Advanced LOA proof and practice.

[Eisho]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

So there are limits. For instance, perhaps I can't make the sun disappear, but I could possibly make a wide variety of my personal problems disappear. You see?

Yes, I do see. So how would you define LoA then? Are you not forced to conclude that the LoA is the ability to solve problems that you have the ability to solve? That it is the ability to attract into your life things that you have the ability to attract into your life?

Cheers,

Eisho

[Eisho]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

That is correct too.

The key point however is what you've missed. The more a person can appreciate that multiple perspectives on reality are possible, the more he will realise that what he perceives as reality is merely his perception, and what he thinks of as reality, is merely his thought.

The more he realises that what he perceives as reality is merely his perception, and that what he thinks of as reality is merely his thought, the more he will be interested in exploring how he may adjust his perceptions and his thoughts.

The more he is interested in those explorations, the more he will become able to make those adjustments. Therefore the more he is able to influence and direct and create his reality in ways that are pleasing to himself.

Okay. This is something that is becoming increasingly confusing for me given that you are coming from a Buddhist perspective. Who is this person that is able to perceive reality? Who is this person that can think of reality? Who is this person that is self-aware? Who is this person interested in exploration? Who is this person able to make adjustments? Who is this person who is able to create his reality?

Cheers,

Eisho

[Eisho]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

All your "vehicles" are thought-driven. Therefore they are also the workings of the LOA. That's what you're not seeing.

For example, you may decide: "To become `better' in [ ], I will ... exercise regularly .... make new friends ... relax more ..... pray to God .... take a time management course ..... work harder .... take a walk ..... buy a new camera .... be kind to animals .... keep my desk tidy".

But all these activities are processes of your consciousness. All these activities are driven by your mind. In fact, the very decision to pursue any of these activities is also a process of your mind. The belief that any of these activities will help you, is a belief, and therefore a process of your mind.

Once you understand that the mind is the be-all and end-all, you may well see that you might as well cut to the chase and get to the root of the issue, whatever your issue may be. And the root is always in your own mind.

Even the idea of "better" is in your mind. You say that the goal is to become "better". What is "better"? What is "worse"? Why? What are your reasons for believing or feeling this? Once again ... it goes back to your own mind.

The decision to become better is conscious and requires thought. Disciplining yourself requires thought. The result is action that requires no thought. This is Buddha Nature. There is no thought because there is no thing to think.

You seem caught in the process of meditation and inquiry and are not free of it. What you are describing is the path to liberation, not the experience of liberation itself.

Cheers,

Eisho

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Eisho

In my opinion though the active part we play is already colored for us. We are already molded. Already pre-disposed.

How two people react to the 'truth' of the LoA was decided for each of us a long time ago. How two people react to the 'truth' that our minds create our reality was similarly decided.

Cheers,

Eisho

Hello Eisho. I'd like to understand what you mean about the prior 'coloring' and molding - are you talking orthodox physics & biology, or something else?

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Well, I could tell you some conscious goals I have accomplished, if you wish. These are things I have consciously decided I wanted and work towards. You can call this the "LOA" if you wish.

I'm the first in my family to go to college, and I'm doing very well. I've more than doubled my income in the past twelve months with a new career and generated passive income. I have a very happy relationship with a woman I very much enjoy. I just got back from Canada, finally the first time I have traveled out of the USA, and I learned how to snowboard.

So yay for conscious direction! Yay for not living life on autopilot!

I could continue, but I don't feel like scanning images of my salary stubs. Forgive me.

Are these all attributable to merely my own actions? Seriously ... of course not, but it wouldn't of happened on autopilot either.

Yeah, yay for conscious direction, and yay for you Daffy. I've just caught up with your side of the conversation here and we are almost exactly on the same line of reasoning about all this, so I won't butt in too much. I just wanted to reiterate that point and expand on it too. The "look what X has provided me" argument of practitioners of the LoA is just one example of confirmation bias that can be witnessed being performed by many magical thinkers. Go on a Christian forum, and not only will you find people saying that Jesus sucks, you'll find a lot of born-again types telling you how blessed their lives have become since they invited the one son of god into their lives.

