There is no Science Behind Intention-Manifestation

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

You agree time is subjective, exists in the mind.

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

It does not follow that because time exists in the mind that time therefore only exists in the mind. Neither does it follow that the statement has any power except that which you give it: its impact is also entirely subjective.

I agree, for instance, with Steve that there is no such thing as an objective perspective. Therefore, all things are viewed subjectively. It does not follow from this agreement that all things are subjective: it follows that I cannot objectively perceive anything.

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

What about 'space', could space possibly exist in the mind?

Possible. Can you show it? Reasonably, not by hand-waving. You say:

Premise: Time is subjective.
Conclusion: Space is subjective.

Show me how one leads to the other.

[Lallymac]

So I can uncreate the stretch marks that are a legacy of having birthed four children?
Cool as
Lallymac

[Lallymac]

But seriously, I'm finding this thread fascinating. Is time a human construct, created to appease the rational mind?
I started meditating 20 yrs ago for relaxation and to improve my performance running. I soon found myself unwittingly voyaging into alternate realities. I found I could focus on a cup say on a table and find myself experiencing another physical reality (past/future) in this reality (earth) or a totally different reality. I had no prior concepts/beliefs that they existed or what I did was even possible. At first I thought they were rather like dreaming in a waking state until more and more evidence came to light to prove that I had in fact experienced an event before it happened.
How is it possible?? if time is fixed
Lallymac

[beautyscientist]

I agree with the OP that there is no science behind IM. I don't believe it in any objective way. But there is a possibilty that I am wrong, so one part of me believes in it so if it is true it might give me some benefit. For instance, I believe that I am going to be able to make enough money from my businesses this year to give up paid employment. I am working and taking actions to bring this about. A small part of me believes that I will succeed simply by virtue of my self belief. This doesn't stop me doing anything that allows me to reach my goal, so why not allow this probably wrong belief to continue?

[infinitethoughts]

Hey mike,
You're not playing by the rules, which to be honest is why the hell I stopped posting on forums years ago. (I guess nothings changed.)

You sez:

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

It does not follow that because time exists in the mind that time therefore only exists in the mind. Neither does it follow that the statement has any power except that which you give it: its impact is also entirely subjective.

If you want to play this game, then show me the location of this thing called 'time' ?

If you say bla bla bla, meaning "just because so and so doesn't mean so and so".

Then show me the location of 'time' !

It DOES follow that time exists in the mind, otherwise you'd show me the location. Period.

How am I gonna have an intelligent discussion if you bring up stuff like that?

[infinitethoughts]

Beautyscientist

This thread got started cause the OP didn't like the title of my thread,
The Science of I-M.
The Science behind Intention-Manifestation.

Of course there's a science behing I-M. Hell there can be a science behind the best way to pop open beer bottles....if someone's interested enough.


In fact you even use the term in your sig?!
(A student of the science of beauty.)

This might clear it up.

The Science behind Intention-Manifestation.

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Radical.
Unfortunately there is a science behind I-M. In fact there's a science behind any field you can think of. You're making the mistake that because I use the word science, you think I mean the general scientific field.

Here are several definitions of the word science:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: IE the mathematical sciences. (Or the science of studying thought and its effects. My edit.)

2. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

I-M is a fact. It's demonstrated by people. Radical, you think all these people on this board and hundreds of others are making all this up?

That said. I hope we can now drop the reason why I chose the word Science in my thread.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Lallymac

So I can uncreate the stretch marks that are a legacy of having birthed four children?
Cool as
Lallymac

Of course you can, cause remember you live in an eternal-continual-self-referencing moment. (E.C.S.R for short.) Remember change happens, but its' not time that's doing it.
*Thanks to one of Steve's blogs for reminding me of this.

If you had no memory of the stretch marks, you wouldn't continually recreate them. The hard part would be, you'd have to figure out a way not to look at your stomach for a while.

(The in house skeptics are gonna have a field day with this one, but thats really not my concern. )

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Then show me the location of 'time' !

Did you even listen to me? I said that time does exist in the mind. But you're making the assumption that because X exists in Y, it cannot exist in Z. Simply because time exists in the mind does not mean it doesn't exist outside of the mind.

And as for the location of time, why are you defining time as an object in space? More pointedly: why are you defining all terms potentially in an objective reality as locatable?

You're welcome to just surrender that you can't argue logically.

