Shannon's Journal Discussion

[CatMan]

Hey there Shannon! I'm SUPER excited for OF 5G. I hope it'll be out by the end of this year, I'm so eager to start it in 2016.

I want to get your thoughts on my situation though so I can make the best choice. I've been running AoS with BIATBWS for almost 2 months and it doesn't seem to be working. But I have experienced a few days of pretty much no social anxiety, but most days have much MORE social anxiety than before I started the program. I also have less motivation and go through depression when I don't have a hot girl to have sex with when I really want to. This didn't happen that much before the program either. Would OF 5G be the right choice for me? I plan to do OF for at least 6 months and then AM6 (which has OGSF, EPRHA, and other goodies!). I ran EPRHA for 6 months before AoS and BIATBWS and it definitely helped as I thought all the depression and most anxiety was gone.

Also will OGSF 5G be different from the OGSF in AM6?

And will EPRHA 2.0 be added to AM6?

I think the issue of you not seeing results is likely directly attributed to you not doing enough hours on both. Doing like 2 hours a day or so on one sub won't let it do it's job. It'd probably be much better in your situation to focus on one sub like we've talked about before. It'll give you more hours a day to focus on one sub and really dial in results with it, and not spread your listening hours so thin they struggle to make an impact.

[Shannon]

Hey there Shannon! I'm SUPER excited for OF 5G. I hope it'll be out by the end of this year, I'm so eager to start it in 2016.

I want to get your thoughts on my situation though so I can make the best choice. I've been running AoS with BIATBWS for almost 2 months and it doesn't seem to be working. But I have experienced a few days of pretty much no social anxiety, but most days have much MORE social anxiety than before I started the program. I also have less motivation and go through depression when I don't have a hot girl to have sex with when I really want to. This didn't happen that much before the program either. Would OF 5G be the right choice for me? I plan to do OF for at least 6 months and then AM6 (which has OGSF, EPRHA, and other goodies!). I ran EPRHA for 6 months before AoS and BIATBWS and it definitely helped as I thought all the depression and most anxiety was gone.

Also will OGSF 5G be different from the OGSF in AM6?

And will EPRHA 2.0 be added to AM6?

AOS and BIABWS should prizobably be run individually. That might be why it seems to not be working.

OF 5G is a good choice regardless. In my opinion, the best options for what you're attempting to accomplish would be, in order:

1. EHPRA 2.0
2. OGSF 5G
3. OF 5G.

And yes, OGSF 5G will be different than the one in AM6.

Thanks Shannon.

Just so I am sure I understand. It would be best for me to run the 3 programs you mentioned even though I plan on doing AM6 (3x back to back) before I even start my first AM run?

My goal is to use Sex Magnet successfully and feel super solid in myself emotionally. I thought running AM repeatedly would be the fastest way to achieve this. But if using those 3 programs first will make the difference between achieving my goal or not, then I'll do it.

Not quite what I was trying to communicate.

If your goal is to use sex magnet, AND (as I understood you) you are planning to use something besides AM6 before either running AM6 or SM, then the best choice for you is EHPRA 2.0, the second best option is OGSF 5G, and the third best of the group, but still valuable, is OF 5G.

If you're planning to do AM6 again, then that will be a better choice than all of the above three options.

Oh, just saw this...

And will EPRHA 2.0 be added to AM6?

No, but it is likely to be added to AM7!

[AlphaMind]

HAH! I knew it! There will be AM7!

Happy Christmas spoiler! LOL

Tkae my like SHannon!

[apollolux]

However, I just recompressed the script for the prototype, which was becoming challenging to build again. It is now around 82,500 words compressed.

After calculating the compression ratio, I have concluded that you just would not believe me if I told you the WPS of the current compression rate. I apparently have managed to successfully achieve an almost limitless compression ratio, and I did not realize that because last time I calculated it I left out one of the variables.

The question isn't "What is the words per minute?". The question is, "How many words per minute do I want you to get?" And the answer is, "How many words per minute works best?"