There is quite a lot of evidence that this is the reality behind a lot of irrational beliefs. Another example is in the placebo function of alternative medicines. Again, as you argue that LoA can have good effects, I'm not saying that alt med never works for physical reasons, and nor am I saying that if it works via placebo that should be a reason to dismiss it or ban it from our store shelves, but when investigated, a lot of supposed cures do absolutely nothing and rely on the fact that we tend to get well again without any treatment. If we took nothing, we'd get better. If we took the potion of the wise woman, we get better, but because it is our tradition to take the potion, and because we don't apply empirical testing, we never learn the truth about the potion - and even start to panic when we can't get any, or paying large quantities of our cash for it.

But that was a side issue - it's just vaguely related to the thing I noticed - that you and I haven't been posting 5 times a day about every little success in our lives, and attributing it to "Bothering to get off my arse today" or "Ignoring my list of jobs while I indulge myself in a bit of an online rant" or "Doing the jobs on my list" instead of having a rant online. Why? Well, because we're not so desperate to grab at indefensible "reasons" for everything; we understand that things are more complex than what our childish whimsy thinks about life; we listen to the arguments (boring and orthodox though they might seem to some) that there are planets and galaxies and a fossil record and our own genetic code and accidents and so on, rather than just dreaming everything into existence before our very eyes, and then - bizarrest of all - appealing to the objective truth of "Quantum Mechanics" written about on the "internet" to prove our circular argument.

Anyway, I appreciate your posts here very much, Daffy.

[Eisho]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

It's possible Eisho is mistaken.

If a child comes to me and says, "Cats run away when dogs chase them, but cats grow wings and fly away when a bear chases them," is it accurate to say that this child's reality is "no more or no less true?" I think it's fair to say the child's perception of reality is skewed, and it is indeed less true.

Now sure, you can go into the argument that "flying away" is just a concept and all concepts are in our mind and so on, but that's just what I call "changing the goal posts." If we use that logic, then everything is true and everything is false.

There must be an absolute reality. Two of the most popular thoughts are:

a) reality is subjective, everyone is right in their own way, which is the objective truth.
b) reality is objective, and many are wrong about it.

Just to clarify my point. Originally I was stating that 'reality' viewed at a quantum level is no less (or more) true that 'reality' viewed at an atomic level or that at a molecular level. Each level provides us with a different take on 'reality'. What I was trying to say is that what is true at the molecular level, for example, may not be true at the sub-atomic level but that neither of these are therefore necessarily incorrect.

Cheers,

Eisho

[Eisho]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Hello Eisho. I'd like to understand what you mean about the prior 'coloring' and molding - are you talking orthodox physics & biology, or something else?

I'm talking about the whole gamut of influences that shape us: DNA as well as our social and cultural conditioning and the interaction between the two.

Cheers,

Eisho

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Eisho

Just to clarify my point. Originally I was stating that 'reality' viewed at a quantum level is no less (or more) true that 'reality' viewed at an atomic level or that at a molecular level. Each level provides us with a different take on 'reality'. What I was trying to say is that what is true at the molecular level, for example, may not be true at the sub-atomic level but that neither of these are therefore necessarily incorrect.

I see. Thanks for the clarification. I was responding to a different idea when I originally mentioned your name.

And just for my own clarification on an issue -- I never meant to say (and I don't believe I did) that all of our success in life is because of our actions. Of course that's not true. That would indeed be short-sighted.

I was born in the USA and that fact alone has made it much easier to become more successful (how I define success) than others born in worst situations. The Universe has been around long before I came into consciousness as a human being (who knows what I was before that, if anything, except a cell).

