There is no Science Behind Intention-Manifestation

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

An obligatory response: did you manifest those results?

Did "I" manifest those results? I dunno did I?

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Try your hardest to show me the past, and all you'll do is show me part of the present. The past is purely in your imagination, a mental delusion you're choosing to subscribe to.

The effects of past actions are referenced and analyzed in order to learn anything.. otherwise how would you have any frame of reference to determine beneficial courses of action for the present?

In other words, wouldn't a belief that the past is all a delusion impact current actions negatively?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Aren't the the effects of past actions referenced and analyzed in order to learn _everything_? Otherwise how would you have any frame of reference to determine beneficial courses of action for the present?

In other words, wouldn't a belief that the past is all a delusion impact current actions negatively?

Analyzing the past or its effects is simply an abstraction to assist you in changing your actions and beliefs in the present. Your frame of reference is always a present-moment structure, a mental creation.

Imagine playing a computer game. Within your mind you may have a history of playing that game, a game world past if you will. Yet the game software is only simulating the present-moment reality of the game world. Your game world past doesn't actually exist anywhere in the current simulation -- it exists only in your imagination.

Now another player could come along and continue playing the game where you left off. They don't have your past memories, but they don't need them. They only need to analyze and understand the current state of the simulation. Referencing your past in the game might be helpful... but only to the extent that it helps the other player construct a more accurate model of the current game state.

The construct (i.e. the delusion) of a past is useful to the degree it sharpens your present-moment decisions. Sometimes the idea of a past is useful, such as when you feel you're headed in the right direction and building momentum. Other times it's an obstacle, such as when you're stagnating or declining in some way. In either situation though, it's what you think and feel in the here and now that matters. The present is the only place you have power.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

The past doesn't exist at all. It's merely a formless concept. Only the present is real.

Of course the past doesn't currently exist, that's why it's the past! - It existed (past tense).

You're entitled to your belief that every event outside of the present is just a fabrication of your consciousness in a given moment, but this is a belief too devoid of any rationality for me to subscribe to.

Granted, perceptions determine your thoughts and feelings about a particular event, and so have a great power over how you perceive the past. Perceptions are volatile, they change with age and experience, and thus it's only natural that over time your thoughts and feelings about the same event will be radically altered. However, although perceptions change, certain objective facts do not! For example your birth, place of education etc. To sum up: perceptions change, but historical facts do not.

Also, thoughts beyond my experiences are incomprehensible, therefore there has to be an objective reality. Otherwise I wouldn't even be able to think, since thought requires speech, and speech needs to be learned objectively.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

The present is the only place you have power.

That may be true, but the fact that the present is the only place we have power is no more to the point than the fact that someone fully awake has more power than someone who is asleep.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Radical

To sum up: perceptions change, but historical facts do not.

Also, thoughts beyond my experiences are incomprehensible, therefore there has to be an objective reality. Otherwise I wouldn't even be able to think, since thought requires speech, and speech needs to be learned objectively.

I know I shouldn't, but I love playing Devil's Advocate too much.

We must perceive a historical fact in order to recognize it. If perceptions change, then what is to keep that 'fact' from simply being how you happen to perceive it at that time?

I'll agree with you that thoughts beyond your experiences are incomprehensible. What defines the limits of your experiences, though? Your memory? Isn't our memory fallible? Doesn't our memory depend entirely upon your perceptions?

In fact, by your own admission, you are stating that you have experienced things which are outside of your memory. You stated that you were born, an event which you do not remember. Could it stand to reason that your experiences, which define your perceptions, could extend beyond your ability to observe?

I'm not trying to say that you're wrong. I'm just pointing out that there are ways to argue your point of view.

[Savage]

@Radical: Wouldn't you agree that it's more rational to remain skeptical over something that cannot be proven... as opposed to making a leap of faith and believing it's true just because you want it to be?

It seems to me that if you're going to lean one way or the other, it's better to fall on the side of assuming something doesn't exist until its existence is proven. Otherwise you may as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Since we can't prove that the past actually exists (or even that it ever did exist) without ultimately basing the whole argument on at least one unprovable assumption, logic would advise us to stay skeptical. If the past were a total delusion or if it changed from moment to moment, we'd never know the difference, so we can't rule out these possibilities until and unless we devise a way to prove them false.

Since we cannot measure or perceive the past through any of our physical senses -- we can only imagine its existence -- a fairly substantial leap of faith is required to assume the past is actually real.