There is a technology in 6G scripting that allows for me to compress the script in a way that allows for this nearly infinite compression while the brain and subconscious still can comprehend and execute it. It's like impulse drive (5G) vs. warp (6G). There's no comparison. The only real limit is, "What works best?" and so far I haven't optimized for that, but for me to say that you're effectively getting the amount of words per second that the current 6G script generates would not be realistically something I could expect you to believe if I told you.

Are these compression methods primarily script-based, like leaving out "useless" words and forcing the brain to pattern-match (unlikely, since you've shown much appreciated diligence in updating subs when missing words are pointed out even if they're "useless"), are they audio engineering-based like a modified frequency modulation algorithm, or are they some sort of pipelining mechanism (like singing in a round, so statements literally overlap each other) and there's both frequency and amplitude modulation happening to emphasize particular statements in each overlapping cluster (I'm leaning towards this)?

Having studied computer science and data compression/decompression (where it's essentially limited by the units used and the compression "dictionary" employed), I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute and say it's either unlikely or at the very least an exaggeration to say whatever technology you've discovered allows "nearly infinite" compression AND is still comprehensible by the subconscious, even if the subconscious can theoretically operate at the speed of thought. Instead of the previous 416.67 WPS number, I'm actually going to be a bit more generous and say 441 WPS for convenience for the following hypothetical - 441 WPS equates to each word averaging 100/44100th of a second in length (i.e. in a standard digital sampling rate of 44100 Hz, each word averages 100 samples in length). Once you get shorter in the same sampling rate (let's say lower than 50 samples in length), it becomes less likely to be comprehensible (like visual animation is noticeably smoother at 60 Hz than 30 Hz, and nearly imperceptibly smoother at 120 Hz, but any higher than 120 Hz and the added frames are essentially unnoticed, and lower than 30 Hz one can clearly see each individual frame). Even if you start at a higher sampling rate like 48000 Hz, downsampling to 44100 Hz will lose sample information (equivalent to losing fidelity and/or audio "precision").

Can the subconscious usefully recognize differences in words shorter than 100/44100th of a second in length? As you can see, for the moment I'm more interested in the technological/audio engineering aspects of making 6G happen than the psychological/script-based aspects, but I'm certainly excited to learn about the latter down the line!

For the future, I'm curious to know if switching to a 48000 Hz sampling rate for retail products would allow a technological advancement at the expense of requiring hardware capable of playing 48 kHz audio.

[maxx55]

Hey Shannon is OGSF definately coming out with OF? If so I might reat now and decide when they get here (I presume OF 1.1 will not be a straight switch to OGSF 5G).....

I must've missed this earlier, I'm curious to know the answer to this as well. Will OGSF 5G include OF 5G in it's entirety?

[Shannon]

However, I just recompressed the script for the prototype, which was becoming challenging to build again. It is now around 82,500 words compressed.

After calculating the compression ratio, I have concluded that you just would not believe me if I told you the WPS of the current compression rate. I apparently have managed to successfully achieve an almost limitless compression ratio, and I did not realize that because last time I calculated it I left out one of the variables.

The question isn't "What is the words per minute?". The question is, "How many words per minute do I want you to get?" And the answer is, "How many words per minute works best?"

There is a technology in 6G scripting that allows for me to compress the script in a way that allows for this nearly infinite compression while the brain and subconscious still can comprehend and execute it. It's like impulse drive (5G) vs. warp (6G). There's no comparison. The only real limit is, "What works best?" and so far I haven't optimized for that, but for me to say that you're effectively getting the amount of words per second that the current 6G script generates would not be realistically something I could expect you to believe if I told you.

Are these compression methods primarily script-based, like leaving out "useless" words and forcing the brain to pattern-match (unlikely, since you've shown much appreciated diligence in updating subs when missing words are pointed out even if they're "useless"), are they audio engineering-based like a modified frequency modulation algorithm, or are they some sort of pipelining mechanism (like singing in a round, so statements literally overlap each other) and there's both frequency and amplitude modulation happening to emphasize particular statements in each overlapping cluster (I'm leaning towards this)?