However, there are plenty of unsuccessful people in the USA. Having the "Universe" assist you (or being "lucky") is not enough. We need to be able to act on the opportunities given to us, so in that sense, we are responsible for our successes and defeats, and we can give ourselves a pat on the back. We are given many gifts in life but we need to unwrap and use them.

To John -- thanks, I enjoy your posts too, though ALG seems to like you even more!

I have noticed it is hard to discuss LOA sometimes, because so many people have many different ideas of what LOA is and how it works. From what I've heard from some people, LOA is nothing more than what I would call "setting goals." But from others, LOA sounds more like a magical thing, or something similar to what I call "prayer." And there are many more definitions than those two.

To ALG -- thanks for the links. I have read some of your blog posts in the past. It's interesting that you start a new one every so often, instead of continuing with just one.

[Eisho]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I have noticed it is hard to discuss LOA sometimes, because so many people have many different ideas of what LOA is and how it works. From what I've heard from some people, LOA is nothing more than what I would call "setting goals." But from others, LOA sounds more like a magical thing, or something similar to what I call "prayer." And there are many more definitions than those two.

I have noticed the same thing and have the same problem...and this in part leads me to conclude that it doesn't really mean anything and is just a phrase used randomly by different people to mean different things. Personally I liken it to the reticular activating system...but in that case I don't know why people don't just call it the reticular activating system. The idea that you attract things rather than simply see things seems to be where people get stuck. I certainly don't subscribe to the idea of LoA as put forward in The Secret. But then I think a sense of the mystical is important for some people and maybe that is the most important thing to them.

Cheers,

Eisho

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by cylon

I've also been having things like if the tv is on and I'm talking, I'll say something and about a second later, the tv says the exact same thing I just said. My friends may look at me and go "that was weird". Of course I just shut up, and think "yikes, more and more weirdness."

Last night I was watching Tony Bourdain's trip along the Texas/Mexico border, and suddenly had an intense craving for nachos. Mere seconds after this thought came to me, not only did the subject of nachos come up, but in the form of a visit to their birthplace!!!!

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I have noticed it is hard to discuss LOA sometimes, because so many people have many different ideas of what LOA is and how it works. From what I've heard from some people, LOA is nothing more than what I would call "setting goals." But from others, LOA sounds more like a magical thing, or something similar to what I call "prayer." And there are many more definitions than those two.

Originally Posted by Eisho

I have noticed the same thing and have the same problem...and this in part leads me to conclude that it doesn't really mean anything and is just a phrase used randomly by different people to mean different things. Personally I liken it to the reticular activating system...but in that case I don't know why people don't just call it the reticular activating system. The idea that you attract things rather than simply see things seems to be where people get stuck. I certainly don't subscribe to the idea of LoA as put forward in The Secret. But then I think a sense of the mystical is important for some people and maybe that is the most important thing to them.

Cheers,

Eisho

Daffy Duck and Eisho, I am so glad the pink unicorn brought us together like this, and here of all places! It must be for some great undertaking.

[Daffy Duck]

I thought it was a Blue Unicorn, myself.

I was looking at some older topics, and I noticed many of the things ALG and I talked about were already discussed here: Can I make anime characters come to life?

I'm sure they've already been discussed many times. These discussions are like one big hula hoop.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I thought it was a Blue Unicorn, myself.

Burn, Heretic!

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Eisho

Yes, I do see. So how would you define LoA then? Are you not forced to conclude that the LoA is the ability to solve problems that you have the ability to solve? That it is the ability to attract into your life things that you have the ability to attract into your life?

Well, the first important point here is that the ability is not static. It can be grown; it can be developed; it can be consciously applied for different purposes; there are different methods etc.

The second important point is that you can't help using it (because you can't help thinking every day). Since you can't help thinking every day, you might as well train yourself to think as well as you can.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Eisho

Okay. This is something that is becoming increasingly confusing for me given that you are coming from a Buddhist perspective. Who is this person that is able to perceive reality? Who is this person that can think of reality? Who is this person that is self-aware? Who is this person interested in exploration? Who is this person able to make adjustments? Who is this person who is able to create his reality?

