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

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


hey man. i have enjoyed your contributions to the thread thus far, but dont get in too much of a hurry with tossing aside concepts.

reality, insofar as we are able to describe it (being contained within it, ourselves), is comprised of

nomenon phenomenon

some very basic research and theorizing has been done by such notables as Rupert Sheldrake and Ken Wilber.

if you cannot accept that observation, or the "observer", noumenon, etc. is an essential part of the equation of reality, then i would very much like to know how you would go about defining reality otherwise.

i wrote a paper on consciousness and creation a few months ago, which is on ATS *here*.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by tgidkp]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

"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.

For a scientist you sure don't know much about experimentation. The whole idea of experiments is to show the same result consistantly. Outside factors are removed from experiments.

Experiments are done in ideal conditions. And if done over will show the same results. This is what is known as duplicating your results. If you cannot then you cannot say your experiment worked. It is that simple.

If an effect is to be considered true it must be duplicated in multiple experiments. . . if it can't be then it is likely to be wrong.

This is what real scientists do for a living. They hypothesize then experiment then experiment again. Then they share their results and others try to duplicate it. If all goes well it will be proven. . . if they can't be duplicated then it's back to the drawing board

[edit on 21-2-2010 by constantwonder]

Originally posted by tgidkp
some very basic research and theorizing has been done by such notables as Rupert Sheldrake and Ken Wilber.

if you cannot accept that observation, or the "observer", noumenon, etc. is an essential part of the equation of reality

I have no such objections whatsoever, sir, and agree that the observer is indeed essential. I quite enjoy your contributions as well. Thank you.

Originally posted by np6888
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."

actually if you read the read you'll find i posted the same thought a few pages back. . . jump the gun much ?

Originally posted by np6888
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.

I don't believe that anyone called this into question. What exactly is your point?

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

hey man. i have enjoyed your contributions to the thread thus far, but dont get in too much of a hurry with tossing aside concepts.

reality, insofar as we are able to describe it (being contained within it, ourselves), is comprised of

nomenon phenomenon

some very basic research and theorizing has been done by such notables as Rupert Sheldrake and Ken Wilber.

if you cannot accept that observation, or the "observer", noumenon, etc. is an essential part of the equation of reality, then i would very much like to know how you would go about defining reality otherwise.

i wrote a paper on consciousness and creation a few months ago, which is on ATS *here*.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by tgidkp]

So what your saying is that the universe exsists because of concsiousness? Not to offend your sensibility but i find that hard to swallow. Is it not the structure and evolution of the universe that allows consciousness to arise?

I don't see how being so anthropic is adding to your argument. If consciousness is required then you must evoke a god or some other higher power to collapse the superposition and cause the original phase change. . . .

I may not be interprating what your saying correctly, and if that is the case please indulge me and expand upon your thoughts

Originally posted by constantwonder
For a scientist you sure don't know much about experimentation. The whole idea of experiments is to show the same result consistantly. Outside factors are removed from experiments.

PLEASE STOP taking my words out of context.

I am talking about MIND POWER experiments. If you know a way to make a controlled MIND POWER experiment, please let me know.

I was explaining that a MIND POWER experiment is FULL of uncontrollable factors because the entire universe as a whole is working together to create the result. You can't remove all the factors involved....

Originally posted by constantwonder
Experiments are done in ideal conditions. And if done over will show the same results. This is what is known as duplicating your results. If you cannot then you cannot say your experiment worked. It is that simple.

Ideal conditions..... in order for MIND POWER experiments to work, you need to use the entire universe which does NOT have ideal conditions.

Although you can get the same end result, the effect caused in between is random and uncontrollable. This is the reason people are unable to grasp the concept. The randomness that occurs before the end result appears to be random, when in reality it isn't random to the universe itself.

Originally posted by constantwonder
This is what real scientists do for a living. They hypothesize then experiment then experiment again. Then they share their results and others try to duplicate it. If all goes well it will be proven. . . if they can't be duplicated then it's back to the drawing board

This is EXACTLY what I, and MANY OTHERS before me have done with MIND POWER.

We hypothesize that our thoughts create our reality. We have experimented for years and years. We have shared our results, and we have duplicated our results, and it was PROVEN.

Our thoughts create our reality, and control our reality.

If you want something, use your mind, and you will get it one way or another.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by ALLis0NE]

Well we all have a mind so why not test it out for yourselves.

I don't know to what extent the mind can effect reality, but I know my mind effects my reality on a daily basis.

Try Emoto's rice experiment. Look it up it's easy to do. Worked for me, twice so far.

I also play with sigils, an I've had some extemely impressive results I've made a few things happen that I cannot mention here and used to only happen in my dreams. Caution, can come with unforseen secondary effects. I can't express how much succes I have had with this.

The feeling of being stared at is something I think everyone has experienced. The most common phychic experience.

The palcebo effect is another documented case of the power of the mind or power of belief.

