B.S. and an intention question

[daveangeles]

I just read Max's post in this section, very fascinating.

So the "how" is not my job. I have plenty of money in my life and my novel is being published by the house of my choice. So all I have to do is think that in the present moment, "observe" it, and the universe will make it come to pass in its own super-secretive way?

Wanted to make sure I've got it right! Thanks for any help.

Also, I read in another section on this forum people talking about the conspiracy theorist who believes the Earth is run by some kind of shadowy reptilian race. Total B.S. There is a reason why this guy isn't on major talk shows and why his books are published by some tiny no-name publisher: it's because he's full of it. Anyway, just had to get that off my chest, because I was surprised by the number of people on this forum actually discussing whether he's "on to something" or not.

[torilink]

kindof,

everything is potential until it is observed. You observe what you want (not with physical senses, but imagination) as though it has already occured. You are living it now - observing how it feels to be told your book is chosen to be published by this pub. house. Can you feel the letter in your hands (or email on the screen as the case may be), can you feel the joy within you, can you experience these things now in your imagination???

If so, then the end result has been observed, the perfect path to attainment will unfold for you.

You have to have Vision and observe your desire manifest - and it is so.

[Advent Shade]

Dave you might want to take my advice on this situation - just walk away from it. I can tell you're a passionate person who has very strong views but when a community of people adopt the view that 'every belief may be correct, so let's ignore probabilistic ideas and jump straight in the deep end' you can't win. I've had to walk away and you might want to too, before you say something you might regret.

Can I just say though - science will always have my respect when it comes to personal beliefs. Why? Because Science is the least arrogant ideology out there. Just had to get that off my chest.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Advent Shade

Dave you might want to take my advice on this situation - just walk away from it. I can tell you're a passionate person who has very strong views but when a community of people adopt the view that 'every belief may be correct, so let's ignore probabilistic ideas and jump straight in the deep end' you can't win. I've had to walk away and you might want to too, before you say something you might regret.

Can I just say though - science will always have my respect when it comes to personal beliefs. Why? Because Science is the least arrogant ideology out there. Just had to get that off my chest.

Hehe Science always wants proof and is the least arrogant???.......how contradictive and ironic. It would seem to me that science is the most closed minded and therefore arrogant in it's denial of possiblity.

Science believed cars, planes and a man running a sub 4 minute mile were impossible.....good old science, I'm so glad we don't trust in it, otherwise we'd be walking everyhwere really, really slowly.

Of course this is just my scientific opinion

Max

[Advent Shade]

Science always wants proof and is the least arrogant???.......how contradictive and ironic. It would seem to me that science is the most closed minded and therefore arrogant in it's denial of possiblity.

Science is the only method by which it's members actively attempt to prove themselves wrong. Every other belief system I've come across, people merely say this is true and now I'm going to go out, rationalize the world and mix selective ideas with personal anecdotes to support my ideas and prove them right.

So yes, Science is the least arrogant. At least it has the humility to say to itself, 'now I think this could be right, but hang on - let's take a step back and think about this'. Skepticism is healthy - it stops people from falling into gullibility.

And the irony of your second paragraph is just... breathtaking. It really is. I hope to God (whatever that may be) that you're not serious. What do you think cars, planes and subs run on? Where do you think every important advancement that allowed the creation of these things came from? Monks?

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Advent Shade

Science is the only method by which it's members actively attempt to prove themselves wrong. Every other belief system I've come across, people merely say this is true and now I'm going to go out, rationalize the world and mix selective ideas with personal anecdotes to support my ideas and prove them right.

So yes, Science is the least arrogant. At least it has the humility to say to itself, 'now I think this could be right, but hang on - let's take a step back and think about this'. Skepticism is healthy - it stops people from falling into gullibility.

And the irony of your second paragraph is just... breathtaking. It really is. I hope to God (whatever that may be) that you're not serious. What do you think cars, planes and subs run on? Where do you think every important advancement that allowed the creation of these things came from? Monks?

Where do you think every human invention started............it's called thought, probably the most unscientific thing known.

