What’s the limit to subliminals/SubClub?

Questions and Comments
#70

This is compelling, I’ll definitely look into this.

How much of these things are legitimate though? For example, I’m skeptical of the idea that the mind can see through solid matter while under hypnosis. Accelerated healing while under hypnosis follows the rules of biology, does it not? Are people regenerating tissue far beyond the body’s natural capacity? As for speaking about subjects that one is consciously unaware of - that could easily be a memory recall thing.

I haven’t looked into the case, so I won’t make assumptions. But in general, I believe physical changes induced by the mind still obey biological laws.

The level of physical change being suggested (healing from an incurable disease) is arguably miraculous. Since I’m not familiar with the specifics of that case or its level of verification, I can’t comment on its validity. But is that single case the only support you have for this potentiality?

You make a good point. I personally don’t subscribe to, dabble in, or believe in “magic”, “occult” or “black magic”, so I can’t comment on them.

Seems reasonable. I think I agree, lol. I believe that the subliminals influence the subconscious mind, and your subconscious mind influences your experience.

Feel free me to let me your thoughts, if you’re interested. I read your other post - it’s a brilliant read, and very thought-provoking. I intend to reply to that one later.

1 Like
#95

Okay everyone. Settle down please.

5 Likes
#99

Oh lawd, that was a lot of flags.

I went ahead and cleaned up a whole bunch of the posts.

Everyone had their fun, now let’s be civil again. Back on topic - if it continues, I’ll close it.

6 Likes
#100

Hahaha

#101

But didn’t you say this in your journal

My face… I honestly don’t even know what the fuck happened to my face, lol… the bones just expanded and shit lol.
It just happens… You feel pressures and sensations, might wake up one morning feeling like someone operated on your nose…

And this conversation made me confused because isn’t it one of the goals of LotS change improve facial features

1 Like
#102

I looked into the case that was recommended to me.

Here it is, for anyone who wants take a look as well:

The argument for misdiagnosis is just way too strong for me. The only way for one to know that it was 100% without a doubt CIE, is by genetic testing because it’s caused by mutated genes. This was in 1952, and DNA’s structure wasn’t even discovered until 1953. That combined with the fact that the boy’s skin responded rapidly to the hypnosis (biologically implausible for a real genetic condition) - it’s literally screaming misdiagnosis. I don’t lose bets often (I have a real life reputation for this), and in a hypothetical scenario where we today had a method to figure this out - I would be incredibly comfortable with betting a very large amount of money on this as being a case of misdiagnosis, without much hesitation. Easy money, as they say. I don’t blindly follow experts and authoritative figures, nor do I blindly reject them - I like to follow common sense. Some people have more valuable opinions than others because they have more experience and knowledge in their respective fields. For example: I am far more inclined to consider and listen to Saint Sovereign and Fire on the topic of subliminals, than I am, to say… a neurotic 13 year old YouTube subliminal maker who has mental health issues. This is why we have mentors and teachers in practically every serious discipline. I think it’s quite natural to have a preconceived attitude towards people in positions (especially of power) outside of context, as long as the end all be all entails your usage of common sense within the context.

I’m not anti-lab coat or pro-lab coat, I’m “you appear to possess experience, let’s see what you have to say with caution and a healthy degree of skepticism, and then I will come to a rational conclusion.” I’ve had many instances where my conclusion was positive and the person proved to be a competent asset towards our common goals, and many instances where the person was dangerously incompetent, despite having the respected credentials or social proof. I value common sense, using discernment, and being grounded, rather than being dogmatically attached to one side or the other through bias.

Anyways, I have no doubt that Albert Mason believed that the boy had CIE, however this quite simply, and in some sense unfortunately, fails to be equivalent to actual genetic proof. Multiple dermatologists of various hospitals diagnosed the boy with CIE through their own subjective, clinical judgement, which was standard in 1952. My thought process is “well, how reliable is this?”. It turns out that CIE is so rare (1 in 200,000 to 1 in 300,000 births) that some dermatologists don’t even encounter a case in their careers, and it shares symptoms with other skin conditions.