These are quite interesting questions which I have explored in a number of different ways, experientially as well as by reading.

From a practical point of view, one book I found quite helpful was "The Voice of Knowledge" by Don Miguel Ruiz. By the way, this is not an overt "LOA" book - you won't find the phrase "Law of Attraction" even once in it.

The way Don presents it, there is a storyteller in your head (the voice of your own thoughts, of course). This storyteller was not always there (for example, it was not there when you were a very young child), but it gradually plants itself there, as you grow up and learn words & language.

By a certain age, the storyteller will be well-established in your head. And every day, it is nattering, nattering, chatting, talking, commenting endlessly on things happening in your llife. The storyteller is such an intimate part of you, that you will regularly mistake it for yourself. And you will regularly mistake its story, as reality.

Now, Don goes on to suggest that you should recognise the storyteller as merely a storyteller. And that what it says is merely a story. Therefore it is up to you to decide whether you wish to believe the story or not. And if you constantly remember that the storyteller is merely a storyteller, then you retain the power to tell the storyteller to keep quiet, when you want it to keep quiet.

However, Don also has the following suggestion. Since you are effectively trapped in your own story (unless perhaps you attain enlightenment, I imagine), you might as well as take control of the story and make it pleasing to yourself. Since what you perceive as reality is really just the story narrated by your storyteller, what you're effectively going to do is make your reality pleasing to yourself.

And of course, that's the Law of Attraction.

Now there's a crucial point here, that many will miss. So I will elaborate on it somewhat.

Earlier, I gave the example of how Impaul99 had toyed with thoughts of rude people, and shortly after, manifested lots of rude people in his reality. Daffy Duck responded along these lines: "Well, yes, but that's just perception."

INDEED it is perception. What I suspect Daffy doesn't quite appreciate is that it's ALL perception anyway. Impaul99, BEFORE doing his experiment, was perceiving his reality. Impaul99, AFTER doing his experiment, was perceiving his reality. You could say that his reality changed, or you could say that his perception changed, but in the end the effect is the same.

Let me say that in a few different ways:

1. You never, ever perceive reality other than as you perceive it.

2. Your reality will never be anything other than whatever you perceive it to be.

3. Your reality IS your perception.

Therefore to dismiss the LOA as some kind of perception trick or some kind of self-delusion is to miss the point altogether. Your reality is always your perception.

Altering your perception therefore genuinely alters your reality, BECAUSE your reality is always your perception of it (WHETHER you have ever even heard of the LOA or not).

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Eisho

The decision to become better is conscious and requires thought. Disciplining yourself requires thought. The result is action that requires no thought. This is Buddha Nature. There is no thought because there is no thing to think.

You seem caught in the process of meditation and inquiry and are not free of it. What you are describing is the path to liberation, not the experience of liberation itself.

You seem to be saying that I have not attained buddhahood yet.

I agree.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Eisho

I have noticed the same thing and have the same problem...and this in part leads me to conclude that it doesn't really mean anything and is just a phrase used randomly by different people to mean different things.

Yup ... It is a very broad concept, and like any other broad concept - "democracy", "morals", "God", "intelligence", "art" - people will have different understandings of it.

Concepts, after all, are creations of the mind, and everyone has one of those.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You could say that his reality changed, or you could say that his perception changed, but in the end the effect is the same.

The effect is the same, but only in his head, because it's his perception. If my perception is that ALG died yesterday, it would only be my perception. It wouldn't be "objective truth," unless you're posting from the dead, in which case don't you have something better to do?

You have your reality, and I have my reality, but have you considered there might be something else called The Reality? Perhaps this is God's Reality?

I love Don Miguel Ruiz's books. The Four Agreements and the Mastery of Love are in the top 5 of my favorite books. The Voice of Knowledge was also very good, though I felt he was basically just repeating material from earlier books.

[yoopersmith]

I choose to believe the LOA works for me...and it has and does continue to work for me.

