I think, therefore ..

[Oliver]

I was reading through Bell's theorem today, and if I read it correctly, then it means that only upon being observed is the observed defined.

Let me try to put that another way. I admit that I am no physicist, and it's been twenty years since I took my BS in mathematics. Here goes ..

As you recall, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle shows that measuring a single attribute of a particle actually determines what the measurements will be for the particle's other attributes (usually we hear this phrased as not being able to measure simultaneously both the speed and location of a particle, because measuring the speed changes the location, and vice versa). This extends via Bell's theorem, so that we see (both in theory and in experimental results) that measuring a particular attribute of a particular particle determines that same attribute of any other particle which is entangled with the first particle.

Or, more colloquially, I think, therefore you are.

Your thoughts? both puns intended

[renie408]

I think it would make a great t-shirt slogan.

[NightOwlNation]

How about:

I AM Be-ing. No qualifiers, no strings.

Then.....

I AM the awareness-of-being whatever it is I AM aware of.

How do ya' like them apples? lol!

[MoneyAddyct]

I'm not really sure who Bell is but as a philosophy major I've studied several philosophers who specialize in epistemology and believe that objects cease to exist during times of interperceptual intervals, that is, during times when they are not viewed. I know that W.T. Stace believed that for sure.

[Shaden]

Nothing is ever provable. We have to make a choice to believe in what we will.

[Oliver]

One of the questions I have about the nature of subjective reality and intentioning-manifesting is how to explain surprises. For example, if a person is struck by lightning, did that person somehow attract that strike into their reality?

In other words, the epistemologists mentioned by MoneyAddyct have spent their careers studying the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge and have determined that the unobserved is non-existing. So then how is it that a meteor can fall at my feet right out of the sky when I don't recall asking for it?

[NightOwlNation]

Well, the conscious and sub/unconscious are both at work. But they can both be re-ordered (thoughts and manifestations) by conscious intentions.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Oliver

One of the questions I have about the nature of subjective reality and intentioning-manifesting is how to explain surprises. For example, if a person is struck by lightning, did that person somehow attract that strike into their reality?

Steve Irwin probably didn't expect to be stabbed through the heart by a giant stingray's barb either. Someone recently noted however that he had expressed the wish to rejoin his recently deceased mother.

[Shaden]

In other words, the epistemologists mentioned by MoneyAddyct have spent their careers studying the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge and have determined that the unobserved is non-existing. So then how is it that a meteor can fall at my feet right out of the sky when I don't recall asking for it?

That's an example of the unconscious beliefs we have that are still whirling away in our head. For example a lot of subjectivists believe in LOA but probably at some level believe in the laws of physics - which is why they all experience gravity. It's a similar thing to this. That's why I think it's literally impossible to transform the world completely with LOA and subjectivism. Too many pre-conditioned beliefs still in your mind...

[renie408]

I have nothing else to offer this discussion.

I just wanted to ask 'Acting Like Godot' what the signifigance of his screen name was. Is it because you never get where you are going? Have I been analyzing it too much? Is it just supposed to sound cool? It does, BTW. I wonder about that screen name every time I see it.

[Oliver]

I can go with that idea, Shaden, that I may have beliefs that allow for that meteorite to fall at my feet.

Maybe it's also akin to our bodies' subsystems. I rarely, probably never, think specifically about my cells' membranes staying whole, and yet they continue to do so. I continue to believe I am alive and whole, and all the "work" of enforcing that belief onto my body's subsystems is handled for me.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by renie408

I just wanted to ask 'Acting Like Godot' what the signifigance of his screen name was. Is it because you never get where you are going? Have I been analyzing it too much? Is it just supposed to sound cool? It does, BTW. I wonder about that screen name every time I see it.

Renie408, since Acting Like Godot hasn't responded yet, I will chime in with my guess, and hope for a confirmation or denial.

The play Waiting for Godot can be interpreted in several ways. The characters in the play might be waiting for God, or waiting for the end, without being sure of why they're waiting. They pass the time in seemingly trivial and mundane (though occasionally humor-producing) ways. Some might say that the point of the play is that the end means nothing, that the moments along the journey are what matter.

So, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the moniker Acting Like Godot means either (or both) that this person seeks to behave as the "god" of their own reality (which fits in well with the notion of subjective reality) or that this person seeks to behave as though each moment is to be deeply imbibed and enjoyed.

Just my two cents.

[NightOwlNation]

Originally Posted by Shaden

That's an example of the unconscious beliefs we have that are still whirling away in our head. For example a lot of subjectivists believe in LOA but probably at some level believe in the laws of physics - which is why they all experience gravity. It's a similar thing to this. That's why I think it's literally impossible to transform the world completely with LOA and subjectivism. Too many pre-conditioned beliefs still in your mind...

Intersting points, Shaden. They gave me pause. What I realize is that I still believe it all makes sense.

I think we tend to be conditioned to believe it has to be this OR that when really it can be this AND that. Belief in The Law Of Attraction and physics or any other science is in no way contradictory. We attract what we attract. I experience gravity because I agree to on some level. As part of my human experience.

Also, with subjective reality reasoning we are not trying to change the world - but rather if we have a conscious desire for a new experience, personally or globally, we are then intending to change our consciousness - the container in which the world exists. And in which all things we are aware of exists. So our objective reality perspective, to whatever degree we live with it, is contained within our subjective reality - and subjective reality cannot be limited by objective reality (because any objective aspects/beliefs live within the subjective). This then brings us back to subjective reality, whether or not we are aware of the 'mechanism' of it. As nothing exists outside of the infinite container of the subjective experience.

[Shaden]

I completely agree with you NightOwlNation.

One of the criticisms that is thrown out at people who believe in the LOA and subjectivity is that nothing ground-breaking has occurred yet - that these people aren't going to the lengths of intending a meteor strike, earthquake or change in the laws of physics. The conclusion then is that it has it's limits - that even if it were to be an accurate belief it can't extend beyond it's own container. There are boundaries.

However, I think this stems from what we truly desire as a person. We may think one day about making gravity work in reverse for fun, but our own fundamental desires interrupt this. Instead we have to find what really matters to us which is in alignment with the person that we are. So for example if you're fundamental desire is to help people, then the universe is going to give you a lot of aid if you set up a Personal Development Blog - look at Steve's results.

But if you think one day that it might be cool to intend an earthquake on the other side of the world - that's not the desire of the consciousness, but the desire of the ego instead. And the universe doesn't work in tandem with the ego, because the ego is consistently intending objective reality - in other words intending the universes aid out of existence.

You have to intend from the frame of consciousness - not ego. And when you do this, quite often you find that these desires are concrete and don't require some warped reality to come into existence. Helping people is easy. Becoming a spiritual teacher is easy. Finding financial freedom to pursue your passions is easy. All of these choices require no real change in the functioning of the world - the universe just helps in putting the pieces of the puzzle in place for you.

[Acting Like Godot]

I'm being psychoanalysed, heheh.

Originally Posted by Oliver

So, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the moniker Acting Like Godot means either (or both) that this person seeks to behave as the "god" of their own reality (which fits in well with the notion of subjective reality)

That is right .... "Acting Like Godot" is actually the title of my blog, and it comes with the subtitle "Impossible is Nothing".

The choice of name does also have a lot to do with Beckett's play. I want to remind myself that we aren't ever going to figure it all out anyway ....

[Oliver]

I think BEFORE I am.

[Oliver]

And here's another:

I stink, therefore I'm man.

[RandomJohn]

So what happens when you shower?

[Narz]

I think therefore I don't pay for psychic readings or buy into pyramid schemes.