I do believe that the boy did improve the appearance of his skin with the help of hypnosis. However, this is still comfortably within the laws of biology (autonomic responses, reduced inflammation, circulation, immune system, reduced stress, etc), and therefore soundly aligns with my original stance on biological limitation and physical shifting with subliminals. This is not even nearly on the same level as permanently changing eye colors (from brown to blue for example), or completely reconfiguring and reshaping hard bone structures. It’s not even in the same realm of gaining 5 inches of height post-puberty. I think that scope happens to be relevant. Skin is one of the most well-documented psychosomatic organs in the human body, and skin diseases can be profoundly influenced by psychological states because of the internal systems that skin is intimately tied to. You literally have a medical field called psychodermatology. Bone is a different animal. I don’t think a change in your psychological state is going to significantly widen your clavicle, or lengthen your femur. There are no documented cases of this even in the most extreme placebo research. I mean, I would love to see it. I want to believe it - but I also don’t want to give up my common sense in exchange for wishful thinking.

These are my thoughts, lol. As always, I’m interested in other people’s opinions and thoughts, if they have any.

Yes, I did say this. This is when I was younger, and overly excited about the physical shifting. This is pretty much the anecdotal, subjective equivalent of an obese person going to the gym and losing tons of body fat, then thinking that the increased definition in his jawline as a result of less body-fat around the facial area means that his jaw got “bigger”, or that the increased prominence of his cheekbones (think boniness in the case of being gaunt, for example) means that his cheekbones “expanded.” I’ve become more mature over the years, and I’ve had to sharpened my critical thinking because it’s required if you want to flat-out be taken seriously in certain places, etc. If someone wants to climb a corporate ladder, run a company, or relate with certain type of people, then you’re almost required to elevate your thinking. You can’t be a delusional person with no common sense, and then run a successful business. You can’t be illogical, and then expect to succeed in fields that factor in the usage of tons of logic, strategy, or high-level decision making - decisions that can literally make or break your intended trajectory. So yes, this is why I’m “super-rational” - and I don’t see anything wrong with this. In my books, executive function is more important than being super, overly open-minded. The ability to think clearly and act decisively is what actually creates results. Remember, my biological take is also largely based on my own personal experience. I myself mistook changeable “soft” traits for fixed “hard” traits". I hope that clears things up, lol.

I think you can improve your facial features through changeable (soft) traits. There are so many things that influence the overall aesthetics of your face and can make you look noticeably different - that don’t include altering the underlying bone structure directly.

2 Likes
#103

Folks be like “everything is possible” yet I don’t see any proofs of someone growing 5 inches with subs.

Still, on a serious note, I do believe that height growth after having closed growth palates is possible because I saw such case. The guy I knew grew about 6 inches but he put an insane amount of effort into this: half of his day was spent on doing some stretching exercises (Method by A. Berg, I think), hypnotising himself, correcting posture, fixing flat feet, etc.

I don’t know whether the changes are due to bone growth or through “soft” traits. I know that fixing flat feet gave him about an inch of height and fixing posture too, but that’s about it

1 Like
#104

The highest limits of subliminal audio are largely based upon the capabilities of the individual and their willingness to go within and engage in inner growth.

12 Likes
#105

Just wait till subclub updates the height inducer,ill play it forever if i have to,detirmined to reach 6’2,currently 5’9

#106

well, the friend I described did it without any subs, just with pure effort

1 Like
#107

Legit? No visual tricks? No heels? Not temporary? Barefoot to head measure same time each day ?If so im truly shocked and want to know more

#108

yes to all of those

that’s basically what I know:

Since you are 5’9" already, make sure you don’t have flat feet and that your posture is good, those two are relatively fast and simple to improve (not necessarily easy)

#109

What stretching excercides specifically? And wich dr a berg? 6 inches seems quite a lot and hard to believe,people get surgery to get that much

#110

Thx for your opinion didn’t mean to break rules of the forum in the post my inention was for civil discussion

#111

Also how does one find their capabilities?

#112

Seems like Berg’s method is only available in Russian

found this after a quick google search: https://lic1-orsk-r56.gosweb.gosuslugi.ru/netcat_files/193/3005/Metodika_Berga.pdf

you might ask AI to translate it

#113

This whole post speaks to the reason I pointed out the shortcomings of this way of thinking with respect to unusual events and their generation, as well as forming conclusions in general.

You mention not being dogmatically attached to one side or another through bias. However, you then used the non-useful assertion that “I don’t lose bets often” as a means of providing your own diagnosis of a 73 year old case with legitimacy. You seem invested in ensuring that any outcome is explainable by “known physical laws”, in line with expert opinions, taking the opinions of those who you consider authority figures as holding more weight.

