Manifestation Experiment - Easy Way to Learn About LOA

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

This applies to the big esoteric questions, and it applies to small mundane things as well. For example, ask a master chef; a farmer; a nutritionist; a botanist and a green grocer to tell you what a tomato means to them. Do not be surprised to receive 5 different descriptions.

That's what I keep telling you. Your thoughts create your reality.

But, what do you mean by reality? Are you including everything physical in that?

Yes, there are many perspectives of reality, but do you create the perspective or the reality?

I may see the tomato as a nasty, repulsive thing and you may see it as something beautiful. But they are just our personal views about it. We are responding to thoughts and images in our mind concerning tomatoes.

Those views don't affect its objective reality. A tomato is what it is. It may mean a million things to a million people, but it is still a tomato.

The tomato has its own, unique existence and beingness which makes it a tomato, which is separate from our perception of it. It is part of creation.

[Acting Like Godot]

So you wish to know what is a tomato?

A tomato is a collection of mostly hydrogen, carbon and oxygen molecules, with a smattering of other moleculues such as nitrates and phosphates.

All of those molecules are composed of atoms, which comprise mostly empty space and a few subatomic particles blinking rapidly in and out of existence.

Therefore a tomato is mostly empty space, with a few subatomic particles rapidly blinking in and out of existence.

What makes these subatomic particles blink in and out?

Science offers a few different theories here. All of them point to a reality far removed from what you would consider to be "ordinary" or "objective" reality.

One theory says that these subatomic particles blink in and out, depending on whether they are observed by a consciousness or not.

Another theory says that there are actually many different dimensions, and in some of them, the tomato is not even there. It has effectively "blinked" out of existence.

A 3rd theory, the Bohm interpretation, if coupled with the Big Bang theory, tells you that the tomato is connected with everything else in the universe, therefore any change in the tomato immediately affects everything else in the universe, at a speed faster than the speed of light.

That is a tomato.

That's what science tells you. So you see, please be careful about relying too much on science, to support your ideas of what reality ought to be.

[Lil Chris]

Have any scientists, or anyone else for that matter, discovered the frequency of the blinking particles... I'm thinking their must be some sort of a range (kind of like how video runs at 30 fps)

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

So you wish to know what is a tomato?

A tomato is a collection of mostly hydrogen, carbon and oxygen molecules, with a smattering of other moleculues such as nitrates and phosphates.

All of those molecules are composed of atoms, which comprise mostly empty space and a few subatomic particles blinking rapidly in and out of existence.

Therefore a tomato is mostly empty space, with a few subatomic particles rapidly blinking in and out of existence.

What makes these subatomic particles blink in and out?

Science offers a few different theories here. All of them point to a reality far removed from what you would consider to be "ordinary" or "objective" reality.

One theory says that these subatomic particles blink in and out, depending on whether they are observed by a consciousness or not.

Another theory says that there are actually many different dimensions, and in some of them, the tomato is not even there. It has effectively "blinked" out of existence.

A 3rd theory, the Bohm interpretation, if coupled with the Big Bang theory, tells you that the tomato is connected with everything else in the universe, therefore any change in the tomato immediately affects everything else in the universe, at a speed faster than the speed of light.

That is a tomato.

That's what science tells you. So you see, please be careful about relying too much on science, to support your ideas of what reality ought to be.

I rely on science for helping me get through physical reality without too much hassle - like switching the light on, or driving a car. Science has done the hard work for me. I just have to follow a few simple instructions (and keep up with the bills!), and hey presto, the light comes on/the car moves forward. I don't really have to worry about whether my thoughts or beliefs are going to make it all happen or not.

Regardless of what I 'think' a tomato is and what my perspective of it is, it is still a tomato, no matter how many times it winks at me!

That's what makes creation so awesome. The tomato is so perfect in its uniqueness and tomato-ness.

The next time you see a tomato, hold it in your hand and ask it, 'Are you really a tomato?' Then hold it close to your ear and listen carefully for an answer.

'Yes, I am', it squeaks in tomato-ese, 'Now put me down before I squirt juice all over you!'

The things of creation speak volumes of God's splendour if we just stop for a moment and listen.

