Manifestation Experiment - Easy Way to Learn About LOA

[Wax Frog]

A hard skeptic and an inspired-actioner all in one thread! My dream come true!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

A hard skeptic and an inspired-actioner all in one thread! My dream come true!

Powerful Waxie! YOU are creating all of this!

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Angela

Powerful Waxie! YOU are creating all of this!

(I glimpsed your deletion, by the way, and my answer would be you are right, of course. I was joking -- teasing might be a better word. You know what they say, though: Nobody's ever REALLY just kidding! )

My deletions are usually a product of my not being able to fully put my thoughts into words.

I cannot accept the implication that words comprise the only true means of communication; they are so often totally inadequate. Some ideas can only be conveyed if a little work is done on the (illusory? ) receiving end.

Example: Throughout my late childhood into my teens, I tried to explain the worst of my since-mostly-resolved phobias, in vain. I would say, "You know the pictures you can see in your head? Well, sometimes mine disappear! I can't see my thoughts!!!" (At its worst, the experience would extend into a sense that my consciousness itself was about to "deactivate". Scary to the core!) I'd get blank looks and requests for clarification, or examples for comparison, but nobody ever seemed to get what I was saying!

It wasn't until my folks found a psychiatrist who seemed to know what I was talking about that I felt any relief. He even provided a term for it - "thought blocking". Even though I still wasn't totally convinced he knew what I meant, it was good to hear a formal medical term for what I was experiencing. Having an unknown become an apparent known makes a big difference.

Still, I'd bet even here I could find more than a few posters who'd draw a blank at just exactly what I mean by the description of my phobia, or why it would be so traumatic. But there are also those who would know exactly what I mean, NOT by some collection of words I cobbled together to approximate this experience, but because they (We? The Great I?) have also had this experience, and can fill in the blanks - pardon the pun - for themselves.

[Angela]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Angela

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I have no way of ever knowing if you're really kidding, aside from being an aspect of Me (ooh! more SR! ), but assuming you are, thank you for making my point, and if not, what do you make of it all?

Oops, third option - you're serious and kidding simultaneously! See, I'm learning!

[Angela]

Yes, and I think thought-blocking is a big part of how limiting beliefs and persistent negative emotions get installed and maintained. We do it on an individual basis to cope and survive with event that triggered the phobia (or limiting belief or negative emotion -- let's call them "gremlins"), and then we do it collectively as a sort of "agreement" to keep our gremlins in place.

I think that's fine, because our unconscious mind presents what there is to deal with, both for the individual avatar and for the collective, at the perfect time and in the perfect way. It would be sort of chaotic if all the gremlins were out at once! So, it doesn't bother me when someone (including myself) doesn't want to shift, although it used to drive me nuts!

And isn't it great that people are getting more and more fluid, fluent, and flexible? So much possibility! So much power!

p.s. Waxie, have you played with NLP techniques? I think you might really enjoy them. Dismantling phobias is easy.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Angela

Yes, and I think thought-blocking is a big part of how limiting beliefs and persistent negative emotions get installed and maintained. We do it on an individual basis to cope and survive with event that triggered the phobia (or limiting belief or negative emotion -- let's call them "gremlins"), and then we do it collectively as a sort of "agreement" to keep our gremlins in place.

I have no memory of such an event, but maybe I had an experience of someone putting down my penchant for fantasizing, a "your daydreams aren't real, knock off that foolishness" sort of lecture? It would be ironic in the present context, given my almost reflexive attention to "thoughts can't manifest directly" debates...

(While I never bought into it, being exposed to the pervasive, subtle suggestion that life is only a dreary mechanical death-march devoid of any possibility of 'magic' has been wearying. What a pleasant if jarring experience to discover that there are sizeable pockets of resistance, in the form of IM/LoA. How could I not embrace the idea, try to find out if it's real, and implement it?)

p.s. Waxie, have you played with NLP techniques? I think you might really enjoy them. Dismantling phobias is easy.

When the Uni manifests the opportunity! [yet again, serious in a cheeky way]

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

How could I not embrace the idea

Well, that's kind of how I look at it: why not try on a perspective that you are totally at cause, or any other perspective? See what's possible, see what's available. I don't mean that everyone should go around trying on every perspective that shows its face, but if you find yourself actively resisting a perspective (as opposed to just noticing it, rejecting it, and letting it go), it seems to me that it might be fun to move into that model of the universe just for the fun and the fluidity.

I've heard some people say that that's dangerous, and I can understand the fear, or the concern for vulnerable or weak-minded folk. And that may be a valid concern -- if someone is on shaky ground mentally, moving fluidly between perspectives might not be the best choice.

For "smart people," though -- people who are well enough to read and post here (there may be a couple of exceptions, but I don't think there are too many), I trust that the avatars here are plenty able to move among perspectives without being in danger of .... catastrophe.