The case I provided is only one of many, used as an example only because I recently read of it in the course of my own research. I have spent well over 25 years studying these types of unusual phenomena, and in the last several years especially trying to find standardized ways to reproduce them. I know what I’m talking about, and I know that the capabilities of the human organism are stupidly far beyond what most people believe. Whether they agree with “known physical laws” or whether they completely bend or break them in ways we don’t understand is ultimately irrelevant to the question of generating results, except in an ultimately peripheral way in terms of information on potential action-taking to achieve the goal.

I’m no stranger to the rational and the intellectual, it has its place; I’ve been a computer programmer before, I’ve done calculus and studied the sciences and their limitations and assumptions. However, in the domain of subliminals, which is what this is about, we are dealing with the topic of consciousness itself and its interaction with matter. This is the so called “hard problem”, and hypnosis is one of those areas where the fluidity and flexibility of consciousness becomes clear. A person can eat an onion and believe that they are eating a crisp apple, they can re-experience memories of events that occurred decades earlier as if they were happening right now. You can cause arousal even to the point of orgasm solely through hypnotic induction.

Consciousness is not itself “rational”. Rational is a modality of thinking, and it is vulnerable to exploitation by things such as appeal to authority, false information or assumptions, limited or incomplete paradigms of reality and so on. Consciousness is not an epiphenomena, it is integral to all life, and without it entropy takes over. It operates at multiple levels of being, and it can be made to believe in a restricted view of its own capacity, or to remain in such a state. By telling yourself that the limitations of what can be are achieved are in line with some scientific system or the laws of physics, you will restrict what is possible. Consciousness itself is not bound by time or space, although it can operate within it.

What I have understood recently is that in order to communicate with the “subconscious”, linking the mind with the breath and other biological functions, diving down to what is externally interpreted as slower brain wave states, producing connectivity between the spirit and the body, these things are necessary in order to plant suggestions consciously. Subliminals can trickle down into the subconscious without this, but if you put yourself in this connected, silent state when playing the track (or when seeking to communicate with the deeper mind) the effects will hit a lot deeper.

Ultimately I could care less what physical laws cause me to get healthier or more confident, or smarter. Nor is it useful to be like “yes I had this result but it would have happened without the sub anyway”. Consciousness ultimately does not care whether what you are saying is “true” or not, it embodies what it is fed as a state or a fact, and so ultimately the depth of results you are able to achieve will depend on how deeply you are able to reach the core of your being and alter its expression within your embodied form. Arguing that the results aren’t possible or are trivial is just going to result in the consciousness being like “okay let’s act that way”. It does not care how you justify your belief.

For that reason, I consider theorizing on whether some given result is possible or not to be largely empty and useless. Let rational thought stay in the place where it is most useful, for dealing with everyday life choices and survival in our modern cultural mileu. I’m not going to say changing eye color or bone structure is or isn’t possible. Almost the entire body renews itself over the course of seven years, so over a long enough time frame with the right methodology, results are limited only by the individual’s own recognition of their own capabilities (which as an embodied spirit are in effect much greater than we are usually led to believe).

6 Likes
#114

An example of this would be in the realm of superhuman strength or endurance, one of those results which is the domain of subs like Hero or Spartan. You might ask what are the limits of what can be achieved here?

Well, feats of superhuman strength and endurance happen all the time. A mother lifts a car to save their kid fueled by a spike of adrenaline and emotion. A man on drugs becomes violent and it takes 3 or 4 men to hold him down and tase him multiple times before he complies. A soldier who has been shot walks miles to their base unaware of the severity of their injuries. A case of possession causes a frail elderly lady to require a team of individuals to restrain them. A master of chi breaks stones or boards, or manages to take down a man twice his size.

Now you might come up with some hypothesis about how each of these scenarios occurs. You might say strength is limited to what force your muscles can generate, and that this is dependent on your physical fitness and the hormones flowing through your body, your electrolyte levels and so on. And ultimately this is useful in terms of ensuring you take care of your body and your diet.

But ultimately the thing that distinguishes an ordinary body builder or fighter from a super soldier or a green beret, what allows strength or endurance also relies on mindset and how integrated the mind and consciousness is with the muscles/body. A geek who studies math and computers all day and whose consciousness is largely situated in abstract situations / in their head is not going to produce the power of punch as someone who has trained intensely and changed the structure of their body because they believe it is possible and they have spent time learning how to use the mind to direct the “Qi”.,

But let’s go beyond that. There are yogis who can/have changed their physical appearance and body structure solely using their breath. There are cases of individuals living on ridiculously small amounts of calories, or on water and air alone, for extended periods of time, some even in modern times.

