Can You Convert Me To I.m. ???

[maxdof]

Originally Posted by torilink

the brain processes information, that's it. You assume you are your physical body (a brain).

but.....Is that what you truly are?

If you are more than a brain, then perhaps what you truly are controls everything??

just something to consider.

It is not because I will assume something wrong that I will control the universe!

Ah! Funny too!

[maxdof]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

What, you don't believe in the nonlocal abilities of the human mind?

Does this expression just make sense?

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Let me refer you to Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Laureate for Physics, and long-time professor at Cambridge University.

For many years now, Professor Brian Josephson has devoted his life to the study of telepathy.

Doesn't prove it exists. Telepathy...

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Don't you think it's really a little ironic? The skeptics here keep telling me to stop being silly & unscientific, yet they offer no evidence or substantiation for their own opinions.

You refer to the fact that Josephson is part of Skeptical Investigations - Home Page ? More ironically

"In fact, the so-called Association for Skeptical Investigation is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and criticisms of paranormal studies. Members of the group include: Larry Dossey, M.D., Brian Josephson, Ph.D., Stanley Krippner, Ph.D., Ed May, Ph.D., Adrian Parker, Ph.D., Dean Radin, Ph.D., Gary Schwartz, Ph.D., and Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. Of these, in my opinion, only Krippner is fair-minded when it comes to accepting criticism. (The Skeptical Investigations pages are obviously not maintained, as at least two of those who are listed as associates are deceased, Montague Keen and Marcello Truzzi. However, Gary Schwartz, in a published paper, refers to several of the deceased—including William James!—as “departed hypothesized co-investigators,” so perhaps the group considers the spirits of Keen and Truzzi as active investigators.)"

Source: Internet Bunk: Skeptical Investigations

A little more about Josephson :
Source: Commentary, September 5, 2003 — Benveniste and Josephson on Abandoning Science, Denmark Gets Our Reject, Talking Pots Again, APS on Texas, AOL Into Astrology, Official Astrology in Portugal, Galileo on Con-Artists, Curing Spiky Hair, Rationality

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Meanwhile, it is I who keeps providing links and info to scientific studies; news reports on hypnosis;

Hypnosys, who's talking about hypnosys? There are many proofs of Hypnosys, right here, on Youtube, if Telepathy, or other old scam, or new age scam, would exist, someone would have master it, at least one person, in the whole world? Why no one shows us on Youtube how great it is? Maybe these guys are very shy? Why don't we find them with remote vision?

[maxdof]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I who keeps providing links and info to [...].

From what I see, you only provide controversal information.

My previous post has not yet been approved. Just wanted to add that Josephson has is nobel on theoretical studies.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by maxdof

From what I see, you only provide controversal information.

Do you mean that the information is controversial, or do you mean that you don't understand it and haven't tried?

And which part are you struggling with?

Here. I'll give you two simple experiments. Nothing controversial about them. They are well-known experiments done by a Harvard professor a couple of decades ago. The guy is alive and kicking and continues to teach at Harvard.

First Experiment

Two groups of people are given rats. They are asked to train their rats to run through a maze.

The first group of experimenters are told that their rats have been specially bred for their superior navigational ability. The 2nd group of experimenters are told that their rats belong to a breed which are particularly poor at navigation.

After the experimenters have finished training their rats, the rats are made to figure their way through a maze. The rats are timed. It is discovered that the Group 1 rats get through the maze much faster than the Group 2 rats.

However, the experimenters had been told a pack of lies. None of the rats had been specially bred for anything.

The only difference was that the Group 1 experimenters and the Group 2 experimenters had different beliefs. The Group 1 experimenters believed their rats to be naturally clever at mazes. The Group 2 experimenters believed their rats to be naturally stupid at mazes.

Their thoughts became reality. The Group 1 rats did much better than the Group 2 rats. Some of the Group 2 rats never made it through the maze at all.

The Second Experiment

All the kids in the school take an IQ test, which was disguised as a test that would predict "intellectual blooming".

All the kids were then divided into different classes, such that every class had a mix of above-average, average, and below-average children (in terms of IQ scores).

Within each class, some children were randomly chosen. The teachers were told that these children were predicted to "intellectually bloom" within the next eight months.