Why not try on a perspective that intrigues you, and see what you see, hear what you hear, and feel what you feel? It's not like you can't have your old one back.

Of course, that's easier for me to see from this perspective.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Angela

Why not try on a perspective that intrigues you, and see what you see, hear what you hear, and feel what you feel? It's not like you can't have your old one back.

This IM one intrigues me in because, in part, I seem to have experienced it as a child; the lies (?) came between us over the years, and I want those lies tossed into a fiery pit so I can be close to it again. I definitely don't want the old model back, of that I am sure. The sooner I can lose it the better.

Of course, that's easier for me to see from this perspective.

[shakes fist in mock envy]

I'm not one for posting lyrics to make a point, as it comes off a bit corny, and I prefer to rely on my own words anyway, but I feel strongly moved to make an exception here (and I am supposed to trust my feelings, right?). So, if I were to pick a song to sing to the "skeptics" of the world, I'd go with this one. It fits so well!

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Angela

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.)

Interesting. So is it an accurate statement to say that lying does not exist in your mind? If I told you I was Superman in disguise but refused to demonstrate, you would believe me?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Interesting. So is it an accurate statement to say that lying does not exist in your mind? If I told you I was Superman in disguise but refused to demonstrate, you would believe me?

Sure, lying exists in my mind. I understand what you mean by it. And if you told me about a belief you have, one that I don't share, my mind wouldn't go to "he's a lying liar." (probably.)

You're being kind of playful with the superman thing; I don't think you are telling me you believe you are superman in disguise. If you told me that sincerely, I think I would thank you for trusting me with that secret knowledge and maybe ask you if you can see what color underwear I'm wearing. Anyway, it's not hard for me to see a kind of truth in it -- you really ARE superman in disguise.

If you were to say that you believe something that I believe is unlikely -- let's say, that there is a personal, interventionist god who listens to and answers your prayers -- I wouldn't think you were lying (probably.) I wouldn't say, "Daffy, you and I both know you don't really believe that. That's absurd. You believe something, but you don't believe that," and I wouldn't think it, either.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

I cannot accept the implication that words comprise the only true means of communication; they are so often totally inadequate. Some ideas can only be conveyed if a little work is done on the (illusory? ) receiving end.

It's true they are. I suspect all of our current ideas will someday be just another mythology referencing a much more profound truth.
We have a creation myth that will change with scientific discovery, etc...
Current mythologies that are successful always merge well with the science of the time. Christianity worked for the people of that time. Now it is dead and a new mythology is needed. Here I paraphrase the master of myth Joseph Campbell.

As per the reflection principle any description of the infinite is only a reflection of the totality of infinity (God).

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Angela

I think I would thank you for trusting me with that secret knowledge and maybe ask you if you can see what color underwear I'm wearing.

And I would say, "Oh Angela, you and your trick questions. You're not wearing any underwear!"

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

And I would say, "Oh Angela, you and your trick questions. You're not wearing any underwear!"

Wow. You really do have x-ray vision!

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by joelr

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

I'm sorry, but it's not written in stone.

Many teachings/ theories suggest that consciousness creates reality. So which is it - consciousness or thoughts?

Measuring (observing) a quantum object supposedly forces it to collapse from a waveform into one position. This collapse, according to quantum mechanics dogma, is what makes objects "real".

So where did the quantum object come from? Surely, it must have already been there for you to observe/measure it? If it existed prior to your observation, then you did not create it. Hence, there must be something else, further back, beyond what you consider to be 'real'.

Our 'reality' isn’t the physical structure of the universe, but, perhaps just an information encoding imposed upon it. An analogy of fundamental reality may be that it is like a co-axial cable, and our reality just a cable channel transmitted on it. You can add as many channels as you like, with each channel thinking it’s the 'real' thing, when in fact, it's not. Or, to put it another way, whatever we think reality is, is just our interpretation or perception of it.

That 'it' we are attempting to interpret is reality. But, perhaps, we can never truly, fully grasp it. The act of observing means we are just creating another view of reality, perhaps a more penetrating view, but not the reality itself.

Also, note new developments in investigating 'collapse reversal':

"Collapse reversal" suggests that we can no longer assume that measurements alone create reality. It was back in 2006 that physicist Andrew Jordan, at the University of Rochester, together with Alexander Korotkov, at the University of California, Riverside, first mooted the possibility of collapse reversal. it is possible to take a "weak" measurement of a quantum particle, triggering a partial collapse. Katz then "undid the damage," altering certain properties of the particle and performing the same weak measurement again. The particle was returned to its original quantum state just as if no measurement had ever been taken. (source provided on request).

