There is no Science Behind Intention-Manifestation

[Lallymac]

Everthing that exists co-exists right here, right now. There is not another place or time, another level or plane. There is no heaven or hell. Everything is right at our finger tips. Everything our physical minds can't see, hear, touch and feel exists in spaces between matter. When we release our hold on the material world, we can percieve. Where is the mind? Our brains are just the computor processers of the mind. The mind surrounds our physicality. It is part of the energy that created the thought that became each unique one of us. The mind exists in every living thing and all the spaces in between. That's the part we should be exploring.
The above reply should say 'our brains get in the way of our minds.'
Lallymac

[Lil Chris]

Great post Lallymac,
I've personally seen some amazing things when I successfully stop the chatter of my brain...

[tropicality]

There may not be any traditional science, but begin to examine ancient texts, sumerian, greek, egyptian, yezidi, dogan, etc. As well as the heiroglyphs in the pyramids, and the evidence of such knowledge is there, it may not be traditional science, but it is spiritual science, which is where science is beginning to go (quantum mechanics, metaphysics, etc)

[HumbleBeginnings]

Quantum physics can partially explain I-M. Notice I didn't say proove...

It has, however, been prooved that thoughts carry energy, and energy creates and/or alters matter. Enough energy will eventually change something, and there we have it.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by HumbleBeginnings

energy creates and/or alters matter.

Minor quibble. Einstein showed that energy IS matter. That is precisely what E = mc² means. The speed of light squared is the conversion factor.

I recommend:
Amazon.com: E=mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation: Books: David Bodanis

[HumbleBeginnings]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Minor quibble. Einstein showed that energy IS matter. That is precisely what E = mc² means. The speed of light squared is the conversion factor.

I recommend:
Amazon.com: E=mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation: Books: David Bodanis

Well, there you have it. This also proves the possibility of telekinetics.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by HumbleBeginnings

Well, there you have it. This also proves the possibility of telekinetics.

How so? (I could provide my own theory, but I'd like to hear yours.)

[HumbleBeginnings]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

How so? (I could provide my own theory, but I'd like to hear yours.)

Eh. I have different theories...

Well, our theories are probably somewhat similar. Thoughts contain energy, subtle, subtle energy, and when assisted by a core thought, or belief (in this case that moving objects with your mind is possible), and the intention to change something (i.e. matter), it has a strong likelihood of occurring.

Another theory is the possibility of empathy, empathy strong enough to bring about a change. Attuning yourself to something until only a thread of your self remains... but if this is successful, the idea of lifting some object in the physical world seems absolutely meaningless.

[Mark Lapierre]

Ahh I see, so the relationship between energy and matter is extrapolated and applied to thought (energy) and objects (matter), and the possibility of using thought to move ebjects is suggested because energy can be used to move matter.

It's a stretch, but I can't say that the right technique wouldn't work, despite the lack of evidence for it, and the gap between the amount of energy needed to move an object and the amount of energy generated by our thoughts, and the absense of a suitable pathway for the transference of that energy to that object. (that's not to say that it's not possible, though I don't believe it is, but I can't prove it)

[HumbleBeginnings]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Ahh I see, so the relationship between energy and matter is extrapolated and applied to thought (energy) and objects (matter), and the possibility of using thought to move ebjects is suggested because energy can be used to move matter.

It's a stretch, but I can't say that the right technique wouldn't work, despite the lack of evidence for it, and the gap between the amount of energy needed to move an object and the amount of energy generated by our thoughts, and the absense of a suitable pathway for the transference of that energy to that object. (that's not to say that it's not possible, though I don't believe it is, but I can't prove it)

:S I'm not that scientific! All I am saying is what I believe, which is what makes sense to me. Good analyzing from I observed, though.

[Mark Lapierre]

Indeed, and that's what it's about isn't it? We all form our own beliefs around what makes sense to us. For some IM makes sense, for others such as myself it's too implausible.

But I'm willing to be shown the light. Just haven't been convinced yet

[dor]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Sure. Thought is action. Just by thinking, I am able to alter the molecular structure of water.

Just ask Masaru Emoto.