Again the teachers had been lied to. The so-called "intellectual bloomers" were merely a randomly chosen group.

Nevertheless the unsuspecting teachers believed what they were told. Eight months later, all the children retook an IQ test. The "intellectual bloomers" group showed a significantly greater gain in IQ score than all the other children.

In other words, the teachers' false beliefs nevertheless translated into actual reality, eight months later. Kids believed by their teachers to be smart (even when their original IQ scores were below average) indeed became smart.

The teachers' thoughts became reality again.

Some Comments

It's interesting to note that these studies were done in the 1960s, when IQ was widely believed to be genetic. In other words, teachers in those times would not have believed that IQ could be increased by any teaching methods, and would not have endeavoured to do so, and would not have even thought it possible to do so.

Nevertheless their false beliefs that certain children were smarter than others became reality. Those children believed to be smarter, indeed significantly increased their IQ scores within eight months.

Another simple example of beliefs affecting reality.

The Harvard professor behind these experiments is Prof Robert Rosenthal. More information here:

http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_121.asp

[nightdiamond]

Hi happy people,

Acting Like Godot- I just posted a post indicating the view in neuroscience that consciousness may exist independently of the brain. Again the post is long, and there is a server problem. You'll have to wait a little, before the post appears.

And,

maxdof Quote:
Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot
I who keeps providing links and info to [...].

From what I see, you only provide controversal information.

My previous post has not yet been approved. Just wanted to add that Josephson has is nobel on theoretical studies.

I know, but if Acting like Godot, wants to show that our minds can possibly exist outside of our bodies then by all means, let him!!
Seems like a worthwhile task to me, much better than "this is all there is" ...

I also like JWZ's attitude on I.M, right down the middle, giving some examples and being honest about it...

Take care...

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by maxdof

My previous post has not yet been approved. Just wanted to add that Josephson has is nobel on theoretical studies.

Theoretical physics, you mean. Yes, Josephson has the same Nobel Prize as Albert Einstein.

And your problem is .....?

[Lil Chris]

Isn't everything Theoretical based on the current information that is understood...

Gain more information and the theory changes... It was a fact that the world used to be flat. (it was only a theoretical fact of coarse)

[torilink]

Originally Posted by maxdof

It is not because I will assume something wrong that I will control the universe!

Ah! Funny too!

It would not be "You" that controls it - as in the egoic mind posting on these forums - it would be something else, a greater "You".

[maxdof]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Theoretical physics, you mean. Yes, Josephson has the same Nobel Prize as Albert Einstein.

And your problem is .....?

I wanted to outstand that you can hardly prove your point with theory.
I have no problem. Should I?

[maxdof]

Originally Posted by torilink

It would not be "You" that controls it - as in the egoic mind posting on these forums - it would be something else, a greater "You".

Of course, I understand.

[maxdof]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Do you mean that the information is controversial, or do you mean that you don't understand it and haven't tried?

And which part are you struggling with?

The information is controversial.
And I am not struggling ...should I? ...

[maxdof]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Here. I'll give you two simple experiments. Nothing controversial about them. They are well-known experiments done by a Harvard professor a couple of decades ago. The guy is alive and kicking and continues to teach at Harvard.

Dear ALG,

I will read with pleasure the link you provided me.
I've read your post and from what I've seen it proves only that what you are today is obviously from a part of your condition before. That your environement influences you, as a rat or a child, or even a proactive adult.
If everybody thinks I am good at PES, they will invite me to play, and I will become better (and good). If everybody tyhinks I'm crap, they won't and I wail stay bad. Lot of people do that.
Cheers,

Max

[Acting Like Godot]

Let's put it this way, Maxdof. I'll give you a broad overview, so you can see where you are, in this discussion. In a sense, we're going to take a helicopter up into the air, and survey the terrain, rather than squabble about each and every rock.

Here we go. I am breaking up my commentary into parts, so I hope they get through the server more quickly:

Science can prove nothing except what's provable according to the scientific method. The scientific method is a system of thought processes laid down by Karl Popper.

