by doing thorough investigation to prove they are not, and we somehow fail.

so I am talking about this:

Alt key always pressed, even with keyboard unplugged. : r/techsupport

try using POWERTOYS-->KEYBOAD MANAGER

disable Right and Left ALT. Then map a unused key to ALT

As I am unable to have a proper bowel movement, I am wishing for something I never wished!!!

"I wish to shit a load of shit"

and I made a proverb "As happy as a constipated man who had diarrhea"

Hi I became interested in Jazz music after watching a British Show called Beiderbecke Trilogy, while following James Bolam. It has this intro "Singin' the Blues" very beautiful. Looks like British people in the 70s 80s were really in to it. Also another show called "secret life of machines" has the "Russians are coming" by Val Benett based on "Take 5" really wonderful music. :). Recommend me others like that to listen :)

Here is a funny question. Imagine if god is real, and he gives you two options.
A) You will be ever so happy for eternity as long as you wish provided that you worship him and admire his creation.

B) You could seize to exist because you find it unbearable that universe was created by god.

Which one would you chose?

A man plays a melody he made himself to his friend after he disappeared and reappeared with it after a week. The friend says.. "Ah the tune from the Sesames Street!"

I think that education under capitalism is a nightmare as much as business under socialism.

Most people are businessmen, so most of the hate is towards socialist policies that hinder freedom to do what most people are good at: having their own business. (Also people hate large corporations but that is difficult to fight against if these large corporations make life better for everyone: Google, Microsoft has made life better).

In a capitalist society education is a nightmare. Only few people are scholars so this doesn't get same attention.

In socialist countries, there are hard exams people have to pass to prove they are smart and competent enough to do what they say they want to do. Because professors get paid by government, and because professors don't care about money, they care about their reputation in global intellectual circles, there is no pressure to get as much students as possible in to their courses so exams are not made easier for people to pass, but made as difficult as possible so they don't waste resources teaching people who can't continue from bachelors to PHD.

In fact academia is the only place where socialism beat the capitalism. East Germany made better scientists than West Germany.

In capitalist society education is just another business. Enroll as many as possible, give loans, etc. Everyone feel good, but in the end lot of people who are not employable for their degree.

This is what has caused the NEET crisis in the capitalist counties.

Suppose you are many decades old. Have you found a tree still standing that you used to know well when you were a child? Or in case of an elderly person, a tree that you used to know in your youth?

What significance did this tree have in your life?

Hi I tried to do something like how they do in econometrics where they fit a economic model to data where they take raw data, X,Y,Z etc then they set up the Kalman Filter to automatically determine the cyclic and trend components through multivariable regression models. I think you know what I mean. So, I made all the matrices manually, and I think it didn't converge. What I did is something like this actually:

X_t = regression model of (cyclic and trend components of (X_t-1,Y_t-1,Z_t-1),)

Y_t = regression model of (cyclic and trend components of (X_t-1,Y_t-1,Z_t-1),)

Z_t = regression model of (cyclic and trend components of (X_t-1,Y_t-1,Z_t-1),)

Of course I had to manually enter all the matrices to make the damn thing work.

But because I didn't really have a economic model, but just assumed relationships, it didn't converge. I think my model was too complicated.

Anyways, what are some rules of thumbs to make sure I have convergence (like limiting dependence to one trend component for each variable so the model when running don't get confused)?

Is there an easy way to do a Kalman Filter model than to manually set up matrices? Any software?

Finally is it worth it? Does it capture significant details than the HP filter and other easier methods ?

[Education] So, Suppose I got

X_t = A X_{t-1} + dW(t)

where DW(t) is some noise.

What if I did the following?

I solve for A by minimizing error , and obtain dW'(t) = X_t -A X_{t-1} , then I find that dW' is not gaussian like, probably heavy tailed, but pretty much independent.

Then I make a very large number of bootstrapped samples out of dW' , and solve for A as a distribution.

I appear to have bypassed needing lot of theory and have obtained a distribution for A.

What is it that I must worry about? What is the potential problem with this method?

I think it is a much more intuitive and reasonable result than doing it in the theoretical way using equations.

But then why is it not used as the best method?

[Education] So, Suppose I got

X_t = A X_{t-1} + dW(t)

where DW(t) is some noise.

What if I did the following?

I solve for A by minimizing error , and obtain dW'(t) = X_t -A X_{t-1} , then I find that dW' is not gaussian like, probably heavy tailed, but pretty much independent.

Then I make a very large number of bootstrapped samples out of dW' , and solve for A as a distribution.

I appear to have bypassed needing lot of theory and have obtained a distribution for A.

What is it that I must worry about? What is the potential problem with this method?

I think it is a much more intuitive and reasonable result than doing it in the theoretical way using equations.

But then why is it not used as the best method?