If you don't like what is being said here, call the mods, they run a tight ship, I'm sure they'll sort it out

Max

[Advent Shade]

I'm not going to call the mods because you disagree with me. Intelligent debate is healthy

Where do you think every human invention started............it's called thought, probably the most unscientific thing known.

Of course Scientist's think. I'm a scientist myself and I think all the time. Right now I'm thinking 'Damn I wouldn't half mind a cheese sandwhich for breakfast'. Difference is that I don't think 'perhaps if I intend it strongly enough when I arrive at the kitchen someone will have already grated the cheese'. I get up and grate it myself. My thoughts lead to action. Your version (that thought's lead to creation) is different merely on the level of what I might call the 'middleman' - the link between thought and result. But telling me I don't think is sort of... stupid really. It's actually the oddest insult I've ever come across to be honest with you. It's so wierd I don't feel it within me to actually be offended because I'm so puzzled by it.

The issue of arrogance is simple and I won't spent a great deal of time repeating what I said because I said it plainly and simply in my last post. Science is always trying to disprove itself. Scientists love to be disproved. Dawkins once told a story where an Oxford Professor gave a lecture and displayed some research. There was an older scientist in the audience and after the lecture he got up, walked over to the Oxford Professor, shook his hand in front of everyone and said 'my dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong this whole time'. That is science and the scientific method.

Now the mystic who says - 'this is truth and I have no way of proving it to you and even though it may be illogical to suggest that I could ever know such things, I want you to come with me on this'- that is arrogance.

*Shakes head and walks away*

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Advent Shade

I'm not going to call the mods because you disagree with me. Intelligent debate is healthy

*Shakes head and walks away*

By intelligent debate, I think you mean............you're scientific opinion is more important than a spiritual opinion. Everything starts as thought, so in fact thought does indeed create for it creates action, so thought manifests into reality and there's your scientific proof.

*Smiles at denial version of consciousness and stays*

Max

"I want to know God's thoughts, the rest doesn't matter"
Albert Einstein

[Advent Shade]

Everything starts as thought, so in fact thought does indeed create for it creates action, so thought manifests into reality and there's your scientific proof.

Lol, go ahead and publish it. You might need to write a bit more. I'm done with this however for one simple reason.

*Smiles at denial version of consciousness and stays*

Arrogance!. You do realize with you spiritualists it's not the fact that you disagree with us that makes us walk away from you with our heads shaking; it's the patronising, condescending, holier-than-thou attitude which really gets under our skin.

One last thing; that is not a scientific proof. That is a logical chain of thought. Logic is great in some senses but it has certain drawbacks. For example;

Cats sometimes have black fur. The colour black is naturally associated with death and the black arts. Therefore any woman in possession of a black cat clearly has some link to the black arts. It is likely therefore that she is a witch.

Recognise the nature of the line of thinking?

Keep logic within maths where the context is small enough for it to actually work.

[deepfried]

This reminds me of a Nero Wolfe quote:

"Imagination and invention are not the same thing. The difference may seem arbitrary, but it isn't. Invention is always the product of imagination"

To imagine a car is always the first step towards inventing a car. So perhaps science and imagination (or consciousness) aren't so far removed after all? The science is in the invention, but the imagination part is always in the realm of possibility and fiction.

Otherwise, we'd still be living in caves. Science needs the fictional imagination simply to progress.

Hope this is relevant

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Advent Shade

Arrogance!. You do realize with you spiritualists it's not the fact that you disagree with us that makes us walk away from you with our heads shaking; it's the patronising, condescending, holier-than-thou attitude which really gets under our skin.

Your fear of something you cannot see, taste and touch is the very reason why you can see, taste and touch.

Max

[Advent Shade]

Your fear of something you cannot see, taste and touch is the very reason why you can see, taste and touch.

Ok...

[cylon]

Our egos are afraid of what we see as "not us", so we deny our access to it. Most people would rather not turn their lives upside down.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Advent Shade

Of course Scientist's think. I'm a scientist myself and I think all the time.

Hi Advent:

Here are some scientists who subscribe, in one form or another, to the idea that thought affects reality.