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

.."You know the pictures you can see in your head? Well, sometimes mine disappear! I can't see my thoughts!!!" (At its worst, the experience would extend into a sense that my consciousness itself was about to "deactivate". Scary to the core!) I'd get blank looks and requests for clarification, or examples for comparison, but nobody ever seemed to get what I was saying!

It wasn't until my folks found a psychiatrist who seemed to know what I was talking about that I felt any relief. He even provided a term for it - "thought blocking". ...

I know exactly what you're talking about! I think

I have two kinds of, I call it "Brain fallout". One kind is when I am getting a "great" idea, it's just coming... it's coming, and I start to get it, and like a dream you can't remember, it's gone. -- I think it is like a dream. I think it is inspiration and because I start to pay too much attention, it's gone just the way a dream can go when you wake up too fast.

The other kind is when I'm explaining a "new" idea or a tenuous idea to someone I care about, or to someone who I "want" to understand. If I see that blank look or hear that "hoo, hum" sound in their voice, I loose the idea because I am confused by their response.

Is that like what you go through?

- Nancy

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Strem2

Is that like what you go through?

Nope, and thank you as well for reinforcing my point. To whatever extent a mental picture relates to actual vision, I am being quite literal. It's like pulling the plug on a TV set, only worse, because I don't just get a blank screen. The screen goes away, no color, no blackness, only VOID. The universe in my head seems to cease to exist. What I "unsee" equates to what I fear the moments leading up to oblivion might be like (assuming the philosophical materialists are right, a notion I rebel against fiercely, in part for this reason). I think that feeling, more than anything, is why it scared me so much. Just talking about it makes some of the old butterflies resurface a bit (accidental intention?)...

Aside from the doc having a name for it, I finally resolved the problem by realizing that there was a sort of necessary "gear shift" involved. The reason I couldn't see my thoughts at times is because my perceptions were locked into the external world, which is a good thing, because if I could somehow see the outside world and my thoughts at the same time, it would produce great and even dangerous havoc - imagine, for instance, having a space adventure while driving. Star Destroyers thundering overhead just as I plow into a tree, or oncoming traffic...

Again, words are inadequate...

Actually, sometimes I wonder if this phenomenon could serve as personal 'proof' that the p-mats are wrong; if 'I' and my thoughts are related emergent properties of the same lump of organized, energized gray meat, then who or what is observing the absence of those thoughts when they go away? And why are they appearing to go away at all?

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Cantando

I'm sorry, but it's not written in stone.

Many teachings/ theories suggest that consciousness creates reality. So which is it - consciousness or thoughts?

Measuring (observing) a quantum object supposedly forces it to collapse from a waveform into one position. This collapse, according to quantum mechanics dogma, is what makes objects "real".

So where did the quantum object come from? Surely, it must have already been there for you to observe/measure it? If it existed prior to your observation, then you did not create it. Hence, there must be something else, further back, beyond what you consider to be 'real'.

Our 'reality' isn’t the physical structure of the universe, but, perhaps just an information encoding imposed upon it. An analogy of fundamental reality may be that it is like a co-axial cable, and our reality just a cable channel transmitted on it. You can add as many channels as you like, with each channel thinking it’s the 'real' thing, when in fact, it's not. Or, to put it another way, whatever we think reality is, is just our interpretation or perception of it.

That 'it' we are attempting to interpret is reality. But, perhaps, we can never truly, fully grasp it. The act of observing means we are just creating another view of reality, perhaps a more penetrating view, but not the reality itself.

Also, note new developments in investigating 'collapse reversal':

"Collapse reversal" suggests that we can no longer assume that measurements alone create reality. It was back in 2006 that physicist Andrew Jordan, at the University of Rochester, together with Alexander Korotkov, at the University of California, Riverside, first mooted the possibility of collapse reversal. it is possible to take a "weak" measurement of a quantum particle, triggering a partial collapse. Katz then "undid the damage," altering certain properties of the particle and performing the same weak measurement again. The particle was returned to its original quantum state just as if no measurement had ever been taken. (source provided on request).

Hmm, possibly there is a problem with the semantics here? A consciousness must "know" the particles location, it has to have the thoughts involved with knowing the information so it can be said that thoughts therefore create reality.

I'm not saying thoughts create the field of potential particles or the wave aspect of reality. That may well be an emination of a "God" consciousness but that is beyond this discussion.
Yes it existed before the measurement but it did not exist in any physical terms. so the statement means "thoughts create physical reality".
Since science knows of no other meta-reality yet it is fact to simply say "thoughts create reality". A reality of uncollapsed waves is still a reality but it is not what we currently refer to as "reality". The metaphysical realm of potential information is not understood. By reality I mean our physical waking experience.

So yes there are more levels of reality and such but it is still fact that consciousness/thought creates the physical.
Your cable analogy sounds pretty good.