I am open to new ideas, I believe the mind is infinently more powerful than we can imagine...but....Masaru Emoto's experiements do not prove anything...
Masaru Emoto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Even sympathetic commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls,[4] and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community. [5] In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings. [6]

In the day-to-day work of his group, the creativity of the photographers rather than the rigor of the experiment is an explicit policy of Emoto.[7] Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist,[8] and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs.[9] This is an implicit admission of confirmation bias.

[HumbleBeginnings]

Masaru's explanation satisfied me. It makes sense that we are able to have such a relationship with water, since we ourselves are 72% comprised of it.

I recommend reading his books. Maybe your skepticism will disappear, or at least be reduced.

[dor]

Originally Posted by HumbleBeginnings

Masaru's explanation satisfied me. It makes sense that we are able to have such a relationship with water, since we ourselves are 72% comprised of it.

I recommend reading his books. Maybe your skepticism will disappear, or at least be reduced.

Hi,
the problem i think is, as I posted - confirmation bias - there's lots of molecules in a glass of water, you can find ones to look like how you want them - the question is are there 'ugly' molecules in the 'good' water ect.

I kind of look at this (no offense) like weeping saint statues - finding one to be a hoax doesn't shake my believe in God. I believe the mind and the universe are much more fascinating, complex and powerful than we can even conceive....and the transformatoin of a acorn into an oak is enough proof of that for me.

the degree mill thing disturbs me, however..why did he do this? its seems like deliberate deception.

[infinitethoughts]

Dr. Bruce Lipton, Ph.d Research scientist gives a lecture and pulls biology into the 21st century by coupling biology with quantum physics.

Body no longer should be viewed as a machine, which is how present day medicine erroneously views it.

Perception affects genes.

Cells pick up signals from the environment.
Biology is a stimulus response.

If you're a hardcore materialist, you may not want to see this.

the new biology - where mind and matter meet 1 of 2 - Google Video

the new biology - where mind and matter meet 2 of 2 - Google Video

[skepticbychoice]

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.

Your conclusions about time are based on research done in the past done by people you choose to believe, as your bank account is a result of income earned in the past.

That is also a digression in that the whole manifesting thing is shrowed in sophmoric stunts like this. It can be useful as it does force responsibility in some ways (this can also be a negative when events happen that are truly out of ones control). This is the point where it isn't so much fun anymore and people who are conned into this whole movement (which will pass as every hoax does) who are not so stable will start feeling guilty for no real reason because they believe they are responsible for everything.

Did the Gays really attract 911? This is the kind of thinking of a fundamentalist as the thinking behind this whole movement - especially its leaders.

[dor]

Originally Posted by skepticbychoice

Did the Gays really attract 911?

no, but a lop-sided pro israel policy did
reap, sow

as you said: 'It can be useful as it does force responsibility in some ways"
I'd get a little pragmatic my dear skeptic friend, and first realize there's a far bigger problem than people possibly blaming themselves for things they are not responsible for, and that is , people blaming others what they are responsible for.

For how many years did festering discontent about Israel's treatment of Palestians, for meddling in countries for oil, or imposing unwanted idealogy go unheard by Americans? we heard it on 9-11, didn't we? did we chose to take responsibility for OUR elected officials spending OUR tax dollars? no we chose to blame....iraq.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by skepticbychoice

Your conclusions about time are based on research done in the past done by people you choose to believe, as your bank account is a result of income earned in the past.

What you're not seeing is that there are two entirely different arguments present:

1) That the consideration of objective reality is pointless, and
2) That objective reality is non-existant.

You're arguing against #2, and I agree with you. #1, however, is the basis for subjective reality, and is entirely valid. If you want to argue morality... that's different. But it's valid, unlike examples of fundamentalism I've seen in my time.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

But it's valid, unlike examples of fundamentalism I've seen in my time.

I don't doubt the examples you have seen in your time are not valid...but what about what you haven't seen, but know of?
(seen in the sense of personally experienced, as I assume your post meant)
and what do you mean by fundamentalism? Can we (please) apply it to the Church of Dawkins and Harris?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by dor

Can we (please) apply it to the Church of Dawkins and Harris?

If you feel you need to, then I'll be over there and you can do as you like. skepticbychoice was characterizing subjective realists as fundamentalists; I was drawing a contrast.

And if you look at this thread, perhaps you'll understand what I mean by validity and that Dawkins has already placed himself outside of it. I'm not particularly interested in who Harris is.