Things which cannot be proven by scientific methods include a whole bunch of things outside the scientific realm. That includes, for example, a huge collection of ideas in economics, history, business, psychology,geography, media studies, finance, art, sociology, accounting, theology, human resource management, political science, philosophy etc.

But I do not think that all the ideas in economics, history, business, psychology,geography, media studies, finance, art, sociology, accounting, theology, human resource management, political science, philosophy are thereby useless.

Other things which cannot be, or have not been proven, by scientific methods include ideas which are theoretically capable of being subject to the scientific method include ideas for which there are currently practical limitations to scientific testing - for example, scientists simply do not have the necessary technology yet, or there is a lack of funding, or there are too few scientists working on it etc.


--- to be continued

[Acting Like Godot]

Science, however, is potentially quite useful in understanding this hypothesis which, for convenience, we may refer to as the 'Law of Attraction'. Now of course, very few scientists will directly investigate LOA or use the term LOA. There are some (for example, Professor Fred Alan Wolf, who has a PhD in Physics and has taught in the University of London, the University of Paris, the Hahn-Meitner Institute for Nuclear Physics in Berlin, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and San Diego State University in the United States).
But they are few.

Notwithstanding this, there are many areas of science where scientists are interested in the role of consciousness, in the specific matters which they are studying.

So far I have highlighted a few of those areas. My interest really is seeing how the various areas, taken as a whole, can shed light on the hypothesis we call LOA.

Based on scientific research alone (that is, we exclude other areas of human experience and knowledge such as psychology, metaphysics, religion, personal experience etc):

We know, for instance, that hypnosis can produce effects in the human body that are quite inexplicable according to conventional medicine.

We also know from quantum physics that one event in one place can instantly affect another event in a distant place, and the second event can then instantly affect a 3rd, 4th, 5th event etc, also instantly.

We understand from the Big Bang theory coupled with quantum entanglement, that it is possible that the entire universe has experienced quantum entanglement, and therefore every bit of the universe has the potential to instantly affect every other bit.

We know that a significant branch of quantum physics considers it possible, even inevitable, that consciousness is required for the formation of all particles (whether as particles or waves) in the universe.

We have views from neuroscience, quite self-evident really, that everything we can know of reality is merely a construction of our own brain.

Etc etc. As I mentioned, this is only a few examples. I could give you more, or alternatively, I could point you to a convenient resource, such as No. 2 in this list which I had provided earlier.

--- To be continued

[Acting Like Godot]

Now, I suspect that if I were to give you 10, 20 or 30 specific examples of scientific studies which suggest that the LOA hypothesis could be true, in each case you will say, "But this particular study didn't really prove Point A, or had a particular Flaw B, and could be wrong because of Factor C" etc. And I might respond "Oh but you didn't consider this point, and you didn't understand that control which they put it, and here's another fact you know" etc etc. And we go on and on.

Now of course there are better studies and worse studies. The critical point you should understand here is that every scientific study is necessarily limited in scope and design.

Today if you google around, you will still find scientists arguing about whether global warming is really happening; or whether breastmilk really gives babies the benefits of X; or how much Vitamin C you should take per day; and whether using a handphone too much can lead to brain cancer; and will Drug XYZ really help to cure Disease ABC; and does Method X really work in helping to detect earthquakes. Etc etc etc.

In other words, a huge majority of scientific studies all have their controversies. It doesn't mean that all these studies are useless. Instead, each sheds a little more light on the topic as a whole, and taken as a whole, our understanding of the topic is improved.

And it is exactly the same with all the studies which in one way or another relate to human consciousness. Each study sheds a little more light on the topic as a whole, and taken as a whole, our understanding of the topic is improved.

--- to be continued

[Acting Like Godot]

Now, I think that if we survey the scientific field as a whole, we get quite compelling evidence that our thoughts affect our reality, to a far greater extent than is commonly realised.

To me, the fact that we have extremely acclaimed scientists who seriously believe that consciousness (thoughts, beliefs etc) can affect reality at least in certain "LOA-ish" or "paranormal-ish" ways suggests, at the bare minimum, that we mustn't be so quick to dismiss these ideas as 100%deluded.

The list of such scientists is actually quite long. They include, seriously speaking and with no exaggeration, some of the most eminent scientists of our time.