I'm impressed that you're able to handle such a leap of faith. I just don't see how I can reasonably do that without some kind of logical proof. Believing that the past exists anywhere but my imagination just seems so airy fairy to me. If I start believing things are physically real just because I can imagine them, I might as well worshop the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Kristoffer]

Originally Posted by TheColonel

My theory is that whenever a person's identity is challenged, they defend. And 'definition of reality' falls squarely into a person's identity.

Many times, a decoy motive is used to explain the anger. Such as: "Somebody needs to protect all of the gullible masses who will be suckered into buying a bunch of useless nonsense."

Thanx, I think there is a lot truth in what you said.

[Brutha]

It's funny we keep debating an obvious matter of opinion. I think the only thing that actually bothers me about I-M is that people have slapped a name on it, called it a proven theory, and act like it was invented in the last few years.

It bothers me more that people come and belief that Newtonian Physic are a proven theory when we know since Einstein that Newtonian Physics doesn't work out. And especially when the same people attack IM because it doesn't conform with Newtonian Physics.

Sure theories that describe the real physical world can't be proven, therefore IM can't be proven.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

If I start believing things are physically real just because I can imagine them, I might as well worshop the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Well you openly believe in the astral world and other supernatural phenomena, don't you? Are they not merely imaginings?

Wouldn't you agree that a belief in time is somewhat more rational than a belief in mystical entities from another dimension?

We can perceive the results of past events through our senses, and we have a memory of the past event - a belief in the passage of time is the only logical assumption.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Radical

Wouldn't you agree that a belief in time is somewhat more rational than a belief in mystical entities from another dimension?

How, exactly, are you measuring rationality?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Radical

Wouldn't you agree that a belief in time is somewhat more rational than a belief in mystical entities from another dimension?

We can perceive the results of past events through our senses, and we have a memory of the past event - a belief in the passage of time is the only logical assumption.

Not that I'm very interested in this topic, but you're just not being scientific. You're just saying things which an uneducated village woman living in the 18th century could have said.

Go educate yourself here. Excerpt:

Surprising as it may be to most non-scientists and even to some scientists, Einstein concluded in his later years that the universe is a timeless existence. In 1952, in his book Relativity, talking about Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes:

Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

Einstein believed there was no true division between past and future so he rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now. The most descriptive testimony to Einstein's faith in timelessness came when his lifelong friend Besso died, shortly before his own death. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family saying that although Besso had proceeded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists who believe, the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Not that I'm very interested in this topic, but you're just not being scientific. You're just saying things which an uneducated village woman living in the 18th century could have said.

Go educate yourself here. Excerpt:

If you don't believe in time then why are you referencing a point in history?

You may be educated in fanciful theories riddled with logical fallacies, however I'd take the common sense of an uneducated village woman living in the 18th century over your preposterous theory education anyday.

The reason I'm not being scientific about it is because there is no need. Frankly the notion that historical events are fabrications of the mind is ludicrous and doesn't merit scientific investigation. This kind of discussion belongs to the realm of metaphysics.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Radical

Well you openly believe in the astral world and other supernatural phenomena, don't you? Are they not merely imaginings?

I think everything is a projection (an imagination) of consciousness, so the astral realms, dream worlds, and the physical world are all in the same boat. I see no evidence that one is any more real or fundamental than the others.

Wouldn't you agree that a belief in time is somewhat more rational than a belief in mystical entities from another dimension?

Can't say that I do. In the physical world that belief is certainly more common. In non-physical realms it's more common to believe the exact opposite, i.e. that time is an illusion. What you believe just depends on your perspective.

It's sort of like living in the USA and concluding that all human beings are American. The more you broaden your perspective, the less accurate that statement becomes.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Radical

The reason I'm not being scientific about it is because there is no need. Frankly the notion that historical events are fabrications of the mind is ludicrous and doesn't merit scientific investigation. This kind of discussion belongs to the realm of metaphysics.

I must use this quote on my 6-year old daughter the next time she breaks something and tries to deny it.

[Maxwell]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I must use this quote on my 6-year old daughter the next time she breaks something and tries to deny it.

I don't understand how you can tell her she broke(past tense) something if you don't believe in the past. Maybe she is right to deny it.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Radical

If you don't believe in time then why are you referencing a point in history?

You may be educated in fanciful theories riddled with logical fallacies, however I'd take the common sense of an uneducated village woman living in the 18th century over your preposterous theory education anyday.

