It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Important Issue Here, and it Involves All of US...MIND POWER.

page: 7
76
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


You are such a hypocrite.

Do you even remember you first post? You opened with an insult.

Here is your quote:



Those that believe that humans only use 10% of their brain probably are only using 10% of their brains.


You sir, just insulted people right there. Your first post.

If you can't eat it, then don't dish it out.

By the way, instead of insulting people who believe they only use 10% of their brain, why don't you educate them properly, and explain how it is a myth.

Then why don't you come to your senses and admit that humans don't use 100% of their available brain power. Then you can both come to an agreement that the 10% figure is probably wrong, but it is true that we don't use 100%.

You see, this entire topic could have been different if you changed your thoughts. If you wouldn't have insulted people in your first post, people wouldn't insult you back. The law of attraction in front of your blind eyes.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by ALLis0NE]




posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by VenusOnTheHalfShell

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

You say:
"Both Emoto and Braden are very widely debunked. A simple google search will reveal much about their tomfoolery."


So, you say we should believe the debunkers and not the courageous few trying to awaken the sleepwalking sheeple and open human minds and spirits to our true potential? That is sad. Are we to also believe that the many experiments with placebos showing the power of the mind over matter are false too? That is laughable. Honestly, what you believe is your business and your right, but what I know is truth, is. That's the crux of it all.


[edit on 21-2-2010 by VenusOnTheHalfShell]


[edit on 21-2-2010 by VenusOnTheHalfShell]

[edit on 21-2-2010 by VenusOnTheHalfShell]


Emoto selects certain crystals at the expense of others and uses different solutions in water for desired effect.

As Emoto says, "the whim of the person doing the selecting certainly comes into play” and "I admit that the selection process is not strictly in accordance with the scientific method, but.."

His words.

Believe what you want though. Presumably your beliefs give you license to call others names such as "sleepwalking sheeple". Perhaps you should take a look at yourself.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


You are such a hypocrite.



Apparently you are unable to be a respectful human being. Again, I have no interest in weeding through your insults in order to decipher your points. Take your arrogance and condescension elsewhere, or challenge yourself and try to engage in normal, polite discourse. Otherwise I am uninterested in anything you have to say. Good day, sir.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
yes. you are correct.


but HUMANS do NOT perceive ATOMS.

we perceive things that are much larger than atoms such as chairs and cars, which are themselves comprised of atoms. and we can act upon these things because they are at the same level as us.

Quantum Mechanics describes processes which we as humans are much much larger than......and as such, we can not directly influence their state.

yeeesh.


Wow that is REALLY wrong.

If humans could NOT perceive ATOMS then we would NOT be able to perceive chairs, and cars, and larger things made of atoms...


The reason we CAN act upon these things is because humans exist on the atomic level too. We are atoms.... we are sub-atomic particles....

To say we can not directly influence their state is completely wrong. If that was true, we wouldn't have electricity, or computers, or anything actually.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jinx880101
 




He is right! I just thought to comment and I did!
And to think I didn’t believe in this before…… Now I think I will go to sleep.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
All I can see here at the moment from a few posters is that they are wasting their mind powers by defending their own egos. Instead of using it to better and know one self in unlimited potential of all that is.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I believe the observer perceives reality.




Are you aware that "observe" and "perceive" are basically the same thing?

Of course, the "observer" does "perceive".


He is asking you if you think the observer effects what it perceives, which is a totally different question.

Your answer is very...... telling.

If you don't think the observer effects what it perceives then you are basically ignoring a fact of life.


actually observe means that you are not applying a perception to the system in question.

observation is impartial perception is not. . . .



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


huh. thats weird. i dont remember ever seeing any atoms.

i must be a pretty terrible observer.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by constantwonder
observation is impartial perception is not. . . .



oh holy freaking crap, folks.

there is absolutely no such thing as objective observation.

observation MUST occur from a given perspective: the VERY DEFINITION of subjective!!!!!



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
We can only see things when enough atoms come together, through either the covalent or ionic bonds, that make them large enough(presumably at least equal to the wavelength of visible light), to be reflected by visible light.

Consciousness is required to form particles and atoms. Light is required to "see" the objects that those atoms form. Don't know what good this'll do. Just trying to break these concepts down in the most intuitive manner I guess.

That said, if consciousness is required to collapse energy into matter, then who collapsed energy into the particles, right after the Big Bang?



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


huh. thats weird. i dont remember ever seeing any atoms.

i must be a pretty terrible observer.


don't try using your logic on me tgid. This is my universe and I believe that when I wake up tomorrow all of your money will be in my bank account. . . I hope you have some


Now that i think about it I can't say ive ever observed an atom either. . . i have however seen SEM images of them. . . in the image they actually resembled california raisins. . . from the off purple coloration to the jazzy sound of the saxaphones they were playing. . .

All kidding aside, no one has ever directly "observed" an atom. The



[edit on 21-2-2010 by constantwonder]



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by np6888

Consciousness is required to form particles and atoms.


Consciousness has nothing to do with formation of particles and atoms. Such events happened long before human (or other) consciousness and happen regardless of consciousness. Cite a source to support your claim.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by np6888
We can only see things when enough atoms come together, through either the covalent or ionic bonds, that make them large enough(presumably at least equal to the wavelength of visible light), to be reflected by visible light.

Consciousness is required to form particles and atoms. Light is required to "see" the objects that those atoms form. Don't know what good this'll do. Just trying to break these concepts down in the most intuitive manner I guess.