John Hagelin
Fred Alan Wolf
William Tiller
Roger Penrose
Robert Jahn
Werner Heisenberg
Bernard d'Espagnat
Brian Josephson (ok, this may be a stretch - BJ doesn't really believe that thoughts affect reality, he is just a Nobel-prize winning physicist who believes in telepathy, not really LOA)
David Bohm
Amit Goswami
Rupert Sheldrake
Dean Radin

You probably recognise at least some of the names there. You might want to google & check out their "thought affects reality" work in greater degree.

The connection between science and spirituality is perhaps not as tenuous as you think. David Bohm, for instance, had a 20-year friendship with J Krishnamurti, an Indian spiritual guru, during which time they had extensive discussions on the nature of reality, and what consciousness has got to do with it.

As for "truth", if you adopt a broader perspective, you'd see that every social system; cultural practice; school of thought; discipline; field etc, has its own ways of determining whether a thing is "true" or not. All these "truth-determining" systems have their own peculiar limitations, flaws and peculiarities. For example, in law, if X is alleged to have driven rashly and to have caused the death of Y in an accident, the judge may well accept this to be "true" in a civil case, but if the same judge were hearing the same case in a criminal court and were presented with the same pieces of evidence, he may treat this allegation as false. This is simply because the rules of evidence are different and the standard of proof required is higher.

Science is no exception, in that the scientific method has its own odd limitations, flaws and peculiarities. Science is pretty useless, for example, in dealing with any matter that isn't susceptible to replication or falsification (either inherently, or due to limitations in current technology or scientists' lack of ingenuity, or lack of research funding). Science can also be remarkably slow in discovering "truths" that can be identified or experienced far more quickly via other methods. For example, a year or two ago, I remember reading an article showing that some Harvard scientist had conducted a very scientific study that showed clearly that meditation makes the person concentrate better and feel more happiness and furthermore meditation slows down the effect of aging on the human brain. I could not help laughing, at the fact that it took science up to 2005 or 2006 to "discover" such things, which meditation teachers and meditators have already known for a couple of centuries.

[Advent Shade]

Here are some scientists who subscribe, in one form or another, to the idea that thought affects reality.

Such vague terminology! Now if you said 'Here are some scientists who all subscribe, to the idea that thoughts can change the physical universe in a completely controllable, predictable and noticeable way' I might have sat up and noticed. But honestly just because a Scientist says thoughts could affect reality doesn't mean they think the environment can be completely transformed by thoughts alone. I happen to think there is a possibility that thoughts could have quantum effects but only on a ridiculously microscopic level, to the point where the change is completely negligible. And a predictable change? Yeh, perhaps if you sat down and spent ten years calculating it. And then of course you're going to need to know the electromagnetic nature of your brainwaves for each individual thought and examine the effect this has on recipient objects which might not even be related to the intention you have in mind. And finally you're screwed anyway because Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle is just going to get in your way.

Science is all about investigating the world and constructing useful models from which predictions can be made and ideas made easier to understand. Something tells me that thinking certain thoughts so that some sub-atomic particles veer off on a slightly different course then they were originally supposed too is not a useful or a predictive model.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Advent Shade

Science is all about investigating the world and constructing useful models from which predictions can be made and ideas made easier to understand. Something tells me that thinking certain thoughts so that some sub-atomic particles veer off on a slightly different course then they were originally supposed too is not a useful or a predictive model.

Science is based on the five senses.....everything that God isn't

Science is for people who want the truth, but want it in a box they can touch and feel and analyze.

I care not for science......it gave me a D in college

Max
"Screw Science, I want to know God's Thoughts........the rest is BS!"
Albert Einstien.

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Hi Advent:

Brian Josephson (ok, this may be a stretch - BJ doesn't really believe that thoughts affect reality, he is just a Nobel-prize winning physicist who believes in telepathy, not really LOA)

Telepathy is real... I experienced it a few years back (it about broke my brain) it is the most trippy thing ever (to the point of scary). If you have ever truely experienced it you would know what I am saying.