Hymn to the Sun - St. Francis of Assisi

Praised be my Lord God with all His creatures; and specially our brother the sun, who brings us the day.

Praised be my Lord for our sister the moon, and for the stars, the which He has set clear and lovely in heaven.

Praised be my Lord for our brother the wind, and for air and cloud, calms and all weather, by the which Thou upholdest in life all creatures.

Praised be Thy Lord for our brother fire, through whom Thou givest us light in the darkness;

Praised be my Lord for our mother the earth, the which doth sustain us and keep us and bringeth forth divers fruits, and flowers of many colours, and grass.

Praised be my Lord for all those who pardon one another for His love’s sake, and who endure weakness and tribulation; blessed are they who peaceably shall endure, for Thou, 0 most Highest, shalt give them a crown!

[Daffy Duck]

It seems to me we barely have a clue about what reality truly is, but it seems to me we do have one objective fact: Life Exists. Or in other words: I Am.

Who can honestly say otherwise? For someone to even disagree proves that life exists.

[StAnselm]

Blinking, talking tomatoes?

We all see the same tomato. Because we all see the same thing, thoughts don't create reality. The tomato blinks or talks no matter what we think about it.

The theory isn't that thoughts create the tomato, is it? We aren't making each other see the same thing. The thing just is.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

It seems to me we barely have a clue about what reality truly is, but it seems to me we do have one objective fact: Life Exists. Or in other words: I Am.

Who can honestly say otherwise? For someone to even disagree proves that life exists.

Logic and Philosophy 101 say that life exists, and there is a reality separate from my thoughts. That's the definition of reality:

Philosophy.
a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.

reality definition | Dictionary.com

If you say reality is subjective, you are either not talking about reality or saying that reality doesn't exist at all. You're right that you can't say that existence doesn't exist, and you can't say reality is subjective.

Subjective:

Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

subjective definition | Dictionary.com

Can someone explain this concept to me without misusing the word reality?

[joelr]

No LOA is NOT A LAW. It's a theory. The exact process is not yet worked out but it is possible to make a reasonable and very likely theory based on our current scientific understanding.

And for gosh sakes YES THOUGHTS DO CREATE REALITY!!!!
A simple blanket statement like that is 100% provable with hard science.

The knowledge of the location of a wave (potential particle) causes it to collapse to become an actualized particle (it's really still a wave but with a way smaller wavelength). That knowledge enters our minds as a THOUGHT and from that a "wave to particle" event takes place.
Only the knowledge (hence thought) of the location of the wave is what causes the collapse.

This does not prove LOA is entirely true or that every thing/event is created by consciousness but it does confirm that thoughts do create reality.

Same concept as - I play an instrument and I create music. I don't create ALL music, but I have the ability to create some music.

So we at least know, in that sense that thoughts, at the very least, can sometimes create reality.

Anyone who is interested in truth has to get past the Newtonian mechanistic, deterministic, positivist, 1890 thing.
It died in the 1920's !!!!! IT'S GONE. Let it go. Bye bye.

[StAnselm]

You can't say your thoughts create reality.

It's a contradictory statement, like subjective reality.

Did logic die in the 1920s? How unfortunate.

[Angela]

something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.

StAnselm, how do you know that anything exists separately from your consciousness of its existence?

If you have an idea (consciousness) of its existence, then that thing is not separate from your consciousness of its existence.

And if you don't have an idea (consciousness) of its existence, how can you be so sure of (conscious) of its existence? The sureness itself is consciousness.

You can't say your thoughts create reality.

Sure I can! Maybe you mean: "you can't say your thoughts create reality, AND I believe that." or "you can't say your thoughts create reality, and I accept that's that statement is logical."

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Angela

StAnselm, how do you know that anything exists separately from your consciousness of its existence?

Because the statement "nothing exists apart from my consciousness" is a logical fallacy.

[joelr]

Of course you can say it.

Matter waves do NOT exist as any physical substance.
They can be said to exist only when they have become actualized into particles. This is true for quanta of both matter and energy.
Thoughts will cause this transformation to happen.
Therefore thoughts can create or manifest reality (matter or energy).