If you say “in order to get muscles this big and chiselled I need to get this amount of protein, this amount of fat, these carbs, these amino acids” then that is going to affect how you take action. You’re marking out the path to follow. You’ll get a result. You’re basing your action taking on belief that the nutritional experts are the sole arbiters of truth.

However, if you discard the extreme possibilities, or the subtle ways of working with consciousness/the mind over the body, you’re limiting your possibilities to get results. Studies such as this one:

These techniques of visualization or mental rehearsal are used by Olympic level athletes for one reason only: because they work. Now you might say " but that’s bull-manure, just imagining you’re doing your workout is not the same as doing it, this is pseudoscience there is no rational physical explanation for why this works so I’m not going to do it". Well that’s all well and good. Someone else will gladly use the mental imagery techniques along with the typical workouts, and get better results than you who isn’t accepting that the limitations we put on ourselves are fluid.

If you don’t experiment with some technique because it seems to lack some known scientific explanation or official approval, or if you come at these techniques with heavy skepticism or lack of belief, you may never know what you’re truly capable of.

4 Likes
#115

This is entirely misconstrued. I wasn’t suggesting that I’m correct because I don’t lose bets often, or that my track record makes the conclusion I shared legitimate. What I meant is that I’m so confident in the structure of my own logic and the available evidence, that I’d be willing to stake a lot of money on it because it feels like an easy, low-risk conclusion based on the facts. I was merely expressing the level of my own conviction.

You don’t say, lol.

I understand that your 25 years of experience in “unusual phenomena” has given you a deep knowing of what’s possible. I’m not dismissing it, but I feel as if you are positioning your own personal insights as being beyond the need for biological or scientific grounding. I’m curious about how you’re separating valid observations from personal belief or bias. I’m also curious about how you protect yourself from self-deception or delusion. The framework of biology might not explain everything, but if it didn’t exist, then we would lose any shared standard for testing whether something is actually happening or not. If results alone are enough, regardless of their mechanisms - then how do we distinguish between a real phenomenon, a placebo, a coincidence, or even a straight up psychological illusion? I mean, this allows for literally anything to be claimed and nothing to be challenged. I think that’s not only dangerous, but unhealthy for the mind because it’s easy for someone who adheres to such thinking to become disconnected from reality.

Just because one has done programming, studied calculus, and learned about scientific concepts, doesn’t automatically mean that they apply rational and intellectual discipline in how they evaluate claims. Especially when it comes to “unusual phenomena”. Rationale and intellect is demonstrated by how someone thinks - not by what they’ve been exposed to. I think that’s an extremely important distinction.

I disagree. I think that “consciousness” is a broad, overused, and imprecise term, especially when used in the context of subliminals. The fact of the matter is that the domain of subliminals simply deals with the subconscious mind - hence why the literal name is “subliminal”. A subliminal message is designed to pass below the normal limits of conscious perception, allowing it to be perceived by the subconscious mind. So I would say that we are dealing with the topic of the subconscious mind and its interaction with perception, emotion, and behavior - not the abstract “hard problem” of consciousness.

These are all examples that fall comfortably within the framework of known biology and neuroscience. None of them require us to go beyond established biological mechanisms to be understood.

I generally agree. However, I don’t see how having a straightforward desire for strong evidence regarding extraordinary biological changes (growing 7 inches after puberty or completely reconfiguring bone structures on a level equivalent to surgery) conflicts with this view. Having a desire for clear, rigorous evidence when encountering those type of claims doesn’t limit consciousness - it’s just a practical approach to understanding what’s actually happening in our physical bodies.

It’s great that you’ve discovered this recently. From what I’ve seen, this idea has been popularized before by people like Joe Dispenza who talk a lot about how altered states (deep relaxation, meditation, trance, etc) increase suggestibility and deepen the impact of affirmations or mental programming. It’s also foundational in basic hypnosis and NLP.