Having studied computer science and data compression/decompression (where it's essentially limited by the units used and the compression "dictionary" employed), I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute and say it's either unlikely or at the very least an exaggeration to say whatever technology you've discovered allows "nearly infinite" compression AND is still comprehensible by the subconscious, even if the subconscious can theoretically operate at the speed of thought. Instead of the previous 416.67 WPS number, I'm actually going to be a bit more generous and say 441 WPS for convenience for the following hypothetical - 441 WPS equates to each word averaging 100/44100th of a second in length (i.e. in a standard digital sampling rate of 44100 Hz, each word averages 100 samples in length). Once you get shorter in the same sampling rate (let's say lower than 50 samples in length), it becomes less likely to be comprehensible (like visual animation is noticeably smoother at 60 Hz than 30 Hz, and nearly imperceptibly smoother at 120 Hz, but any higher than 120 Hz and the added frames are essentially unnoticed, and lower than 30 Hz one can clearly see each individual frame). Even if you start at a higher sampling rate like 48000 Hz, downsampling to 44100 Hz will lose sample information (equivalent to losing fidelity and/or audio "precision").

Can the subconscious usefully recognize differences in words shorter than 100/44100th of a second in length? As you can see, for the moment I'm more interested in the technological/audio engineering aspects of making 6G happen than the psychological/script-based aspects, but I'm certainly excited to learn about the latter down the line!

For the future, I'm curious to know if switching to a 48000 Hz sampling rate for retail products would allow a technological advancement at the expense of requiring hardware capable of playing 48 kHz audio.

I'll tell you this. I am using five different types of compression.

I'll also say that what you say is true, if those were my limits. However, I am operating far and above the limits of the things you mentioned, which is part of why I am using five different compression methods instead of one.

Beyond that, I have to keep my mouth shut. I'd love to tell you, and you'd be fascinated and probably astonished to hear it. And it would make me feel smart and special and awesome... But I can't. It is for the best for all of us that exactly how I have accomplished the things I have remain trade secret.

Switching to a higher sample rate will never be necessary. I have accomplished all of this using 44.1 kHz as my standard sample rate. Remember: safe, USEFUL, effective. To be useful, it has to be easily used, and therefore, standard formats, etc. are preferred. And so far, I am working well with them.

[Shannon]

Hey Shannon is OGSF definately coming out with OF? If so I might reat now and decide when they get here (I presume OF 1.1 will not be a straight switch to OGSF 5G).....

OGSF 5G is going to be the exact same script as OF 5G, but with "guilt, shame and fear" as the reference instead of "fear". It's a find/replace operation different. That's it.

[maxx55]

Hey Shannon is OGSF definately coming out with OF? If so I might reat now and decide when they get here (I presume OF 1.1 will not be a straight switch to OGSF 5G).....

I must've missed this earlier, I'm curious to know the answer to this as well. Will OGSF 5G include OF 5G in it's entirety?

It most certainly will. Shannon said that he only has to change "fear" in the script to "guilt shame and fear" and its all good. Check out one of his latest posts in his journal.

What! It's gonna have all the awesome state-related backported 6G magic too?! Awesome

Then wouldn't it be best to do OGSF 5G instead of OF 5G in most cases?

Was OGSF 4G the same as OF 4G +Guilt and Shame? It seemed like people had a much better fear releasing result with OF rather than OGSF back in 4G.

[Breeze]

It might be a limiting belief from my current understanding, but how can we release fear without triggering or experiencing it? Especially the fears that we aren't consciously aware of ourselves.

[dissonance]

However, I just recompressed the script for the prototype, which was becoming challenging to build again. It is now around 82,500 words compressed.

After calculating the compression ratio, I have concluded that you just would not believe me if I told you the WPS of the current compression rate. I apparently have managed to successfully achieve an almost limitless compression ratio, and I did not realize that because last time I calculated it I left out one of the variables.

The question isn't "What is the words per minute?". The question is, "How many words per minute do I want you to get?" And the answer is, "How many words per minute works best?"

There is a technology in 6G scripting that allows for me to compress the script in a way that allows for this nearly infinite compression while the brain and subconscious still can comprehend and execute it. It's like impulse drive (5G) vs. warp (6G). There's no comparison. The only real limit is, "What works best?" and so far I haven't optimized for that, but for me to say that you're effectively getting the amount of words per second that the current 6G script generates would not be realistically something I could expect you to believe if I told you.