End of story. Determinism - which is usually linked to the idea of consciousness being simply a result of chemicals and has no ability to effect matter - ended in the 1920's with quantum mechanics. The double slit experiment will take you directly to the absolute proof. So yes, the logic of consciousness being separate from reality in the way described here ENDED. The general public does not seem to be aware of this.
Thoughts can manifest matter/energy. This is 100% true. This is like 80 years old!? Why don't people know this????!?!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

Because the statement "nothing exists apart from my consciousness" is a logical fallacy.

How so?

[Daffy Duck]

We could say that nothing exists outside of our consciousness.
Could say nothing existed before I did.
Those history books about the 1930? Didn't really happen. I just think it did.
I can even find pictures from the Great Depression, to help convince me it happened.
But all of this is filtered through my personal consciousness.
California might not even really exist until I decide to think about it.
At the end of the day, even if this were true, we seem to have no way of proving it to ourselves.
And it doesn't change anything anyway.
Unless for some reason it makes you happier or makes you feel more powerful.
Then go ahead and believe in it. Do what works for you.
All of our life's understanding is based on assumptions anyway.
I don't really care if someone is "delusional" if they produce great results.

This does seem like Philosophy 101, I agree.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Angela

How so?

If A says to B, “Nothing exists outside my consciousness” A is communicating with B.

The assumption of communication is the existence of more than one independent mind. If there is only one mind, there could be no language.

Because there are two independent minds presumed in the statement “nothing exists outside my consiousness” A is acknowledging that B's consciousness is existing outside A's consciousness by making the statement. The statement falls apart, just by being made.

A could try saying "nothing exists outside my consciousness" to his or herself. But the use of any language presupposes that words have meanings, which have been determined by agreement among millions of independent minds, which are not part of A's mind.

Edited to add: There is no such thing as a private language, that can can be invented and used only by one individual without reference to other independent minds. Language is a set of agreed rules. The consequence for violating the rules is that meaning is lost. If someone calls a bird a frog, they will not be understood. A completely internal language unique to one person can't have consequences for violating rules. If I decide that "Yada yada" means duck, and I violate that rule by saying "Yada Yada" when I mean cat, I can't misunderstand myself. A structure of symbols to convey meaning can't exist without the possibility of misunderstanding, and misunderstanding can't occur with only one mind. Every time you use language in your thoughts, you are acknowledging the existence of other independent minds. You cannot use language and at the same time claim that your mind contains all of reality, or that other people are projections of your mind.

If these independent minds are somehow all creating or altering reality, they must be remarkably in tune to make anything function.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

At the end of the day, even if this were true, we seem to have no way of proving it to ourselves.
And it doesn't change anything anyway.

And no need to prove it, either. It's a useful perspective, or it's not.

(Daffy, feel free to *prove* the existence of California by bringing Brunhilda out for a visit to Santa Monica, anytime!)

I can see why the idea of subjective reality could be upsetting to people who use only the objective reality lens. OR lives inside of SR, so someone using an SR lens can accept the perspective of OR without it meaning anything. But from an OR perspective, the two are mutually exclusive, so if SR is right, then OR is wrong, and then where am I? That's an uncomfortable place to be.

I think the people who use either perspective most successfully (that is, free of upset and free to get the results you want) are the ones who recognize that each person (avatar ) gets to choose, and that's perfect.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

The assumption of communication is the existence of more than one independent mind. If there is only one mind, there could be no language.

Because there are two independent minds presumed in the statement “nothing exists outside my consiousness” A is acknowledging that B's consciousness is existing outside A's consciousness by making the statement. The statement falls apart, just by being made.

Well, that is one perspective. Another, one that is not contradictory, is that A and B are aspects of one consciousness, rather than separate "consciousnesses." From such a perspective, the statement holds together very well. An analogy would be that my brain sends a message to my toes, instructing them to wiggle. Are the mind and the toes separate consciousness because one communicates with the other? I don't think so, but you might. I actually think the mind is IN the toes, as well as in the head -- I think that the mind lives in every cell of my body. It's not a separate "mind" in each cell -- it's all one consciousness.