What is the difference between this, and New Age “just believe bro, just believe harder”? So, I can become a mermaid if I believe it on a deep enough level? What you’re saying sounds oddly familiar, but expressed in a different way. If I say that physically transforming into a mermaid is biologically impossible, then consciousness is going to be “okay, let’s act that way”? - therefore preventing me from becoming a mermaid? So is this not just the old New Age style “limiting beliefs, bro”? - without the New Age? I’m not dismissing or criticizing your take, I’m genuinely asking you what is the difference?

Where is the boundary between possibility and delusion, if consciousness doesn’t “care” about what’s true?". Previously, in this thread - I pointed out that someone made the exact same argument that a Flat Earther would use.

This:

Is exactly the same argument that 15 year olds in the YouTube subliminal space who are trying to escape from reality into Harry Potter worlds, anime universes, and physically morph into dragon-mermaid-werewolves use. They literally say the exact same thing, just in a different, New Age influenced, non-intellectual manner (probably because they’re 15 years old).

Hopefully you’re understanding my perspective here.

Anyways, I enjoyed your response. Thank you for sharing.

3 Likes
#116

I didn’t see that you had another post under it - my bad.

Every single example that you’ve listed of superhuman strength and endurance:

  • mother lifting car off a child to save a kid fueled by adrenaline and emotion (note that you’re already implying that adrenaline is a factor)
  • a violent man on drugs requiring 3 or 4 men to hold him down and tase him multiple times for him to comply
  • a soldier who has been shot multiple times walking miles to their base unaware of their injuries
  • a master of chi breaking boards or taking down a man twice is size

Literally, every single one of these is already well-understood within the framework of biology and neuroscience. Adrenaline surges, pain suppression, conditioning, trained efficiency, etc. These aren’t “bendings” of physical law - they’re still explainable responses of the human body under extreme stress or altered states. I would even say that emphasizing them actually reinforces how powerful our biological systems are, and how consciousness works through the natural built-in mechanisms of the human body. It’s not like consciousness is overriding physics.

My whole stance in this entire thread has not changed throughout every post (including the deleted) of every discussion. It’s simply that physical changes manifest within the rules of biology.

Of course mindset, belief, and mind-body connection can influence performance. I’m a powerlifter, lol. This is basic knowledge to anyone who is into sports, lifting, MMA, etc. One can learn this in their first week of a kinesiology course in college. Again - this is all already well-understood within the framework of biology and neuroscience.

My friend, where exactly are we going beyond here?

Yogis who can change their physical appearance and body structure solely using their breath - is still comfortably within the framework of biology. What is the degree of change in their body? Are they gaining 8 inches of height, permanently changing their eye colors (from brown to blue for example), or completely reconfiguring bone structures in their face, etc (I’m talking about scope which I alluded to with the psychosomatic skin argument in a previous post)? Unless they are - then it’s still within the laws of biology. Also, living for extended periods of time with a small amount of calories is not unheard of in even the most mainstream of biological science, lol. I’m pretty sure that medical science has plenty of documentation on extreme fasting or metabolic adaptation. The examples that you are giving have a “this sounds really extraordinary” flare to them which can excite people, however none of them are inexplicable in actual base-level reality.

I don’t think you understand the premise of my biological take because you are completely ignoring the issue of scope here. I genuinely find this strange because you just claimed to be “no stranger to the rational and the intellectual”.

Again, same thing. Visualization and mental rehearsal used by athletes to affect performance outcomes is still within the framework of biology… that’s why you’re even able to reference a scientifically grounded study (based in rational, scientific thinking) from the Journal of Sports, Science, and Medicine in the first place. Who thinks it’s bull-manure? They’re not supporting the idea that just imagining exercise can replace physical training. They’re saying that mental imagery and visualization can enhance performance, especially when combined with physical practice.

If you’re attempting to use this study to support the claim that consciousness can “bend” physical laws or create supernatural outcomes, then I think you’re severely misapplying the findings. That would be the literal equivalent of trying to use physics to argue that gravity is optional. The study is merely showing you how the human brain can be optimized for enhance performance.

You and I both know that our views clash - which I think is healthy and creates good discussion, as long as we’re civil. We have the maturity to do that. No sarcasm here, I really appreciate the time and energy you took to reply to my posts - and I’d be lying if I said that you didn’t help me consider things from a different perspective, as momentary as such a consideration may be. The medical case that you’ve recommended to me is now something that I can refer to in the future, so thank you for that as well. These are a lot of paragraphs, so I’m probably going to move on to something else now.

Cheers, and take care.

3 Likes