Discussions

Anonymous Icon

Can we influence reality with collective thought?

Posted May 7, 2013 by spluev in Community Groups

commented on yesterday
by NoetPoet

Quote

80

I came across this on godlikeproductions forum and don't think it will work, but who knows?

Sesame Bagel Experiment...
...The idea is to use Internet and Social Media to bring together the attention of as many people on a single object at the same time. The goal is to find out if physical reality can be influenced by the collective willpower.
here is the link:
http://www.sesamebagel.com

  • 80 Comments  
  • NoetPoet Apr 23, 2014

    “Don't know about ghosts, but I would say "direct thought materializations" can be reliably "reproduced by scientific methods".”

    I actually said “specific methods”, but no matter. So what specific/scientific methods can be reliably used for direct thought materialisations?

    “The problem is that in general, scientists, not experienced in the area under investigation, discount the idea that thought has any influence on an experiment and so neglect to control the variables.”

    It is not the scientist’s role to deny, discount or dismiss the possible effects of thoughts on experiments. In fact it is very important for scientists to account for such effects; otherwise the validity of their research would be seriously undermined. Hence scientists place (or *should* place) a great deal of importance on things like rigorous statistical analysis, peer review, independent experimental verification, and double-blind procedures.

    “It should be clear to anyone with any common sense I think that if one is conducting an experiment to test for any kind of "mind-over-matter" type influences, the mind or thoughts and beliefs of the scientist himself and anyone else involved in the experiment constitute the variables.
    This (such variables) would include preconceived ideas regarding the outcome of the experiment.”

    That sounds more like begging the question than common sense. Following through with this line of reasoning would also make mind-over-matter claims difficult or impossible to falsify, because any experiment which turned up a negative result could just be dismissed by saying that one of the scientists involved wasn’t thinking enough positive thoughts.

  • NoetPoet Apr 23, 2014

    “This is not an unbiased objective approach to conclude before any such experiment is conducted that: "thoughts would not directly affect the situation no matter how much and how many of them they prayed.". That sentence there, that THOUGHT is itself a variable and I would dare say quite clearly NOT CONTROLLED”.

    I was merely stating my hypothesis in response to the question. I’ll rephrase my hypothesis for the sake of clarity:
    Once you had fully accounted for changes which occurred as a direct or indirect result of alterations in the subject’s behaviour after the prayer, there would be no changes left over which could be attributed to the direct influences of the subjects’ thoughts on the material world.

    Notice how the hypothesis is falsifiable - it implicitly invites others to “prove me wrong”. To say that my doubtfulness - which is different from denial, by the way - would somehow bias the experiment towards showing a negative result (i.e. a result which supports my hypothesis) is, again, begging the question and introducing a risk of unfalsifiability. Moreover, there are plenty of options in the toolkit of scientific methodology which are specifically designed to counter the effects of the experimenter’s bias (such as those previously mentioned). One could even try repeating the experiment with different experimenters, each of whom had differing levels of personal doubt about mind-over-matter effects, and see if there was any significant correlation between the doubt of the experimenter and the results of the experiment. Of course, each repetition of the experiment would have to be carried out exactly like the others in all other possible respects, and the statistical analysis would have to be done very carefully.

    “It is like denying that fire can boil water. Then conducting an experiment by putting a pot of water over dry sticks without ever lighting the fire so as to prove that fire has no influence. See, that proves it. nothing happened. The water didn't boil.”

    No, it’s not really like that at all. Your analogy doesn’t even make sense: if you were going to test whether fire can boil water, then it’s immediately obvious to anyone that dry sticks are not an adequate substitute for fire.

  • Tom Booth Apr 23, 2014


    NoetPoet wrote: "Ghosts and direct thought materialisation on the other hand cannot be reliably reproduced by specific methods."

    Don't know about ghosts, but I would say "direct thought materializations" can be reliably "reproduced by scientific methods".

    The problem is that in general, scientists, not experienced in the area under investigation, discount the idea that thought has any influence on an experiment and so neglect to control the variables.