In the same way, Consciousness (The Big Mind) lives in every cell ("angela", "stanselm," etc.) as One. I understand if you don't see it that way, though.

If these independent minds are somehow all creating or altering reality, they must be remarkably in tune to make anything function.

Yes, I think so, too! Remarkably in tune. I love that.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

If A says to B, “Nothing exists outside my consciousness” A is communicating with B.

The assumption of communication is the existence of more than one independent mind. If there is only one mind, there could be no language.

Because there are two independent minds presumed in the statement “nothing exists outside my consiousness” A is acknowledging that B's consciousness is existing outside A's consciousness by making the statement. The statement falls apart, just by being made.

A could try saying "nothing exists outside my consciousness" to his or herself. But the use of any language presupposes that words have meanings, which have been determined by agreement among millions of independent minds, which are not part of A's mind.

If these independent minds are somehow all creating or altering reality, they must be remarkably in tune to make anything function.

No, that model assumes other consciousnesses are just an expanded part of yourself. It's too metaphysically murky but metaphysics can't be debunked with a thought experiment that simple.
I only understand it in terms of the modern Buddhism which came about around 5AD where the physical world has dualities and separateness but experiencing things from a higher perspective shows that everything is part of 1 "God" consciousness. Now it's re-emerging as new age metaphysics. But the other posters are right, it's very semantic and doesn't really matter.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Angela

I can see why the idea of subjective reality could be upsetting to people who use only the objective reality lens.

Indeed. I can also see why SR is so comforting to many people who feel that OR leaves them out of control of their life (it doesn't).

That's an uncomfortable place to be.

I think one reason it can be uncomfortable is the mistaken idea that Science = OR. Some are afraid that if everyone believed in SR, then scientific advances would not be made. I don't see any evidence to support this belief.

Like I've said before, either way I see SR and OR people eating food, taking showers, working at jobs, using gravity, etc. So their actions are similar, which leads me to believe that deep deep down, at their core, they share many common beliefs.

One question we could ask is which is more honest? I guess it depends on how you define honesty. This is one way I define it: if an OR person says he can't do something and doesn't do it, he was being honest. If an SR person says he can do something and doesn't do it, then he may be dishonest.

In short, I have more respect and trust for people who align their actions with their words. This works for me. I like to know people by their fruit and I think that's fair.

I think this is why many ORs feel that SRs are intellectually dishonest. They see a SR claiming they can make a million dollars manifest out of thin air instantly, but then they don't do it. So the OR asks, "Why tell me you can do something if you're not willing to show me?" It's like the kid at the baseball park who claims he can run faster than you. So you say, "Oh yeah? Let's have a race!" And then the kid goes, "Ummm actually I need to go home now."

Nobody likes to be lied to. And nobody likes to be called a liar, because nobody likes to be lied to. Angela demonstrated this when Kanzeon implied she was lying. She did not seem to like that at all. So I think that's how some ORs see SRs, particularly when SRs don't "backup" their claims with actions. Some ORs see SRs as liars. I believe the word "cop-outs" was used earlier. And of course, this goes both ways. If an OR makes a claim, he should be able to show it.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Angela

Well, that is one perspective. Another, one that is not contradictory, is that A and B are aspects of one consciousness, rather than separate "consciousnesses."

If there is one consciousness, there is no language. We wouldn't be talking. Because we are talking, we both accept that there is more than one consciousness.

I don't communicate with my toes. I move them. People communicate with tomatoes, not toes.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

I don't communicate with my toes.

Your brain most surely communicates with your toes. It has its own "language." Maybe, in a similar way, StAnselm communicates with Angela.

Just an idea.

[Angela]

I see it more like Kwai Chang Caine -- he CAN fight like a mo-fo, but it's not necessarily his best choice in any given moment.

Of course, some ranch hand would hear that there's this Caine fella 'round these parts who can fight like a mo-fo, and then he'd get riled up and go looking for him and say, "Hey, I hear you can fight like a mo-fo. PROVE it!" And Caine would say, "I do not wish to fight." And sometimes he'd go all slow-mo on the mo-fo; and sometimes he'd wake up bruised and battered, being tenderly ministered to by some hot pioneer babe. And in those latter cases, the "winner" would believe that Caine was a fraud. (At least until the last five minutes, when he'd get a whoopin'.)