I don't feel the need to change anyone's mind about it...that's not my business.

Gregg Bear, in his novel "Blood Music", wrote an example that I find funny and interesting.

The gist is someone created some little nano scale creatures and evloved very quickly and became a new form of consciouness in form in North America...they "consumed" many people and there where macro-sized bacteria forms everywhere...

...ok so the US had nukes overseas...and they tried to nuke the big bacteria...it worked once and killed a large chunk of the coloney.

Since the first nuke worked...they tried again...and the 2nd and all nukes that followed were "duds"...

Bear says this was due to the fact that the colony had more "observers" in North American and they were able to change reality so nukes no longer worked...

I thought that was a interesting idea...and I laughed my ASS off when I read it.

Oh yeah...just because people are not around to observe...there are microscopic observers just about everywhere on this planet, so I guess they are keeping my bedroom warm for me

Fun stuff...what every you want to believe this is just fun stuff...THANKS!

[Wax Frog]

Ever read the original short story? Different ending, just as much fun!

[yoopersmith]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

Ever read the original short story? Different ending, just as much fun!

Nope...I thought it ended about the time the creator was in the tub or something and then he expanded from there??? I read something about the short story but never went looking for it.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by yoopersmith

Nope...I thought it ended about the time the creator was in the tub or something and then he expanded from there??? I read something about the short story but never went looking for it.

Do you really want me to spoil it?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

You have your reality, and I have my reality, but have you considered there might be something else called The Reality? Perhaps this is God's Reality?

Yes. And whatever you ever know, understand or sense The Reality to be, is whatever you know, understand or sense The Reality to be. In other words, it's still your perception.

The effect is the same, but only in his head,

There is nothing you know of your reality which is not "in your head". You see?

It doesn't matter whether you investigate a particular matter or question, by doing a science experiment; or reading a book; or observing with your five senses; or discussing with an expert; or asking your mother.

In the end, whatever the outcome of all those things (science experiment; book reading; sensory observation; discussion; mother talk), the outcome is as you perceive it to be.

If my perception is that ALG died yesterday, it would only be my perception. It wouldn't be "objective truth," unless you're posting from the dead, in which case don't you have something better to do?

There is a concept of relative truth. It is explained quite well in some Buddhist books. It is also connected with another Buddhist concept called "dependent arising". I'll elaborate a little.

A statement can be true (or false), relatively. However, the same statement may not be true (or false), absolutely. What does this mean? Well, to put it simply, every thing takes reference from something else (or many other things).

When you seek to ascertain the truth or falseness of a thing, you're really checking it against assorted criteria. The point here is that:

(a) your selection of those criteria is subjective;
(b) the criteria is non-permanent and also shifts and changes according to perception.

(Traced down in science to a very fundamental and basic form, what we get is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. But that perhaps is best left for a separate discussion).

Let's look at the statement "ALG died yesterday". Whether this statement is relatively true or not, depends on a number of things. It depends on what you mean by "ALG" - and in a earlier post, I had already discussed briefly the question "What is a person?". I think you would have seen that the answer is not that straightforward.

The validity of the statement also depends on what is meant by "death". AND it depends on what you mean by "yesterday".

All of this may sound crazy - is the statement "ALG died yesterday" really so controversial? But you may get some better idea of what I mean, when you read what Albert Einstein had to say in 1955, shortly after his friend Michele Besso died. (I'm sure you can see how this example corresponds very closely to the "ALG died yesterday" example.:

Einstein: The Formative Years, 1879-1909 - Google Book Search

"Now he has preceded me a bit even in departing from this strange world. This means nothing. For us believing physicists, the divide between past, present and future has only the significance of an illusion, albeit a persistent one"

So there you go. If the divide between past, present and future has only the significance of an illusion, then the "yesterday" element in the statement "ALG died YESTERDAY" is already quite controversial.