Are these compression methods primarily script-based, like leaving out "useless" words and forcing the brain to pattern-match (unlikely, since you've shown much appreciated diligence in updating subs when missing words are pointed out even if they're "useless"), are they audio engineering-based like a modified frequency modulation algorithm, or are they some sort of pipelining mechanism (like singing in a round, so statements literally overlap each other) and there's both frequency and amplitude modulation happening to emphasize particular statements in each overlapping cluster (I'm leaning towards this)?

Having studied computer science and data compression/decompression (where it's essentially limited by the units used and the compression "dictionary" employed), I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute and say it's either unlikely or at the very least an exaggeration to say whatever technology you've discovered allows "nearly infinite" compression AND is still comprehensible by the subconscious, even if the subconscious can theoretically operate at the speed of thought. Instead of the previous 416.67 WPS number, I'm actually going to be a bit more generous and say 441 WPS for convenience for the following hypothetical - 441 WPS equates to each word averaging 100/44100th of a second in length (i.e. in a standard digital sampling rate of 44100 Hz, each word averages 100 samples in length). Once you get shorter in the same sampling rate (let's say lower than 50 samples in length), it becomes less likely to be comprehensible (like visual animation is noticeably smoother at 60 Hz than 30 Hz, and nearly imperceptibly smoother at 120 Hz, but any higher than 120 Hz and the added frames are essentially unnoticed, and lower than 30 Hz one can clearly see each individual frame). Even if you start at a higher sampling rate like 48000 Hz, downsampling to 44100 Hz will lose sample information (equivalent to losing fidelity and/or audio "precision").

Can the subconscious usefully recognize differences in words shorter than 100/44100th of a second in length? As you can see, for the moment I'm more interested in the technological/audio engineering aspects of making 6G happen than the psychological/script-based aspects, but I'm certainly excited to learn about the latter down the line!

For the future, I'm curious to know if switching to a 48000 Hz sampling rate for retail products would allow a technological advancement at the expense of requiring hardware capable of playing 48 kHz audio.

I'll tell you this. I am using five different types of compression.

I'll also say that what you say is true, if those were my limits. However, I am operating far and above the limits of the things you mentioned, which is part of why I am using five different compression methods instead of one.

Beyond that, I have to keep my mouth shut. I'd love to tell you, and you'd be fascinated and probably astonished to hear it. And it would make me feel smart and special and awesome... But I can't. It is for the best for all of us that exactly how I have accomplished the things I have remain trade secret.

Switching to a higher sample rate will never be necessary. I have accomplished all of this using 44.1 kHz as my standard sample rate. Remember: safe, USEFUL, effective. To be useful, it has to be easily used, and therefore, standard formats, etc. are preferred. And so far, I am working well with them.

I was actually going to ask the same question as well, lol.

So to clarify, one method of compression is speeding up the "talking" of the script, which would be limited by the sample rate, and the mechanics of how samples work. And there are four?! other methods, that are not speeding up the audio? haha wow awesome. You truly are a genius at this, lol. I'm so glad I discovered your subs... I feel like I'm one of the lucky few who have this secret weapon that no one else has. Just trying to imagine if everyone else in the world used these subs... the world would be so different.

[Shannon]

However, I just recompressed the script for the prototype, which was becoming challenging to build again. It is now around 82,500 words compressed.

After calculating the compression ratio, I have concluded that you just would not believe me if I told you the WPS of the current compression rate. I apparently have managed to successfully achieve an almost limitless compression ratio, and I did not realize that because last time I calculated it I left out one of the variables.

The question isn't "What is the words per minute?". The question is, "How many words per minute do I want you to get?" And the answer is, "How many words per minute works best?"

There is a technology in 6G scripting that allows for me to compress the script in a way that allows for this nearly infinite compression while the brain and subconscious still can comprehend and execute it. It's like impulse drive (5G) vs. warp (6G). There's no comparison. The only real limit is, "What works best?" and so far I haven't optimized for that, but for me to say that you're effectively getting the amount of words per second that the current 6G script generates would not be realistically something I could expect you to believe if I told you.