[Megan]

As Adam said, Gödel left us no objective place to stand.

The field cannot be well seen from within the field.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

Conventional scientific discourse privileges the sensible field in abstraction from sensory experience, and commonly maintains that subjective experience is 'caused' by an objectifiable set of processes in the mechanically determined field of the sensible.

Meanwhile, New Age spiritualism regularly privileges pure sentience, or subjectivity, in abstraction from sensible matter, and often maintains that material reality is itself an illusory effect caused by an immaterial mind or spirit.

Although commonly seen as opposed world-views, both of these positions assume a qualitative difference between the sentient and the sensed; by prioritizing one or the other, both of these views perpetuate the distinction between human 'subjects' and natural 'objects,' and hence neither threatens the common conception of sensible nature as a purely passive dimension suitable for human manipulation and use.
--David Abrams, The Spell of the Sensuous

Amazon.com: Reviews for The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World: Books: David Abram

Wired Magazine interviews Seth Lloyd (March 2006):

Seth Lloyd is the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with. Between gulps, the MIT prof will impart the details of how the universe really works. And if you order another, he'll give you a summary of one of the most mind-boggling ideas emerging in science today. His new book, Programming the Universe, is a plainspoken tale of how the universe is - tell me if you've heard this before - one very large quantum computer. - Kevin Kelly

WIRED: I hear you're a quantum computer repair guy.

LLOYD: Yes, I am a quantum mechanic! Those darn quantum computers break all the time.

WIRED: You've jumped from working on quantum computers to saying, oh, by the way, the universe is a gigantic quantum computer.

LLOYD: When you zap things with light to build quantum computers, you're hacking existing systems. You're hijacking the computation that's already happening in the universe, just like a hacker takes over someone else's computer.

What is the universe computing when we are not hijacking it for our own purposes?

It computes itself. It computes the flow of orange juice as you drink it, or the position of each atom in your cells.

Wired 14.03: PLAY

Seth Lloyd says the Universe is a computer, and that it conserves information. If true, this has implications for the nature of time.

Entropy is invisible information, or ignorance--information that is unavailable.

But the distinction between "visible" and "invisible" depends on who is looking.

It is in fact possible to decrease entropy by looking at something.
--Seth Lloyd (M.I.T., physics), Programming the Universe p. 95

It's possible that Maxwell's Demon hasn't been exorcised after all, if Mind is universal and non-local and conserves information.

Physicist Julian Barbour has a section called "Where is Time?" on page 93 of his book, The End of Time.

Julian Barbour:

My ideas about time all developed from the realization that if nothing were to change we could not say that times passes.

Change is primary, time, if it exists at all, is something we deduce from it.

My Italian collaborator Bruno Bertotti and I found that the deep structure of Einstein's general theory of relativity does correspond to this truth. It is telling us that time does not exist as an independent thing and that change is indeed primary. However, this is in the framework of so-called classical physics, the form of physics that developed before quantum mechanics was discovered. When the idea that time has no independent existence is combined with the basic facts of quantum mechanics in the simplest possible way, the implications are startling.

The quantum universe is static.

Only timeless Nows exist.

The quantum rules give them different probabilities. We experience the most probable Nows as individual instants of time. The appearance of motion and a flow of time are both illusions created by very special structure of the instants that we experience.

JB-Ideas

[Michael Chui]

My point is not that time has this nature or has those properties. My point is that infinitethoughts' argument is entirely illogical because the premise does not connect to the conclusion.

But it may be too much to ask that what I write be read. Notice that I haven't disagreed with him in any way, shape, or form except in the case of the connection of premise to conclusion. I have further agreed that every one of his points may in fact be true. What is untrue is that one leads to another, as he implies.

If you wish to state, "All of these are my primary assertions," then do so.

Though, if there's one thing I can't stand more than an illogical argument, it's an argument that starts from the assumption that the other person holds a viewpoint diametrically opposite from yours.

Let me review my viewpoint:

• Time is subjective. Agree.
• Time is not objective. Disagree, though Megan's quotations have merit. I have wondered about the nature of time for the past year, since making a brief study of Godel, who hypothesized a rotational universe with no time as a birthday gift for Einstein.
• Space is subjective. Agree.
• Space is not objective. Disagree.
• Consciousness exists. Agree.
• Consciousness is the basis of existence. Disagree.
• Objectivity is impossible. Agree.
• Objective (I prefer the term "Zero-Perspective") reality does not exist. Disagree.