The reason I'm not being scientific about it is because there is no need. Frankly the notion that historical events are fabrications of the mind is ludicrous and doesn't merit scientific investigation. This kind of discussion belongs to the realm of metaphysics.

Haha. Funny how you go on in the other thread about how "science is the only truth"; and then when I tell you what Albert Einstein has to say, you assert "oh, I'm not being scientific about it, because there's no need."

[ReallyGoodIdeas]

I find the notion that factual past events are volatile and somehow fabricated by our present beliefs to be quite preposterous.

If that was the case, then how could we ever form a belief in the first place?

Daniel Goleman wrote a brilliant book - called Vital Lies - Simple Truths. where he clearly demonstrates that our memoris of "factual events" are quite faulty. We filter information from our senses on the way in, by checking it against our beliefs etc, then store the bits of information in our memory. We pull out more frequently the bits we like, ie the bits that agree with our beliefs etc. So these bits are remembered better. John Dean's watergate testimony is used as evidence. Fascinating book. I recommend it.

Your question about the first memory is an interesting one though. Maybe this is where birth trauma comes in. The world is lovely and safe and warm, then suddenly we're cold, stuck under bright lights and have to use these... lungs! Enough to cause a few scary beliefs I suppose. My guess on that one!

Joy to you
Hazel

[infinitethoughts]

Radical,

I see where you're coming from. You perceive "time" and you know it exists.

But there is a problem. Since the advent of quantum physics, "time" has become suspect. As I said before in this thread, Physicists grudingly admit "time", as we know of it, does not exist.

Then Acting Like Godot did a brilliant job of quoting pretty much what physicist believe with his post about Einstien.

So what do we know. Science (the updated science, not the archaic Newtonian science) tells us time as we know it does not exist, or more correctly time is not what we think it is.

What do we know. Science points out it is false to think of the "now".....any "now" as an objective event. (The Minkowski Space World interpretation.)
Now why is this? This is due to physical reality being 4 dimensions and not 3 dimensions, as we previously thought and Newtonian physics would have it.

Now this is actually huge..... that the statement, "the "now" is objective", is a false statement. So then if the "now" is not objective, it has to be subjective. Right?

So then if the "now" is subjective, where does that leads us?

1) It tells us Consciousness is the basis of existence, not matter.

2) If Consciousness is the basis then everything thats been discussed here is correct.

3) If Consciousness is the basis, then the "universe" is far stranger then we previously thought.

[Michael Chui]

I like how you pulled the word "consciousness" out of thin air. It's like a magician saying, "Okay, watch the science... watch it closely... watch as it goes over here... and presto, Consciousness!"

Please stop making a personification out of Science. Science does not say, point out, randomly gesticulate, or flap its wings: it either disproves or fails to disprove by its application to a hypothesis.

If you want to cite the ancient 4-dimensional theory (which, by the way, is both Newtonian and Einsteinian), why don't you cite the new-fangled, up-to-date, flashy-cool 11-dimensional theory with twisted space and inter-universal gravitons? Where does Consciousness fit into that? Is it a string?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

why don't you cite the new-fangled, up-to-date, flashy-cool 11-dimensional theory with twisted space and inter-universal gravitons? Where does Consciousness fit into that? Is it a string?

String theory is so 10th dimensional. The 11th dimension covers membrane theory, and we're living in the 13th dimension now, the "time" of string theory... 10th is string, represented by what we can conceptualize at one dimension. Membrane is to a string what a plane is to a line. 12th is to membranes what volume is to a plane... which leaves us at the 'time' analogy of the hyperdimensions with the 13th dimension. It isn't surprising that the 13th dimension is so controversial, considering that most people don't even know about the fourth. Get with science.

As far as whether consciousness is a string... Well, is a photon a particle or a wave?

[Scipio]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Can you provide any evidence to prove that your beliefs don't create your reality? It seems to me that your reality is still fully congruent with IM.

I can. It's called the primacy of existence axiom of philosophy and even you implicitly agree with it in every utterance you speak. It is absolutely irrefutable.

Read this link and anyone with questions feel free to bring them up with me.

[Savage]

While it's true that consciousness must first exist in order to be aware of anything else, all you get from that is the primacy of existence of consciousness itself, not of everything else as that article mistakenly implies.

I wouldn't say the primary of existence concept is wrong per se. It's just a different perspective on reality. To say that existence is primary is to imagine the perspective from outside of consciousness. To say that consciousness is primary is to take on the perspective from within consciousness. Both perspectives are valid based on the positions they assume, but not always equally empowering.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Both perspectives are valid based on the positions they assume, but not always equally empowering.