Are these compression methods primarily script-based, like leaving out "useless" words and forcing the brain to pattern-match (unlikely, since you've shown much appreciated diligence in updating subs when missing words are pointed out even if they're "useless"), are they audio engineering-based like a modified frequency modulation algorithm, or are they some sort of pipelining mechanism (like singing in a round, so statements literally overlap each other) and there's both frequency and amplitude modulation happening to emphasize particular statements in each overlapping cluster (I'm leaning towards this)?

Having studied computer science and data compression/decompression (where it's essentially limited by the units used and the compression "dictionary" employed), I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute and say it's either unlikely or at the very least an exaggeration to say whatever technology you've discovered allows "nearly infinite" compression AND is still comprehensible by the subconscious, even if the subconscious can theoretically operate at the speed of thought. Instead of the previous 416.67 WPS number, I'm actually going to be a bit more generous and say 441 WPS for convenience for the following hypothetical - 441 WPS equates to each word averaging 100/44100th of a second in length (i.e. in a standard digital sampling rate of 44100 Hz, each word averages 100 samples in length). Once you get shorter in the same sampling rate (let's say lower than 50 samples in length), it becomes less likely to be comprehensible (like visual animation is noticeably smoother at 60 Hz than 30 Hz, and nearly imperceptibly smoother at 120 Hz, but any higher than 120 Hz and the added frames are essentially unnoticed, and lower than 30 Hz one can clearly see each individual frame). Even if you start at a higher sampling rate like 48000 Hz, downsampling to 44100 Hz will lose sample information (equivalent to losing fidelity and/or audio "precision").

Can the subconscious usefully recognize differences in words shorter than 100/44100th of a second in length? As you can see, for the moment I'm more interested in the technological/audio engineering aspects of making 6G happen than the psychological/script-based aspects, but I'm certainly excited to learn about the latter down the line!

For the future, I'm curious to know if switching to a 48000 Hz sampling rate for retail products would allow a technological advancement at the expense of requiring hardware capable of playing 48 kHz audio.

I'll tell you this. I am using five different types of compression.

I'll also say that what you say is true, if those were my limits. However, I am operating far and above the limits of the things you mentioned, which is part of why I am using five different compression methods instead of one.

Beyond that, I have to keep my mouth shut. I'd love to tell you, and you'd be fascinated and probably astonished to hear it. And it would make me feel smart and special and awesome... But I can't. It is for the best for all of us that exactly how I have accomplished the things I have remain trade secret.

Switching to a higher sample rate will never be necessary. I have accomplished all of this using 44.1 kHz as my standard sample rate. Remember: safe, USEFUL, effective. To be useful, it has to be easily used, and therefore, standard formats, etc. are preferred. And so far, I am working well with them.

I was actually going to ask the same question as well, lol.

So to clarify, one method of compression is speeding up the "talking" of the script, which would be limited by the sample rate, and the mechanics of how samples work. And there are four?! other methods, that are not speeding up the audio? haha wow awesome. You truly are a genius at this, lol. I'm so glad I discovered your subs... I feel like I'm one of the lucky few who have this secret weapon that no one else has. Just trying to imagine if everyone else in the world used these subs... the world would be so different.

Again... how I do what I do, I have to stay silent on. You may speculate, but I can neither confirm nor deny the veracity of anything beyond what I have said on this already.

And when, not if, the whole world discovers my subs... the whole world WILL be a very different place.

That's a big part of why I'm working on this. I want to change the world for the better, so that even if nobody remembers who I am/was, the fact that I lived will have made a definitively positive impact on the world. Once I achieve a sufficient level of skill and understanding, I'll be able to accomplish things with these subs that will absolutely get them noticed on a worldwide basis. At that point, the question is... what do I want to work on fixing? Success is inevitable.

[Shannon]

Hey Shannon is OGSF definately coming out with OF? If so I might reat now and decide when they get here (I presume OF 1.1 will not be a straight switch to OGSF 5G).....

I must've missed this earlier, I'm curious to know the answer to this as well. Will OGSF 5G include OF 5G in it's entirety?