I do recommend that you click on the link, and read not just the quote, but the discussion in the paragraphs surrounding it. (Oh, by the way, that's not a LOA / New Age book).

I could agree with you that ALG did not die yesterday ... IF we had a common understanding of "ALG", "death" and "yesterday". This is heavily dependent on that consideration.

----------------------

Where does this leave us? Let's take a few steps back.

1. Your argument is that there's some kind of objective reality, not dependent on a person's perception or consciousness.

2. I'm showing you how tenuous that proposition is. Even the validity or invalidity of an apparently straightforward statement like "ALG died yesterday" really depends on various concepts.

3. And each concept is built on other concepts which are built on other concepts which are built on other concepts ....

4. And all concepts arise in the mind.

[Angela]

Acting Like Godot, I'm so glad that you are here with me. You just tickle the heck out of me, really.

[luckyluciano]

"matter does not exist unless observed".......maybe I am stupid but there were plenty of people that did not observe the matter called an atom bomb which was dropped over Japan and they still felt its existence. Maybe I am stupid but there were plenty of people who did not observe the poisonous gasses which caused the Holocost yet they still felt & feel its existence. ETC, ETC, ETC,

Without alot of delusional nonsense and verbal vomit, what exactly are you trying to say?

[Acting Like Godot]

LOL, I guess this discussion is too difficult for you.

But if you're interested, do reread points 13 and 14 of Post 52.

[TheOptimist]

So this would mean, if I don't "observe" me and all around me, the electrons would get back into their natural flow wich is the perfectness/godness in every detail ---- probably a possible explanation of enlightenedment

[Acting Like Godot]

It's important to appreciate that neither the "consciousness causes collapse" theory nor the Copenhagen interpretation are the only available theories in this area. There are a couple of other competing theories, and some of these other theories do not say that any form of consciousness is required.

One example is the Bohm interpretation. However, it paints its own odd picture of reality, one which arguably also provides some basis for the existence of the Law of Attraction.

How? Well the Bohm interpretation requires that the principle of non-locality and the concept of quantum entanglement be true. And what is the principle of non-locality; what is the concept of quantum entanglement?

Here we go:

Nonlocality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Einstein had colourfully described this as "spooky action at a distance".

To put it simply, if the Bohm interpretation is true, then these are the implications.

If two subatomic particles collide with each other, they experience quantum entanglement. At any time after that collision, changes in behaviour in one particle will instantaneously (or more precise, at the speed of light) affect the other particle's behaviour, regardless of distance, and regardless of the time that has elapsed since the collision.

Let me explain that again. Suppose one subatomic particle collided with another subatomic particle 1,000,000 years ago. TODAY, wherever either of the two particles may now be in the universe, changes in the behaviour of one particle will instantly affect the behaviour of the other particle, wherever that 2nd particle is in the universe now.

The implications are quite astounding. I'll just give one example:

1. Suppose I think about something.

2. Thinking causes electrical activity in my brain.

3. Electrical activity really means the movement of electrons.

4. Electrons are subatomic particles.

5. As I think, I cause electrical activity in my brain, and as the electrons move, every electron is instantly affecting every other subatomic particle that it has ever collided with, since the beginning of time, and regardless of where those other subatomic particles now are, in the universe.

6. As those subatomic particles get affected, their behaviour changes. As their behaviour changes, they also instantaneously affect every other particle which they have ever collided with, since the beginning of time.

Now, let me scare all of you by bringing the Big Bang theory.

This physics theory says that long, long ago, the universe was very, very dense. All the energy & matter that exists today already existed then, but it was all packed intensely densely together. It all then exploded and started expanding (and the universe continues expanding today):

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity.

What's the relevance of this, for the purposes of our current discussion?

Well, if all matter was once packed together at infinite intensity, it means that an infinite number of subatomic particles have collided with each other. You might say, for example, that all the subatomic particles have experienced quantum entanglement.

Since they have experienced quantum entanglement, changes in the behaviour of any subatomic particle immediately affects an infinitely large number of other subatomic particles. They are forever entangled, regardless of space and time.

