[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

What you are missing is why they have to come up with these theories in the first place, which is that the Newtonian model doesn't work on a very large or very small scale. Why do the rules change when we are not directly perceiving the event?

The first bit of this is quite easy to explain. They came up with new physics relating to the very large and very small because some observation didn't fit with what they already had. The scientific community generally responds to observed phenomena and develops theory that is only accepted in as much as it explains observed phenomena. "Weird science", as we've got to calling it, tries to explain certain properties of electrons and protons, etc., that have been observed repeatedly - with enough consistency to cause a problem for the old physics. This is exactly what I was trying to contrast with 'weird philsophy' (I'll call it) like "everything is inside my mind" or "I can do magick, me", for which there is no evidence. ...and god knows there are enough scientists who have set out to discover the secrets of ghosts, pk, ETs and so on. A great many of them have given up. None of them have convinced the scientific community. That is often presented as some kind of conspiracy, but I don't think it is. I think many scientists are genuinely ready to be proved wrong, and the evidence just keeps being proved false - either a deliberate fraud or, probably more often, self-delusion on the part of some 'medium' or other.

The second bit seems unrelated, but you seem to be pointing hesitantly towards the 'observer effect'. I don't pretend to understand nuclear physics, but when that phrase applies to a particular bit of 'weird science' it describes the properties of sub-atomic particles. It does certainly bring into question some of the fundamental axioms of realism, but we should be careful what conclusions we jump to about what is possible, and not immediately replace it with subjectivism. To do so would be a bit like Einstein realising that Newton was a bit wrong on certain things and deciding that the universe was sneezed out the nose of a fruit bat. If we think like that, what's the point of asking what weird science is telling us? Just believe whatever the hell you want. That's what SR says, and good luck.

Kind of sounds like all people are going off their subjective experience of reality.

Of course, in a sense we are. You have your reality and I have mine. That doesn't mean there is nothing real. In fact it is more evidence that there are separate human minds thinking different things. The more I write here, the more I tune in to how often an observation like this is used to postulate an obscure idea, whilst the most obvious fact about it is ignored. The whole point of philosophy and science is to discuss and experiment and see if we can, as a community, work out more than we can know by ourselves.

Where does this line of thinking take you? In other words, how does it serve you? If we were discussing this a hundred years ago and I described some of the technologies in existence today, you'd think I was nuts.

Again, there is a very big difference between saying that some things that were thought to be impossible are now known to be possible and saying that anything is possible if you just believe it enough.

I'm going to take a different route than wolfgang on this one. You should doubt everything. If you continuously doubt everything, you never land on a firm set of laws or principles that work absolutely. Most skeptics don't do this... they doubt what they never believed in the first place, but rarely look at what they do believe.

I'm astounded to see that we agree pretty well here. Unfortunately, I'm finding it a lot harder than I thought it would be. How do you doubt everything? I'm surprised you're saying this because I thought IM and LoA were about using belief positively, and doubt would surely sabotage your intentions, wouldn't it? Oh, I see from the following that you don't see it that way:

Subjective reality points out that we are not perceiving the actual reality. What that actual reality is can only be speculated. So "SR" doesn't ask anyone to believe anything, rather to look at what they do believe and how that effects their life. It goes further than "positive thinking' or something to point out that how we perceive things actually changes the phenomena we perceive.

I'm happy with the first part, but I see SR used as a basis for a great deal of deliberate believing, intention to manifest things with chanting and magick and stuff. The second bit is rather weird. If we don't know what 'actual' reality is, our perception of it doesn't change it, necessarily, it just changes our perception. It's there that the thing gets directive. I agree that I can change how I think about an object. I can realise that the names I give it are just labels and might not be part of its actuality. But that doesn't mean that if I give it a different name it will behave differently. I can see a million dollars as just so much paper, or an idea human beings agree means a certain thing. LoA teaches you that if you intend to get it, you'll get it, and the more you believe in it the better.

As I said before, this is about looking at beliefs, many of which we've been conditioned to accept, and choosing what we want to perceive in reality. It does not require the suspension of reason.

I can't see what you do with your reasoning once you just choose what to perceive. Ah no, I'm beginning to.