One such example is Sir Roger Penrose, whose books include:

1. Shadows of the Mind - A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness
2. The Emperor's New Mind
3. The Large, the Small and the Human Mind

From the title of these books, I suppose you can guess why I am mentioning them. Right now, I would just mention that Sir Roger Penrose can truly be said to be among the most eminent living scientists of our time - see this brief extract from Wikipedia about him:

Professor Sir Roger Penrose, OM, FRS (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology .... Penrose has been awarded many prizes for his contributions to science. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London in 1972. In 1975, Stephen Hawking and Penrose were jointly awarded the Eddington Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. In 1985, he was awarded the Royal Society Royal Medal. Along with Stephen Hawking, he was awarded the prestigious Wolf Foundation Prize for Physics in 1988. In 1989 he was awarded the Dirac Medal and Prize of the British Institute of Physics. In 1990 Penrose was awarded the Albert Einstein Medal for outstanding work related to the work of Albert Einstein by the Albert Einstein Society. In 1991, he was awarded the Naylor Prize of the London Mathematical Society. From 1992 to 1995 he served as President of the International Society on General Relativity and Gravitation. In 1994 he was knighted for services to science. In 1998, he was elected Foreign Associate of the United States National Academy of Sciences. In 2000 he was appointed to the Order of Merit. In 2004 he was awarded the De Morgan Medal for his wide and original contributions to mathematical physics .... In 2005 Penrose was awarded an honorary doctorate (Honoris Causa) by Warsaw University and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), and in 2006 by the University of York. He is also a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association.

I want to be clear that Penrose, AFAIK, has never said, "I believe in the LOA." Penrose, however, is quite clear on his view that there are some very intriguing relationships between human consciousness and physical reality. Among other things, he believes that human consciousness is actually a byproduct of quantum states (here I mean the activity of subatomic particles like quarks etc) on microtubules in the brain. He also subscribes to the "consciousness causes collapse" theory, which means that he is of the view that our consciousness is ultimately what creates matter and energy in the universe, out of mathematical probabilities or "non-existent" subatomic particles.

What I'm really doing here is to tell you that if you wish to dismiss LOA as nonsense, on the basis of your scientific understanding, the first thing you must grasp is that your scientific understanding, if it is at the level of the average man in the street, is actually way, way off from what science already knows or is currently theorising about.

---- to be continued

[Acting Like Godot]

And now, a brief interlude, while I respond to your comment here:

Originally Posted by maxdof

Dear ALG,

I will read with pleasure the link you provided me.
I've read your post and from what I've seen it proves only that what you are today is obviously from a part of your condition before. That your environement influences you, as a rat or a child, or even a proactive adult.
If everybody thinks I am good at PES, they will invite me to play, and I will become better (and good). If everybody tyhinks I'm crap, they won't and I wail stay bad. Lot of people do that.
Cheers,

Max

Here you are being unscientific and extrapolating wildly from Rosenthal's experiments. Let us be more rigorous in examining the study. All extraneous factors have already been controlled for. Thinking conservatively, and sticking extremely close to the facts, the narrower and therefore safer conclusions from the studies are as follows:

(a) If I am training rats on a maze, my belief that they are genetically good at this will lead to superior performance on their part. This holds true, even if my belief has no objective basis.

(b) If I am a teacher, my belief that my students are very bright will lead them to achieve higher IQ scores. This holds true, even if my belief has no objective basis.

Now, the obvious point is that if I had those beliefs, they probably affected my behaviour, when I interacted with the rats and children. Conventional reasoning would be that I had interacted with them in a different way, such that they delivered superior performance. The more interesting point is what I've mentioned before.

If I had a child and I told his teacher, "Please raise his IQ score within 8 months", it is quite likely that the teacher would say, "Mr ALG, that is crazy. I teach art, I don't raise IQ scores. Besides I never learned anything about how to raise IQ scores, when I was in the teachers' training college. Isn't IQ genetic?"

But if instead I lied to the teacher and said, "My child has already been tested, you know. He is extremely, extremely bright", and the teacher believes me, then what happens? The teacher is truly able to raise the child's IQ score. Even though she is just teaching Art, not getting him to practise IQ tests or anything like that.