Hi I tried to do something like how they do in econometrics where they fit a economic model to data where they take raw data, X,Y,Z etc then they set up the Kalman Filter to automatically determine the cyclic and trend components through multivariable regression models. I think you know what I mean. So, I made all the matrices manually, and I think it didn't converge. What I did is something like this actually:

X_t = regression model of (cyclic and trend components of (X_t-1,Y_t-1,Z_t-1),)

Y_t = regression model of (cyclic and trend components of (X_t-1,Y_t-1,Z_t-1),)

Z_t = regression model of (cyclic and trend components of (X_t-1,Y_t-1,Z_t-1),)

Of course I had to manually enter all the matrices to make the damn thing work.

But because I didn't really have a economic model, but just assumed relationships, it didn't converge. I think my model was too complicated.

Anyways, what are some rules of thumbs to make sure I have convergence (like limiting dependence to one trend component for each variable so the model when running don't get confused)?

Is there an easy way to do a Kalman Filter model than to manually set up matrices? Any software?

Finally is it worth it? Does it capture significant details than the HP filter and other easier methods ?

[D] Hi I tried to do something like how they do in econometrics where they fit a economic model to data where they take raw data, X,Y,Z etc then they set up the Kalman Filter to automatically determine the cyclic and trend components through multivariable regression models. I think you know what I mean. So, I made all the matrices manually, and I think it didn't converge. What I did is something like this actually:

X_t = regression model of (cyclic and trend components of (X_t-1,Y_t-1,Z_t-1),)

Y_t = regression model of (cyclic and trend components of (X_t-1,Y_t-1,Z_t-1),)

Z_t = regression model of (cyclic and trend components of (X_t-1,Y_t-1,Z_t-1),)

Of course I had to manually enter all the matrices to make the damn thing work.

But because I didn't really have a economic model, but just assumed relationships, it didn't converge. I think my model was too complicated.

Anyways, what are some rules of thumbs to make sure I have convergence (like limiting dependence to one trend component for each variable so the model when running don't get confused)?

Is there an easy way to do a Kalman Filter model than to manually set up matrices? Any software?

Finally is it worth it? Does it capture significant details than the HP filter and other easier methods ?

b

Is there a way to defeat Schizophrenia through meditation? Can one train mind to fight against it?

PSI encyclopedia, and Ian Stevenson, etc, have documented really strange phenomenon. Yet, mainstream scientists don't go to investigate them. It might be because there are so many things to do, and investigating everything might not be economical, also many scientists are careful about their reputation (Pauli's wife hid his friendship with Jung to protect his scientific reputation LOL). Most scientists are busy.

But there are award winning scientists like Roger Penrose who have time to do some investigations. I don't see the point why someone like Roger Penrose doesn't just take a shot at these extraordinary phenomenon. If he wants to study consciousness, he should study it in its extreme form. There is nothing to lose.

If someone like that does an investigation then if he finds it was a load of crap, then there is some reference. Someone firmly believing these things happened didn't happen don't prove anything.

Also saying that these phenomenon are "non western" is also not true, Greeks and Romans believed them because probably some Geek and Roman children talked about past lives, like Turks, and Lebanese still do, (Pythagoras did but I don't believe they were genuine) and they were studying NDEs, because Plato described it perfectly.

Lets say, you are a materialist, and you don't believe that something like reincarnation or possession or ghosts spirits can't exist or happen. HOW DO YOU KNOW? Your brain is telling you what you need most, your reality is created inside you consciousness to help you survive against most probably dangers. You are consciously aware of only things your brain create for you. With this "half complete brain" can you create logic to explain everything ?

You also can't make the argument that Standard model predict the scattering amplitudes accurately, so we have accounted for everything because scattering events are not coherent events. You don't expect ghosts inside the particle collider changing events.

The only portal to an unknown world are subjective experiences of people assuming they are telling the truth. They are telling the truth or they are not telling the truth. That is all you are left with.

So, is there a psychological analysis of NDEs? Jung called underlying structures that recur in psych as Archetypes , so we have so many of these in dreams, and even more in NDEs, I am sure people did such analysis about dreams. What about NDEs? have you come across such a analysis? We can divide NDEs in to individuals, cultures, and also determine things that are consistent cross-culturally.

The Judges in NDEs are an Archetype.

If it hasn't been done before, an excellent opportunity for a PHD thesis. Anybody know a good source of such a study?

Weather past life memories in children 2-4 are real or not, they do exist cross culturally. From American Indians to Eastern Indians they exist. The reason that these people believe in reincarnation is because their children did say such things, and they did study NDEs of their people. Abrahamic religions as well ancient Egypt have no account of this phenomenon of past life memories in children. Although Greeks and Romans certainly did. So how come? I don't believe that children in Egypt and Abrahamic cultures never ever say about a past life. I am not saying that those memories are real. I am just saying that they do happen in children, and some children are aggressive about it and demand attention.

So, is there a psychological analysis of NDEs? Jung called underlying structures that recur in psych as Archetypes , so we have so many of these in dreams, and even more in NDEs, I am sure people did such analysis about dreams. What about NDEs? have you come across such a analysis? We can divide NDEs in to individuals, cultures, and also determine things that are consistent cross-culturally.

The Judges in NDEs are an Archetype.

If it hasn't been done before, an excellent opportunity for a PHD thesis. Anybody know a good source of such a study?