Belieive what you want, but know that belief is a strong player and directly impacts the results. Belief should be flexible and used as a tool.

My point is we all have the means and if you have the will you can find your own truth. Don't need blogs or peer reviewed scientific studies.

for the record, IRT the OP:

i am quite in agreement that the potential of the human mind is not being exploited properly. i also agree that we are purposefully being led AWAY from this goal. this is only a temporary setback.

the OP says that we are to fear TPTB because of their malicious intent.

it is important to remember that TPTB are limited in their scope of action elusively to linear modes. synchronicity is NOT a linear mode. conciousness, itself, is also NOT a linear mode. reality does not obey linear causation.

(Quantum Mechanics also implies non-linear causation. i think this is where much of the confusion comes from, with people trying to make a religion out of it.)

as such, there is not really any way that TPTB can accomplish their mission. each and every time they think that they have us pegged, or that they "KNOW" how a given situation will work out, reality will dictate otherwise.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


My point is that if things were "normal," then they shouldn't change, regardless of what you do with the data . Also, what we see is just what light reflects and our brain's interpretation of it. "Underneath," it may all be just a bunch of energy vibrating, dark and empty space, and some invisible forces.

reply to post by constantwonder


constantwonder, here is a snip from my post back on page 6:

however, intelligence, itself, is an intersecting dimension of our 3D reality, and it expresses itself at every level of the micromacro-cosm.

"it is turtles, all the way up, and all the way down."

Originally posted by constantwonder

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

hey man. i have enjoyed your contributions to the thread thus far, but dont get in too much of a hurry with tossing aside concepts.

reality, insofar as we are able to describe it (being contained within it, ourselves), is comprised of

nomenon phenomenon

some very basic research and theorizing has been done by such notables as Rupert Sheldrake and Ken Wilber.

if you cannot accept that observation, or the "observer", noumenon, etc. is an essential part of the equation of reality, then i would very much like to know how you would go about defining reality otherwise.

i wrote a paper on consciousness and creation a few months ago, which is on ATS *here*.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by tgidkp]

So what your saying is that the universe exsists because of concsiousness? Not to offend your sensibility but i find that hard to swallow. Is it not the structure and evolution of the universe that allows consciousness to arise?

I don't see how being so anthropic is adding to your argument. If consciousness is required then you must evoke a god or some other higher power to collapse the superposition and cause the original phase change. . . .

I may not be interprating what your saying correctly, and if that is the case please indulge me and expand upon your thoughts

I responded to this guy's post before the edit including his paper on "consciousness and creation". After reading a bit of it I find it relies far too heavily on conjecture and parable, although the concepts are definitely intriguing. However, I don't find it particularly convincing. Thanks for the link though, it makes an interesting read.

Originally posted by squiz
The feeling of being stared at....

Rupert Sheldrake also did a bunch of research and theory about this phenomenon.

unfortunately, turns out there was nothing to it.


but his words and ideas about the morphogenetic field have direct application to what we are now discussing.

reply to post by tgidkp


Ive done a lot of research in that area too...

It turns out our eyes, and all animal eyes, reflect light in exactly the direction they are looking.

I found that humans can actually sense that light, if it is intense enough.

Originally posted by squiz

The palcebo effect is another documented case of the power of the mind or power of belief.

The ability for a man to achieve an erection by thinking of a beautiful naked woman could also be considered a "documented case of the power of the mind". It doesn't lend any credence to a notion that the "power of the mind" goes beyond a desired physical effect.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
However, I don't find it particularly convincing.

the paper was written for a literature class.

it was mentioned in the OP that, "why would anyone spend any money on research for an idea that is not given any credibility?"

you may not find it convincing, but it is important for people to at least be aware that alternative viewpoints can be substantiated.

reply to post by St Udio


A lot of you here on ATS continue to believe that what is coming will be "amazing" and "heavenly."

They will be amazing, but they will not be what you are expecting them to be.

Amazing can mean a lot of things.

You may or may not take anything I say seriously, and I understand that, but it is dangerous to get your hopes up.

I'm not saying it will be hell on Earth. I'm not saying it will be all bad.

There will simply be more complex problems to solve; problems that couldn't have arisen in the state we are in Now.

We do not know these problems yet, we cannot know until they come; but they will come.

Accept things for the way that will be; don't sugar coat it.

reply to post by CleverNameHere


Accept what may come to you; don't sugar coat it.

I don't edit my posts.

Originally posted by np6888

My point is that if things were "normal," then they shouldn't change

Whatever gave you that notion? So much in the universe is defined by the constant state of change.

reply to post by ALLis0NE


in the movie, "the men who stare at goats", george clooney gives us the "sparkling eyes technique". naturally, it is a mockery.

i am particularly interested in the field of biophotonics with regard to the idea that the visible light spectrum is a mode of human cellular communication.

is this what you are saying? that we are sensible to the visible light being reflected toward us?

maybe mr. sheldrake got it wrong. ???