The teacher doesn't even know that she is raising the kid's IQ score. If she had to write an essay on the topic, she may not even agree that it is possible to raise a child's IQ score. But her belief, and her belief alone (that the child is already extremely bright) is enough to drive everything that's necessary to make this become true. Whatever the "everything" comprises (which no one really knows). And quite regardless of the fact that her belief actually had no objectively "true" basis at all.

At this point, I'd just like to invite you to get a little imaginative. No scientific studies here, but just explore. IQ isn't supposed to be an easily changeable aspect of a human being - in that way, IQ is just like, say, a person's personality, or EQ, or innate creativity, or whatever.

What do you think would happen, if somehow you were tricked into believing that your child is a genius? Or that your employees were top performers (instead of the mediocre slobs that they are)? Or that your wife is the most wonderful wife a man could have? Or that you are a wildly talented person (instead of the slightly above-average person that you are).

Would the Rosenthal effect kick in? Would the belief translate into reality? Would your child become a genius? Would your employees become top performers? Would your wife become the most wonderful wife a man could have? Would you become a wildly talented person?

Of course, you wouldn't know how to make any of the above things happen. But then, in the rosenthal experiments, neither did the teachers nor the rat trainers. They didn't even know that they were supposed to prouce superior rats, or extra-bright children.

They just did so automatically. They were tricked, they simply believed, and their beliefs became reality.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by maxdof

Hypnosys, who's talking about hypnosys? There are many proofs of Hypnosys, right here, on Youtube, i

I am glad you agree.

Hypnosis is one of the main methods of LOA. LOA works on the basis that your thoughts and beliefs affect your reality, and hypnosis is one of the most direct means of altering your thoughts and beliefs at a deeper level.

Here's a startling long (yet partial) list of possible applications for hypnosis. Taken from here. I made a partial list only, because Steve's forum system is rejecting a full list (too long).

Building Self Esteem
Being Yourself Socially
Overcoming Shyness
Develop Optimism
Stay Calm with THAT Person
Perfect Body
Stage Fright
Watch Less TV
Victim Mentality
Positive Thinking
Shy Naked
Musicians & Singers Nerves
Stop Cursing / Swearing
Confidence in Class

Stop Gossiping
Exercise Motivation
Get Rid of Migraines
Tension Headaches
Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Teeth Grinding
Healthy Lifestyle
Tinnitus Treatment
Fast Natural Healing
Ease Eczema

Caring for the Terminally Ill
Gym Motivation
Infertility Hypnosis
Stop Nose Picking
MRI Scan Anxiety
Public Speaking Confidence
Improving Concentration and Focus
Creativity Booster
Language Learning
Brain Power
Inspirational Lives
Millionaire Mind
Enjoy Motherhood
Enjoy Housework
Life and Soul of the Party
Selling Yourself
Patient Parent
Confident Dancing
Academic Performance
Increase Your Luck
Inner Artist
Becoming a Leader
Awakening Intuition
Cultivate Compassion
Learn a Musical Instrument
Remember Names
New Dad
Negative People Shield
Find Your Passion
Team Player
Improve Objectivity
Gratitude Attitude
Think Thin
Chronic Pain Management
Pain Relief
Arthritis Pain Relief
Knee Pain Relief
Hip Pain Relief
Childbirth Hypnosis
Dental Anaesthesia
Glove Anaesthesia
Hand Levitation
Arm Catalepsy
Confident Hypnotherapist
Sexual Enhancement - Male
Sexual Enhancement - Female
Become Popular
Delayed Ejaculation
Choosing Mr Wrong
Fear of Elevators
Driving Test
Cure Spider Phobia
Fear of Water
Fear of the Dark
Golf - Hitting Over Hazards
Golf - Teeing Off
Golf - Putting
Golf - Perfect Swing
Overcoming Hypochondria
Overcome Jealousy
Writer's Block
Postnatal Depression
Masturbation Addiction
Body Dysmorphia
Obsessive Compulsive Cleaning
Work Life Balance
Declutter Your Life
Crystal Ball
Harmony with Nature
The Angry Bully
The Gossip
Ride Under the Ocean
Ride in a Space Ship
Ride on a Magic Carpet
History of Mankind