It most certainly will. Shannon said that he only has to change "fear" in the script to "guilt shame and fear" and its all good. Check out one of his latest posts in his journal.

What! It's gonna have all the awesome state-related backported 6G magic too?! Awesome

Then wouldn't it be best to do OGSF 5G instead of OF 5G in most cases?

Was OGSF 4G the same as OF 4G +Guilt and Shame? It seemed like people had a much better fear releasing result with OF rather than OGSF back in 4G.

It will have the State Shifting Engine in it, but the 6G version is not the same. It's actually much more advanced, and links into/is supported by other 6G technologies simultaneously.

So in 5G we have the State Shifting Engine, end in 6G we have the Advanced State Shifting Engine.

And I know, there's a joke in there somewhere...

I'm making both so people have a choice. In my humble opinion... OGSF is a better choice. Other people may disagree, and circumstances may differ.

No, OF and OGSF 4G are significantly different scripts.

[Shannon]

It might be a limiting belief from my current understanding, but how can we release fear without triggering or experiencing it? Especially the fears that we aren't consciously aware of ourselves.

It is done by accessing the subconscious in the right way, and giving the right set of instructions such that the awareness of the fear is not a personal one. This is also done in hypnosis, creative visualization and NLP.

For example, the other day a friend of mine came to me asking for help overcoming a fear, and since she was sitting in my office with me, I had her close her eyes and imagine her fears as being something she was watching on a movie screen, instead of experiencing. Simple creative visualization techniques, with no effort whatsoever at induction, hypnosis or NLP. Because she was imagining herself sitting in the back of the movie theater, and what she was afraid of was being experienced as a two dimensional projection on a screen far from herself, and she had the ability to stop the "film" at any time. she was much more comfortable with it.

Once she got comfortable, I suggested that she could just two finger pinch minimize it, as if it were a touch screen, and then wipe it off the screen to delete it if she wanted to, which she did. Again, all this was done with no induction or NLP. Just a few minutes of closed eyes and creative visualization, and the right ideas, and she was able to free herself from a great deal of fear.

Then I spent some time explaining to her the reasons why her fears made no sense. While she is an emotion-based thinker by nature, she was able to gain benefit from what information I gave her.

All told, virtually no fear experienced during the 7 minutes this took, but she released a lot of fear. It doesn't have to be personally experienced to work with it, and in distancing oneself from it thusly, t becomes possible to work with it objectively, and without experiencing the fear.

All this can be done at a purely subconscious level as well, if we have the right instruction set.

[AlphaMind]

It might be a limiting belief from my current understanding, but how can we release fear without triggering or experiencing it? Especially the fears that we aren't consciously aware of ourselves.

It is done by accessing the subconscious in the right way, and giving the right set of instructions such that the awareness of the fear is not a personal one. This is also done in hypnosis, creative visualization and NLP.

For example, the other day a friend of mine came to me asking for help overcoming a fear, and since she was sitting in my office with me, I had her close her eyes and imagine her fears as being something she was watching on a movie screen, instead of experiencing. Simple creative visualization techniques, with no effort whatsoever at induction, hypnosis or NLP. Because she was imagining herself sitting in the back of the movie theater, and what she was afraid of was being experienced as a two dimensional projection on a screen far from herself, and she had the ability to stop the "film" at any time. she was much more comfortable with it.

Once she got comfortable, I suggested that she could just two finger pinch minimize it, as if it were a touch screen, and then wipe it off the screen to delete it if she wanted to, which she did. Again, all this was done with no induction or NLP. Just a few minutes of closed eyes and creative visualization, and the right ideas, and she was able to free herself from a great deal of fear.

Then I spent some time explaining to her the reasons why her fears made no sense. While she is an emotion-based thinker by nature, she was able to gain benefit from what information I gave her.

All told, virtually no fear experienced during the 7 minutes this took, but she released a lot of fear. It doesn't have to be personally experienced to work with it, and in distancing oneself from it thusly, t becomes possible to work with it objectively, and without experiencing the fear.

All this can be done at a purely subconscious level as well, if we have the right instruction set.

I'll modify this visualization. Thanks Shannon!