[Megan]

By Michael:

Let me review my viewpoint:

• Time is subjective. Agree.
• Time is not objective. Disagree, though Megan's quotations have merit

Just to clarify, if you combine Seth Lloyd with Julian Barbour, you get a kind of objective time, Michael, in the sense of the universe conserving the information in the whole series of "timeless nows."

The past objectively exists as information in the universal computer. Time is a series of information snapshots.

But, you and infinitethoughts want to hash this out, so I'll just read.

[Andrew Brunelle]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

The answer to both questions is choice. That's all a belief really is. You're free to make whatever choices you desire, including the option of believing that you have no choice.

The only choices that matter are those you're making right now through the application of intention plus attention. There are no past choices, only present ones.



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

If you change your beliefs about the present, the past doesn't need to be altered since it isn't real to begin with.

Referencing the past is a convention of communication which has its uses, but the past has no actual presence in physical reality, no more than Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

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.

Since the present moment is the only moment that exists, you only have power during the present. I was thinking about what the present moment is and if you break it down to seconds, milliseconds, and beyond, the smaller interval you go down, the more you see your presence. You start to believe anything is possible, and you allow whatever you desire to come to you. As Steve says, don't worry about the how, but the what is very important. Know what you want and look for synchronicities that will aid you to your goal. Enjoy the journey in the present moment. It is all you really have. Create in the present, get results in the present. Since there is no past or future, the only time your results can occur are in the present. That is the most important aspect to understand.

There is nothing really scientific about it. It's mostly thought based. It's intention-based. There is no law, except the Law of Attraction. The whole thing is we don't know exactly how it works yet. But I'm working on it now. I'm intending to understand it better. I don't want to end up like the Great AMerican Hero. I need the instruction manual.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Of course you can, cause remember you live in an eternal-continual-self-referencing moment. (E.C.S.R for short.) Remember change happens, but its' not time that's doing it.
*Thanks to one of Steve's blogs for reminding me of this.

If you had no memory of the stretch marks, you wouldn't continually recreate them. The hard part would be, you'd have to figure out a way not to look at your stomach for a while.

(The in house skeptics are gonna have a field day with this one, but thats really not my concern. )

Fcuk me, this is getting ridiculous. Having no memory of an event doesn't mean the event never happened (although I'm sure alot of adolescent men and women wish this were true, think of all the unwanted pregnancies that could be avoided!). Unfortunately memory cannot alter the physical existence of something. If that was the case, people with amnesia would wipe their entire family and friends from existence. Yet it is family and friends who help the amnesic recover their memory.

Also, as people age their memory deteriorates - so they forget things. This however doesn't negate their entire personal history, since photographs, kin and other physical evidence are available.

Also, all this time is subjective so everything else is an illusion bs has to stop. Time may be subjective, but who cares? All Einstein proved was that time is not absolute, and is instead relative to the observer. So? This doesn't negate the passage of time. Things still move forward. Also, if you don't believe in time and instead subscribe to the everything is a fabrication of your consciousness bunk, then how can you reference a historical figure to back up your argument? Not to mention something objective, since Einstein made those discoveries, you didn't! Please don't use rationale incongruent with the views your expressing.

To sum up, everything may be filtered through our senses and perceptions, however a physical observable reality still exists. All we can do is make the best use of our senses and logical faculties to get as good a picture of reality as possible. It is extremely naive and egocentric to assume your own consciousness as the be all and end all of existence!

[Lallymac]

I think it was Napolean Hill who said, 'Whatever a man believes in and can concieve of, exists.' I'd like to add to that by saying from my own experience that our beliefs and concepts are miniscule in comparison to what else exists. We only use a fraction of our brains and the mind is unlimited. But while you're all arguing the toss, there is an infinite universe of alternate realities waiting to be explored. Be brave 'Kia Kaha' and venture out. Your experience will then create your reality.
Lallymac

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Radical

.... however a physical observable reality still exists.

Nah. Basically there is no distinct interface between you and the chair you're sitting on. Essentially you and the chair are just made up of the same kind of subatomic particles moving at vast speeds and constantly popping in and out of existence.

[thef0x]

Originally Posted by John Wesley

Because someone started a thread about I-M and tried to discourage people with opposing view points from posting, I thought I'd start a thread with the opposite position. All replies are welcome.