The weak measurements used for partial collapse involve an "assumption" that the particle is in it's lowest state. It is done only on qbits in quantum computers and is an interesting feature of Q mechanics. It does not negate the fact that thoughts do create "reality".
Even the partial collapse still involves a conscious/thought recognition or it will still act as an unobserved entity.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by joelr

So yes there are more levels of reality and such but it is still fact that consciousness/thought creates the physical.

This raises other questions I am pondering.

Do you think only consciousness creates the physical? What about natural forces/chemical reacions like nuclear fusion/fission - do you think they can create physical objects too?

If consciousness creates thoughts, which in turn are the vehicle or agent for creating physical reality as we know it, is that reality contained within consciousness or without? This is the area I was addressing earlier, concerning SR and objective reality.

If everything is contained within consciousness, then there is nothing outside of it, because there is no outside. I wonder if that is the case.

Do all physical objects only exist when you are observing them, i.e. you instantly create them within consciousness from basic wave forms (SR)? And, do they cease to exist when you stop observing them, i.e. they return to their fundamental wave form?

If I begin to observe a basic wave form, how do I know what I want it to become? If I see something for the very first time, like a rare bird (or any object), for example, how did I know that I wanted to create that particular object from a basic wave form, when I had no prior knowledge or awareness of it?

If I 'see' a bird right in front of me with 6 heads and 12 wings, which no one else can see, is it real? Am I creating it within consciousness from basic wave forms to form a physical object? Or, is it time to throw in the towel and head for the funny farm? I don't know.

Interesting.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Do you think only consciousness creates the physical? What about natural forces/chemical reacions like nuclear fusion/fission - do you think they can create physical objects too?

No evidence for that exists. It does seem that only consciousness can collapse a wave function.
If a wave is fired at a screen and a detector measures it's position along the way and stores the information on a computer then you look at the screen it will show a particle. This is because there is potential information you can look at about the location of the particle. However if before you look at the screen you erase the information on the computer it will still be a wave when you look at the screen. So the computer knowing the answer will not effect the outcome. In that case the usual outcome of measuring the wave as it passes is to see a collapsed wave/particle on the screen. By erasing the information the collapse is somehow reversed back in time and becomes a wave again? If it didn't go back in time to change the result then it simply did not exist as matter because you never held information in your mind about it.
It shows that the creation process at that small scale is determined by the observer only. No other natural process is likely to make a difference.

I'm not sure how fusion would be added to the process. I think if you showed the measurement results to fusion it wouldn't make a difference

If another observer looked at the computer results and then err...expired, and you erased the information there would be no collapse. It's very observer dependent.

Originally Posted by Cantando

If consciousness creates thoughts, which in turn are the vehicle or agent for creating physical reality as we know it, is that reality contained within consciousness or without? This is the area I was addressing earlier, concerning SR and objective reality.

If everything is contained within consciousness, then there is nothing outside of it, because there is no outside. I wonder if that is the case.

Consciousness seems to be tuned into this field of potential matter where it can choose to collapse waves or not. In scientific terms there are 2 distinct entities. Metaphysically there are obviously other ideas but I'm just speaking about this one idea of thoughts creating matter being true at least on a subatomic scale.

Originally Posted by Cantando

Do all physical objects only exist when you are observing them, i.e. you instantly create them within consciousness from basic wave forms (SR)? And, do they cease to exist when you stop observing them, i.e. they return to their fundamental wave form?

Hmm, yeah that's the Schrodingers cat thing. That involves a different discussion regarding macroscopic objects. Proof about macroscopic objects being created the same way as subatomic involves more metaphysics.
It's not 100% anymore.

Originally Posted by Cantando

If I begin to observe a basic wave form, how do I know what I want it to become? If I see something for the very first time, like a rare bird (or any object), for example, how did I know that I wanted to create that particular object from a basic wave form, when I had no prior knowledge or awareness of it?

If I 'see' a bird right in front of me with 6 heads and 12 wings, which no one else can see, is it real? Am I creating it within consciousness from basic wave forms to form a physical object? Or, is it time to throw in the towel and head for the funny farm? I don't know.

Interesting.

A basic wave contains some type of non-physical information that says "this is an electron wave". Although it can and does change there is no proof that we can intend a wave to change to0 a different particle.

If you see a bird it is real, if a 2nd observer reads to you the information on the computer screen about the particles location then you now have the thought "I know where the particle is" - which collapses it for you also.

Birds have trillions of waveforms and as far as current science is concerned, follows "macroscopic rules". They seem to exist in a more defined state. There is much still to be learned about the true nature of "things".

Although, we are starting to see this weird quantum behavior with actual macroscopic objects now. Something with billions of atoms was recently seen acting as a wave and following those thought-creation rules. This took place in an experiment designed to view quantum strangeness in a macroscopic object.
Everyone who ponders the quantum world feels ready for the funny farm. That's how you know you are understanding it