    It should be clear to anyone with any common sense I think that if one is conducting an experiment to test for any kind of "mind-over-matter" type influences, the mind or thoughts and beliefs of the scientist himself and anyone else involved in the experiment constitute the variables.

    This (such variables) would include preconceived ideas regarding the outcome of the experiment.

    Here is an example from a earlier post:

    ----------------------------clip

    NoetPoet Dec 21, 2013

    “I was wondering what would happen if people focused their prayers on one specific issue. “

    Here’s what would happen:
    1) They would all be praying about the same specific issue
    2) The continual focus on the issue as a result of (1) would cause the people to alter their behaviour in ways that would help bring about the changes they were praying for. However the peoples’ thoughts would not directly affect the situation no matter how much and how many of them they prayed.
    ------------end clip

    This is not an unbiased objective approach to conclude before any such experiment is conducted that: "thoughts would not directly affect the situation no matter how much and how many of them they prayed.". That sentence there, that THOUGHT is itself a variable and I would dare say quite clearly NOT CONTROLLED.

    You voice a belief or opinion there. A THOUGHT which IF THOUGHT DOES HAVE ANY INFLUENCE, could only exert an influence in such a way as to rule out or prevent any results.

    It is like denying that fire can boil water. Then conducting an experiment by putting a pot of water over dry sticks without ever lighting the fire so as to prove that fire has no influence. See, that proves it. nothing happened. The water didn't boil.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Dec 28, 2013

    For the record, I do not subscribe to many of Bruce Lipton's thinking but in the "tunedbody" article he does articulate the point I am making:

    “It’s a complex situation,” said Dr. Lipton. People have been programmed to believe that they’re victims and that they have no control. We’re programmed from the start with our mother and father’s beliefs. So, for instance, when we got sick, we were told by our parents that we had to go to the doctor because the doctor is the authority concerning our health. We all got the message throughout childhood that doctors were the authority on health and that we were victims of bodily forces beyond our ability to control.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Dec 28, 2013

    We might rethink what is actually understood as the "collective."
    Society or the social psychology of a society bombards us with a series of concepts and ideas. For example, TV ad encourages us to be consumers. Certainly this effects our thinking. There are also more subtle messages that influence us which is demonstrated in behavioral economics.
    So part of the process seems to be resisting the influences some types of collective thinking or at the least identifying them.

    “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.

    Read more http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes

  • Anonymous Icon

    SeekingUnderstanding Dec 28, 2013

    Dustproduction - Very cool video!


  • Anonymous Icon

    SeekingUnderstanding Dec 28, 2013

    What aspect of reality are we trying to influence with collective thought - abstract or tangible? Planting thoughts in peoples heads to take a certain collective physical action? Some collective metaphysical conjuring of some perceptible outcome without any noticeable physical action? The former question is quite ordinary, the latter would be remarkable indeed.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Dec 27, 2013

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSTLHBrTgD4

  • frequencytuner Dec 27, 2013

    http://altering-perspectives.com/2013/12/telepathic-communication-become-reality.html

    Some new study data on telepathy.

  • NoetPoet Dec 23, 2013

    You're on!

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 23, 2013

    G'day Deception

    Do it right now because you have quite plainly deceived. It doesn't wary me if I'm removed, all it will prove is IONS is after all supportive of obvious int trolls & deceivers which really I no longer want to be associated with if that's the case. I don't think IONS is supportive of theses things so be carful it doesn't bite you where it hurts.

  • NoetPoet Dec 23, 2013

    Yeah nice comeback mate. Real clever. Keep up the name calling and I'll bring the issue to the mod's attention.

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 23, 2013

    G'day Deception (NoetPoet)

    Yet another deceptive move by you to attain control, good luck!!

  • NoetPoet Dec 23, 2013

    “Ghosts again: If a bee stung you but nobody else witnessed it you couldn’t have been stung by a bee could you with your illogical reasoning process, that’s dumb reasoning because you know it was a bee that stung you but because you have no proof especially scientific proof that a bee did sting you a bee couldn’t have stung you then, so what was it?”