I would think a thought (not say a word) and someone in the room would verbally answer me. It was like being in the "twilight zone". Perhaps this can be achieved on a more regular basis, as I'm not currently experiencing it. Like I said it was cool, yet scary at the time...

As far as proving it to someone, I don't need to... I've experienced it and that's proof enough for me.

I think science has it's place, but is very limiting on what may or may not be possible...

[Advent Shade]

Science is for people who want the truth, but want it in a box they can touch and feel and analyze.

Is that really such a bad thing?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Advent Shade

Such vague terminology!

I'd give you the whole spiel, but that would make for a very long post. But since you do seem vaguely interested, I'll throw in some details.

1. Dean Radin recently published in a peer-reviewed science journal his double-blind attempt to replicate Masaru Emoto's thought experiments with water.

Masaru's theory basically go like this - the molecular structure of water (eg in a beaker) undergoes changes if you direct your thoughts at it, and this is observable when the water is subject to very cold temperatures which is then allowed to rise. Water crystals will start forming, and the shape of the water crystals varies sharply, depending on the types of thoughts you had directed at the water (eg you pray over it, or think thoughts like "I hate you" etc).

Dean Radin's experimental results supported Masaru's theory.

2. William Tiller from Stanford University, among several other things, has reported his experiment with fruit flies and human intention. Whereby meditators who direct thoughts at fruit fly eggs thereby alter the production of certain hormones in the fruit fly larvae, enabling them to grow significantly faster and live significantly longer than fruit flies in the control samples.

3. World-renowned mathematical physicist scientist Roger Penrose has written 2 or 3 books over the years setting out his theories about the relationship between consciousness and reality. He has written about how it may be possible to understand more about quantum physics simply by studying the human brain (ie because physical reality depends on consciousness (as per LOA), by studying consciousness you can investigate physical reality).

4. Fred Alan Wolf is pretty well-known in LOA circles ........ Watch "The Secret" and "What the Bleep do We Know". Enuff said.

5. Same for John Hagelin.

6. From Princeton, we have Prof Robert Jahn who is a rocket scientist (yeah, literally). At the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory, he has also done prolonged experiments on the effect of human intention on random events (eg results generated by a machine known as a "random event generator" which you can think of as a fancy electronic coin-tosser).

Robert G. Jahn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

7. French physicist Bernard d'Espagnat is one of many who subscribe to the "consciousness causes collapse" theory in quantum physics. Here's a quote from him, in Wikipedia:

<b>"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with Quantum Mechanics and with facts established by experiment." </b>

Think you can pretty much see the relationship with Steve Pavlina's subjective reality theory.

8. As for David Bohm (one of the fathers of the modern atomic bomb, and a member of the Manhattan Project), well, just google "David Bohm" + "Krishnamurti", the Indian spiritual guru once believed to be the reincarnation of the Maitreya Buddha, and you will find plenty of hits about their discussions on physics, reality, consciousness, time, space etc.

[ExploringTheMatrix]

Belief precedes experience.

The foundation of science a belief. It is "underlying the physical universe are certain immutable laws that determine how reality behaves". There is a corollary belief "if something behaves a particular way, it will always behave that way" or "what happened in the past will happen in the future".

The beauty of subjective reality is that it recognizes that both of those are beliefs. It moves you out of the realm of things happening to you and into the realm of you deciding what happens. Which world would you rather inhabit - one where the universe doesn't work the way you want it to all the time and you accept that because "that's the way it is" or one where you can look at your beliefs and stop creating that situation?

That's not to say that there's no benefit or value to science. Just realize you're studying beliefs, seeing what's already there. And they're pretty basic, fundamental beliefs that are rather hard to change. Why not be creative and mix in some beliefs every now and then. Then life can be even more exciting.

Do what Steve suggests. Open yourself up to the possibility that your beliefs determine your reality. Allow that perhaps something unusual - psychic, spiritual, miraculous, whatever - could happen and then wait and see what happens.

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Advent Shade

Is that really such a bad thing?

It's never a bad thing for some people to want facts, evidence and proof, but sometimes people consider that those things are all creations of faith.

Max