I personally do not believe in I-M. Correlation does not equal causation. There is a connection between intentions and results, but the bridge between them is action. Without action nothing happens and all those great intentions are merely day dreams.

Intention Manifestation is another "system" concocted to sell books to people that don't want to think independently.

I-M puts you in the subjective mode of action.

Few people properly do I-M.

I'm anti-vibrations. You make yourself want something, you think about it, it saturates your life, you get it (if you take action), tada.

My ideas.

[Jason McIsaac]

There is one very common category of I-M that is not scientifically 'proven' but certainly scientifically acknowledged.
In fact this particular I-M must be treated controlled variable in virtually every clinical study involving humans and drugs.
You've probably guessed by now: the Placebo Effect.
Ever read a scientific explanation for it?
Sure, in some instances it can explained biochemically. But what about the ones that can't. It's scientifically acknowledged magic.

[asrai]

If you don't believe you can succeed at something why would you attempt it all? If you don't believe just by thinking it people will give you money or things or whatever it is you want to manifest, then it won't happen. Even if you force yourself to believe, but in the back of your mind all you can think is "yeah, right it will never happen", it still won't happen.

There are a lot of scientific discussions here. But, either people are going to beleive or not. If you don't believe it you will find no evidence that I-M exisits. If you beleive it there is evidence.

But ... if you didn't believe that writing code would make itself into a webpage or program, would you write it? If you didn't beleive doing a good job at something would get you more money would you try your best at your work?

I don't know if there is scientific evidence of these things or not? I don't care. I beleive it works and thus it is my reality. All the words and evidence in the world will not convince you if you don't want to see it.

[infinitethoughts]

Circular arguments, Mike, but if that's what you like to do.

Listen carefully.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

And as for the location of time, why are you defining time as an object in space? More pointedly: why are you defining all terms potentially in an objective reality as locatable?

Why am I defining time as an object in space?

Because you like to play this game.

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Hey mike,
You're not playing by the rules, which to be honest is why the hell I stopped posting on forums years ago. (I guess nothings changed.)

You sez:

If you want to play this game, then show me the location of this thing called 'time' ?

If you say bla bla bla, meaning "just because so and so doesn't mean so and so".

Then show me the location of 'time' !

It DOES follow that time exists in the mind, otherwise you'd show me the location. Period.

Anyway I'm done circular arguing with you.
Waste of my energy.

[Megan]

...I think it has a lot to do with I-M. Earlier, I said:

Just to clarify, if you combine Seth Lloyd with Julian Barbour, you get a kind of objective time, Michael, in the sense of the universe conserving the information in the whole series of "timeless nows."

The past objectively exists as information in the universal computer. Time is a series of information snapshots.

Just now, I was reading Acting Like Godot's link from #42:

Hawking has already proposed that imaginary time can be understood as if it is a time at right angles to ordinary time.

I suggest that if each moment is an independent world of space, existing at right angles to our ordinary time which we know does have a beginning and possibly an end, then it is possible in an objective way to understand the universe to be like a book, with each page existing forever, yet each contributes a moment to a progression we call space-time.

This analogy clearly sheds some light on why particles would then travel as a quantum wave, rather than linearly from point a to point b. This is explained better elsewhere, but if each moment of ordinary time is a solid, static, "block of now", or field of space, then time is like turning pages of a book.

Each new moment is a distinctly different pattern.

Albert Einstein and the Fabric of Time

The introduction to that site speaks of David Deutsch and his conception of "snapshots of time" or "block universes."

We all know that we can edit a document we have created in Word.

I suggest that that is how I-M works. The present is the accretion of the past.

As Rupert Sheldrake suggested in The Presence of the Past, memory is inherent in nature, in the form of morphogenetic fields, and most of the so-called laws of nature are more like habits, and, I would suggest, are therefore "editable."

Through I-M, one interrupts the momentum of the morphogenetic fields of the past to keep recreating themselves and resets them. This science is in its infancy and has many detractors, as well it should, but I think it is a science in a broad definition of science:

skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

science - Definitions from Dictionary.com

I think the science of I-M is like the science of the 4-minute mile. At first no one could do it, because no one believed it could be done.



When Roger Bannister did the mile in 3:59.4 in 1954 he "reset the morphogenetic field" for other athletes to follow, and we forgave him for using pacemakers. Now people do it without pacemakers, and have lowered the limit by almost 17 seconds.