That said, if consciousness is required to collapse energy into matter, then who collapsed energy into the particles, right after the Big Bang?


if consciousness is required to create a particle then how do you explain the fact that in the beginning of the universe there was no observer to make sure our universe collapsed out of the "superposition". . . .

No original observer = no universe if what you "bleepers" say is true. . . I think logic has been sacrificed for religion



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


The double-slit and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments proved it.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Epsillion70
All I can see here at the moment from a few posters is that they are wasting their mind powers by defending their own egos. Instead of using it to better and know one self in unlimited potential of all that is.


What exactly are these wasted "mind powers" and what is this "unlimited potential" you speak of? Seems to me that both human potential and "mind powers" are indeed limited, and those that claim otherwise have larger egos than they're willing to recognize.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by np6888
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


The double-slit and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments proved it.


What did they prove? Please be more specific in your post.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


Perhaps there WAS an observer of the universe, at the beginning. Also, what's funny is that you had to wait for me to point out this "hole."



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


It proved that when you look at the data(not necessarily just the slits), it acts as a particle. Otherwise, it acts as a wave.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
Okay. Well, why don't you tell me something that is true about the way the universe works that is not consistantly true? I'll give you a hint: you can't, because thats not the way reality is.


You misunderstood. Or you are taking it out of context. We were talking about experiments.

This is what you said:


"If the effect was real, it would work every time. Real things that are actually true are consistently true."


"If the effect was real, it would work every time", is an incorrect statement when regarding real world experiments. This, of course, is because there is many uncontrollable factors. There are MANY effects that are real, but they don't work every time.

"Real things that are actually true are consistently true", is also an incorrect statement. Although it is true that the Earth is spinning towards the East, it will probably not be consistently true in the future.




If you were a scientist you would appreciate the fallacy in what you have argued here, but since you don't, I am going to explain it to you very clearly.


There is no fallacy. It is just you without certain knowledge.




So the effect is random? Then how can you possibly connect it to your intention? Random effects are called random because they are not connected to a causal precurser. The definition of a random phenomenon is that it does not participate in a cause and effect relationship in the conventional way. So how can you possibly say that you caused it? That's like saying, "I can think something, and it will cause something else to happen, but the thing that it causes will be random." Don't you see how rediculous that is? Promising that something will happen when you think about something is stating the obvious. Of course something will happen. I can think about blue elephants and the sun will rise tomorrow morning. How foolish would it be for me to say, "Oh look, the random effect of the power of my mind?"


You misunderstood again. Very badly too...

I said the effect is random, not the result.

It's more like saying, "I can think something, a random event will occur, and my thought will come true".

I wanted my friend to have a meal, something random happened, then my friend got the meal for free.

Got it?



You're claiming that your thoughts cause random events. Connecting random events to any specific cause is contradictary by the definition of the words. Furthermore your claim is not verifiable or repeatable, because you claim a random effect. There is no way to connect random results to a definite cause.


Yet still, wrong, and misunderstood.

I'm claiming my thoughts cause random events to occur which then create what I was thinking.

Example:

I wanted a new truck, very random things happened, then I got the truck.

The result IS repeatable and verifiable. However, the random things that happen in between are exactly that, random.

The thing that links the two is the MIND. If I didn't want the new truck in my mind, those random things would have been different, and I wouldn't have gotten the truck.




Don't you see the inherent fallacy of this? It is a tautology, it cannot be proven wrong under any circumstances. If the effect you predict comes true then you say you were right and it proves your theory. If the effect doesn't come true you say you were right and your theory is true, it's just that your mind wasn't working.


Thats not a fallacy!

What you are asking is to prove the reality of this mind power by producing a single result. You are then saying if the result doesn't happen, then it isn't real. I am trying to tell you that if a result doesn't happen, that doesn't mean it isn't real.

YOU are the one stating a fallacy. You are saying that if something doesn't happen every time, it isn't true. That is a fallacy.

I was just teaching you of how it works, how it was observed to work.

Your mind power is constantly working. THOUGHTS BECOME THINGS. Every single thought you have is effecting the universe right now. Just because your thoughts don't instantly effect the universe, doesn't mean it's not effecting it.

If you visualize getting a $20 bill long enough, it will happen faster than if you didn't. This is because your mind subconsciously and consciously followed the correct path to reach your desired destination.



The halmark of a bad theory is that it can be easily adjusted to make itself right under any circumstanes. That is what you have here; no matter what the reality, you will claim that your theory is correct.


That is not a theory! That is how REALITY is. It is "absolute".

Our minds effect our universe 24/7. If you put your mind to something, it will happen. If it doesn't happen, then you just need to put your mind to it some more, it doesn't mean your mind doesn't work.




These conceptual objections are very basic and fundemental. You're idea is senseless. It cannot be shown to be true or false, which makes it absolutely useless.


It has already been shown to be true, you are just sleeping so well that you can't see it.


[edit on 21-2-2010 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp

Originally posted by constantwonder
observation is impartial perception is not. . . .



oh holy freaking crap, folks.

there is absolutely no such thing as objective observation.

observation MUST occur from a given perspective: the VERY DEFINITION of subjective!!!!!


i think your misunderstanding me mate. . . what i'm saying is relative to the conversation not dictionary definitons.

I'm saying that an observation can be made without having a concsious person their using their perception of the event to effect its outcome.

Perception is the consciousness side of the argument. Observations can be made without human perception.

I should have been more clear in my post.



new topics

top topics



 
76
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join