Like you mentioned earlier, having the ability to do something, and choosing to do it, are two different things. And there's always a part to be cast for the dubious ranch hand!

So yes, I can see where people looking through an OR lens would think people who are looking through an SR lens are being dishonest, and would clamor for *proof.* (I guess Kanzeon got his! )

[Angela]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

If there is one consciousness, there is no language. We wouldn't be talking. Because we are talking, we both accept that there is more than one consciousness.

Who made up that rule? Language and talking are wonderful, and I don't see them as proof that we are separate. On the contrary, our both being aspects of the same consciousness is what gives us language and talking.

I don't communicate with my toes. I move them. People communicate with tomatoes, not toes.

It's funny you say that ("I don't communicate with my toes.") I just read a very interesting book about body language, and have since been noticing the communication of toes all over the place!

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Your brain most surely communicates with your toes. Maybe, in a similar way, StAnselm communicates with Angela.

Just an idea. Who knows if it's "true" or not.

My dictionary says communicate means to impart knowledge. I don't think that applies to toes.

The more important leg of the argument is language. There is no reason for me to speak to you if I don't have something in my head that I want to get into yours. If I speak, I am acknowledging that your head isn't an extension of my head.

Can someone show that's wrong, without using an analogy?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

Can someone show that's wrong, without using an analogy?

I'm not interested in communicating to you that you're wrong, StAnselm.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Angela

So yes, I can see where people looking through an OR lens would think people who are looking through an SR lens are being dishonest, and would clamor for *proof.* (I guess Kanzeon got his! )

Don't we all ask for proof, even if we don't say it?

Let's make up an example. Angela, if I said that I, Daffy Duck, could teleport right in front of your eyes, but I refused to show you, would you really believe me? Would you really think I was being 100% honest?

And another one. If someone says they love you, but they continue to punch you in the face, would we really believe them?

Originally Posted by StAnselm

My dictionary says communicate means to impart knowledge. I don't think that applies to toes.

Well if we're going to split hairs (or toes), my dictionary also says communicate means: to be joined or connected.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Angela

I'm not interested in communicating to you that you're wrong, StAnselm.

We're probably getting far off track.

I don't think anyone here is saying that I don't have a mind, and you don't have a mind, or that our minds do not operate independently.

My dictionary tells me that subjective reality is an oxymoron. I'm not sure what is being discussed here at all.

[InnerChallenge]

Intense conversation!

I think it is great that you want to manifest a BMW, but are you also taking action towards manifesting this car into your life. Affirmations and emotions alone aren't enough, because that would mean that you can sit on the couch all day manifesting your BMW and all you have to do is wait until someone parks it in your driveway. Taking action towards your dreams or goals is a crucial part. The LOA is only part of manifestation. You have to go three for three: thoughts, emotions and actions!

But I really believe you can do it!

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by joelr

Anyone who is interested in truth has to get past the Newtonian mechanistic, deterministic, positivist, 1890 thing.
It died in the 1920's !!!!! IT'S GONE. Let it go. Bye bye.

Reading this sort of thread often makes me wonder if we should dig up the body, cut off the head and burn the heart!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Don't we all ask for proof, even if we don't say it?

Let's make up an example. Angela, if I said that I, Daffy Duck, could teleport right in front of your eyes, but I refused to show you, would you really believe me? Would you really think I was being 100% honest?

And another one. If someone says they love you, but they continue to punch you in the face, would we really believe them?

No, just you.

If you told me you could teleport right in front of my eyes, I would be delighted by your belief. I would be interested and I would request that you demonstrate, but if you refused to demonstrate, I wouldn't call you a liar or assume you were lying. I would either be interested in getting into your model of the world and learning more, or I would not be interested and I'd let it go. One thing I wouldn't do: get upset or insulting. (In the past I might have, though.)

If it were you, personally, Daffy, my guess is that I'd go the former route. So maybe I could learn to be more like you, and get better at helping people get into my model of the world, and that would help me get the results I want: to help people feel good. There's a lot to learn here!

ps.... you and your face-punching images. I mean really.