You might say I-M is hacking into the morphogenetic fields of the past and editing them. Whether there are moral implications in this practice is an interesting question, at least to me.

Jason McIsaac brought up the placebo effect, which is germane, for sure, in this discussion, IMO.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by asrai

I don't know if there is scientific evidence of these things or not? I don't care. I beleive it works and thus it is my reality. All the words and evidence in the world will not convince you if you don't want to see it.

It is a grave misconception that beliefs create physical reality. I didn't believe I was going to be born, yet here I am! Existence is primary, consciousness derives from existence. What consciousness is and how it derives is indeed subject to much debate.

You also state that you don't care whether there is any scientific evidence for IM or not. Ultimately you are saying that you will believe what you want, whether it is true or not. You like many others are allowing your beliefs to be coloured by desire.

Greeks used to believe that the God Apollo rode a chariot of the sun and was responsible for sunrise. Everyday at the break of dawn the sun would rise. We have since filled in their gaps of knowledge with scientific discovery. The point is science is progressive and doesn't pretend to know everything. However, just because you have a rationale for something and witness results, (like the sun god hypothesis) that doesn't mean your rationale is correct.

The way I see IM is not dissimilar to religion. There are many people who claim to have witnessed miracles and firmly believe their prayers get answered. Religion usually puts this down to some supernatural deity. IM however puts this down to some mysterious force called universe.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Essentially you and the chair are just made up of the same kind of subatomic particles moving at vast speeds and constantly popping in and out of existence.

Unfortunately that is just one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and quantum events don't have any bearing at the macroscopic level.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Radical

All Einstein proved was that time is not absolute, and is instead relative to the observer. So? This doesn't negate the passage of time. Things still move forward.

Of course things move forward, but the misconception is people think it's "time" doing it. Consciousness is doing it.

Originally Posted by Radical

however a physical observable reality still exists.

Which exists within consciousness.

But Radical, don't forget on which forum you're on. This is a forum for I-M, not does I-M work.

And asrai, pretty much summed it up.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Radical

Unfortunately that is just one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and quantum events don't have any bearing at the macroscopic level.

I love it when people use that excuse.

Right.....and the cells of my own body I look at with a high depth electronic microscope have no effect on my body because I'm at the macroscopic level and they're not.

You got fuzz in your logistics.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

I love it when people use that excuse.

Right.....and the cells of my own body I look at with a high depth electronic microscope have no effect on my body because I'm at the macroscopic level and they're not.

You got fuzz in your logistics.

What I'm saying is that quantum events have not been scientifically linked with macroscopic events. All we can say is that there seems to be a different set of laws governing events at the quantum level, but it is unknown what relevance quantum events have (if any) to anything else outside quantum mechanics. This is totally different to cells and biology, which is an established science.

One interpretation of quantum mechanics postulates electrons popping in and out of existence, however I'm sure you would agree that things certainly don't spontaneously pop in and out of existence at the macroscopic level.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

Why am I defining time as an object in space?

Because you like to play this game.

Okay. You're defining time as an object in space because you can't otherwise set yourself up as correct. Pleased to know that you know how foolish you are. You are right: we are done. I do not argue with idiots who think objectivity means "in space". I apologize for taking up your precious consciousness. But you manifested me, so why am I apologizing? Blame would be upon you.

[maryelyn]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Okay. You're defining time as an object in space because you can't otherwise set yourself up as correct. Pleased to know that you know how foolish you are. You are right: we are done. I do not argue with idiots who think objectivity means "in space". I apologize for taking up your precious consciousness. But you manifested me, so why am I apologizing? Blame would be upon you.

hey, hey! he didn't manifest you, i did, dammit!

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by maryelyn

hey, hey! he didn't manifest you, i did, dammit!

He manifested you manifesting me. Are we keeping score?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Radical

All we can say is that there seems to be a different set of laws governing events at the quantum level, but it is unknown what relevance quantum events have (if any) to anything else outside quantum mechanics.

Water molecules are much, much, much larger than subatomic particles. And you can affect water molecules with your thoughts.

[Lallymac]

You know, you don't even have to believe it. Believing is not always a prerequiste. All you have to do is still the analytical part of your brain, quiet your mind and 'allow' yourself to experience it with child-like wonder.Once you have experienced it, then scientifically proven or not, no-one can tell you it is not possible. It's our minds that get in the way.
Lallymac