In other words, the entire universe is intimately connected with itself.

So let's run my scenario again.

1. Suppose I think about something.

2. Thinking causes electrical activity in my brain.

3. Electrical activity really means the movement of electrons.

4. Electrons are subatomic particles.

5. As I think, I cause electrical activity in my brain, and as the electrons move, every electron is instantly affecting every other subatomic particle in the universe.

By thinking, I therefore affect the entire universe.

[Arboretor]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

If two subatomic particles collide with each other, they experience quantum entanglement. At any time after that collision, changes in behaviour in one particle will instantaneously (or more precise, at the speed of light) affect the other particle's behaviour, regardless of distance, and regardless of the time that has elapsed since the collision.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

5. As I think, I cause electrical activity in my brain, and as the electrons move, every electron is instantly affecting every other subatomic particle in the universe.

Just to be precise: as you said above, the change happens with the speed of light, not instantly. (I think this is still the general opinion of physicists.)

[luckyluciano]

Your theories and all the theories in the universe does not change the REALITY that just because you are not observing matter does not mean it does not exist. This is the same byproduct that drives all religeous fanatics, wanting to believe in something because of the fear of death.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Yes. And whatever you ever know, understand or sense The Reality to be, is whatever you know, understand or sense The Reality to be.

No, you're speaking again of My Reality, not The Reality. The Reality exists outside of perception. It was here before humans and would still be here after humans. Many things exist that we have no idea of. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Now sure, you can say "well that's your perception of the unknown in The Reality," but that's really just sidestepping my question, in which case we may be talking about two different things.

The Reality would have to be whatever was here before I had any shred of existence physically, mentally, spiritually, or in any sense (which may not be possible if I've always existed in some sense, which seems to be what your theory depends on).

I don't think it's possible for a human to understand or observe The Reality. Of course, this is just a concept. All we can see is an illusion. Of course, this is just a concept. If anything could see The Reality, it would be God. Of course, this is just a concept. See, now I'm using that circular logic stuff and discussing something that really has no practical purpose. Of course, this is just a concept.

There is nothing you know of your reality which is not "in your head". You see? [...] the outcome is as you perceive it to be.

Yeah, I called it perception.

Your argument is that there's some kind of objective reality, not dependent on a person's perception or consciousness.

I'm showing you how tenuous that proposition is.

I assume there is an objective reality, whereas you assume there is not (or that the idea is tenuous).

If everything is perception, then there is no Objective/Absolute truth. But if we are claiming that everything is a perception, then that is an absolute truth, and now we have a paradox.

I think your idea of concepts could be incorrect, an illusion if you will, albeit a persistent one, that uses itself to make everything it hears fit in with itself.

And all concepts arise in the mind.

What is the mind?

What was there before the mind? If you say, "there is nothing before the mind, since time is an illusion," then I must ask if you're begging the question.

Side-question for you ALG, or anyone: Do you guys ever get tired of discussing scientific theories or philosophy? I've read many things in my short human life and have had thousands of discussions, but eventually for me it all comes down to what I call the "philosopher's dilemma." This dilemma basically states that we really don't know much of anything, so we can either continue thinking about it hard everyday and come up with no real new answers (just more educated guesses), or just live in the so-called illusion and enjoy it. Of course, it's possible to do both, but I like to focus on the latter sometimes more than the former.

I don't mean to discredit forward thinking, but for me personally, I don't like to obsess over it like some others do. Even this conservation is a bit of a drag, sometimes. Not because of the people involved, but because of the subject itself. I've had talks like this many times before, with people who quote even more sources and go into more detail than ALG (who seems to do it more than anyone else on this particular forum). And then I ask myself -- why do we go in these circles? And why do ALG and I keep talking after we have said our goodbyes?

So, ALG, ultimately in a discussion, there will be a point where the participants have to go their separate ways, and we probably have come to it. Again.