And what a giant value it is to understand the difference between an empowering perspective and a dis-empowering perspective. Both can be equally true, yet only one leads you towards success.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I like how you pulled the word "consciousness" out of thin air.

Mike,
I have a question for you.

Is time objective or subjective?

Now if you answer objective, (so we can get rid of this nasty thing called "consciousness") then I ask since its objective, where is the specific location where I can find this thing called "time".

Waiting for your reply.

[Scipio]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

all you get from that is the primacy of existence of consciousness itself,

I'm unsure what you mean by this statement. Do you care to clarify?

I wouldn't say the primary of existence concept is wrong per se. It's just a different perspective on reality. To say that existence is primary is to imagine the perspective from outside of consciousness.

This claim needs substantiation. You require your consciousness to do any "viewing," so as such that does not seperate oneself "outside consciousness" but confines consciousness to it's proper and actual role.

To say that consciousness is primary is to take on the perspective from within consciousness. Both perspectives are valid based on the positions they assume, but not always equally empowering.

To say that consciousness is primary, in philosophy, is not "to take on the perspective from within consciousness" at all. To have a proper perspective qua consciousness, with the actual role it plays, one must use it as a faculty of awareness of reality.

Both perspectives are valid based on the positions they assume, but not always equally empowering.

False views incongruent with reality necessarily lead to failure, as one lives and must conform with reality.

[Adam]

If false views must necessarily lead to failure, then what is failure?

The closest to failure that one can come to from an objective perspective is anything which would lead to a Darwin Award, or failing to pass on your genetic material indefinitely.

The laws of probability insist that, eventually, all life will fail in this endeavor, simply because, short of cloning, at least half of your distinctive genetic code will not reach the next generation due to sexual reproduction, and a small percentage of what does get passed on will not be 'your' genetic material due to mutation. If we spread this over as few as 8 generations, only 1/256th of your DNA will be distinct... 16 generations, at the average human pace of four generations every century (4 centuries) would leave the world with only 1/65,536th of your genetic material. forty generations results in just under 1/1.1 billionths... That is pretty close to the three billion chemical sequences in the human genome... In fact, the chance of your genetic material existing in any of your progeny surpasses the number of chemical sequences in human DNA at forty two generations, or about 1,050 years.

Thus, objective failure is inevitable. It can be postponed by having as many children as possible, but it is still inevitable.

All other definitions of success and failure are subjective, selected by and for individuals or organizations. Since failure is subjective, wouldn't it make sense to work from a subjective framework?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Is time objective or subjective?

Time is definitely subjective. Now show me how the subjectivity of time necessitates consciousness as the basis of everything.

[Savage]

Take a moment to consider that when you attempt to assume a purely objective perspective, one that views reality from outside consciousness itself, you always fail. You can never actually experience that perspective. And the reason is that whenever you try to assume an objective perspective, you're always forced to do so through the lens of your own consciousness. So instead of an objective lens, what you actually get is a subjective fabrication of objectivity.

When people say they're being objective, they're only deluding themselves. What they're really doing is using their consciousness to imagine what it would be like to look through an objective lens, which isn't remotely the same thing. You can never view reality from outside your own consciousness, which means you can never escape the lens of subjectivity.

Consequently, we can actually go so far as to directly challenge the primacy of existence axiom. This axiom states that you must first have existence before you can have consciousness. That axiom is correct from a truly objective perspective, but for the reasons I previously mentioned, no human being can ever actually experience that perspective.

Taking this a bit further, we can assert that the objective perspective doesn't actually exist. It's merely a delusion. As a construct it's existence is undefined. It's like trying to solve x*x = -1 in real number space.

And since the objective perspective doesn't actually exist, the primacy of existence axiom, which relies upon that perspective, has no validity. When you layer conclusions on top of something that's undefined, your conclusions can't be trusted.

The perspective of objectivity is nothing but a delusion. It doesn't actually exist.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Time is definitely subjective. Now show me how the subjectivity of time necessitates consciousness as the basis of everything.

First of, definition of subjective:
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).

You agree time is subjective, exists in the mind.

This is a very powerful statement....that time exists in the mind.

Hell..... if time exists in the mind, what else does?

I ask you. What about 'space', could space possibly exist in the mind?

Mike,
What do you think?