    If a bee really stung me and nobody else witnessed it, there would still be evidence that the bee stung me: I would have a big lump where the bee stung me; a bee’s stinger would most likely be embedded in the middle of that lump; a blood test could verify that I had bee venom in my blood; and if I were allergic to bees then I would have an allergic reaction. If none of these symptoms were evident, then chances are the bee sting was either a dream or a hallucination.

    A ghost encounter on the other hand leaves behind ZERO evidence that it actually occurred. When people try to point to evidence for ghost encounters, that evidence is shown to be fallacious.

    “Do you have any idea how pathetically immature this suggestive remark is, here I am conversing with a delinquent moron who’s intellect lacks anything beyond suggestive remarks. Control freaks do stoop to low levels of brainless actions!! “

    “I suggest you look up int trolls, you have lead a sheltered life.”

    You know, the most ironic thing about you is that you don’t realize how incredibly ironic you are

  • NoetPoet Dec 23, 2013

    “But you don't obviously back up all your claims.”

    Tell me which specific claims I haven’t backed up – with actual references please, don’t put words in my mouth as per your usual trick – and I will happily back them up for you.

    “You’re wrong about classic scientific methodology only using deduction, they used induction more & in the cave man days there wasn’t much of that used either.”

    Once again you’re clearly not reading what I’ve written. I made it very clear in my controlled fire example that induction is a critical part of the scientific method, equally as critical as deduction. Please do tell us how YOU think cavemen mastered fire – and no vague nonsense about “intuition” or such please, I want a properly fleshed-out and logically sound hypothesis.

    “It still stands, in the caveman days using your reasoning process fire couldn’t have existed because there was no science to prove it did.”

    You are clearly not reading my posts! Re-read my controlled fire example and you will see that this statement of yours is flat out wrong. You really like to argue against straw men, don’t you?

    “This is the same today with the creation of the universe, it couldn’t have been created going by your reasoning process because there is no sound proof in how it was created & you still believe it was created but you demand proof from others. “

    Again you are flat out wrong and clearly haven’t read a word of what I’ve written. Again I ask you, how do you even know the universe was created? I for one do not know one way or the other.

    “Science/deductive reasoning evolved from philosophy & mysticism therefore philosophy & mysticism aren’t of deductive reasoning so I don’t know how a caveman would have scientific proof of how the fire existed before deductive reasoning came into play.”

    The scientific method was formalised a few centuries ago, but the basic principles of it have been know probably about as long as humans have been capable of abstract thought.

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 22, 2013

    G'day NoetPoet

    RE:"All I am saying is that when people make claims they should be willing and able to back them up."

    But you don't obviously back up all your claims.

    You’re wrong about classic scientific methodology only using deduction, they used induction more & in the cave man days there wasn’t much of that used either. It still stands, in the caveman days using your reasoning process fire couldn’t have existed because there was no science to prove it did. This is the same today with the creation of the universe, it couldn’t have been created going by your reasoning process because there is no sound proof in how it was created & you still believe it was created but you demand proof from others.

    Science/deductive reasoning evolved from philosophy & mysticism therefore philosophy & mysticism aren’t of deductive reasoning so I don’t know how a caveman would have scientific proof of how the fire existed before deductive reasoning came into play.

    Ghosts again: If a bee stung you but nobody else witnessed it you couldn’t have been stung by a bee could you with your illogical reasoning process, that’s dumb reasoning because you know it was a bee that stung you but because you have no proof especially scientific proof that a bee did sting you a bee couldn’t have stung you then, so what was it? Just because you haven’t had the experiences others have had to do with ghosts it doesn’t make the ghostly experience a delusional episode does it but with your way of reasoning it does but this must also go with the bee that did but didn’t sting you. Screwy reasoning I must have to say!!

    RE;” >YAWN<”

    Do you have any idea how pathetically immature this suggestive remark is, here I am conversing with a delinquent moron who’s intellect lacks anything beyond suggestive remarks. Control freaks do stoop to low levels of brainless actions!!

    RE:” Right back at you. I’m not a troll, for you see trolls are as fictional creatures ;)”

    I suggest you look up int trolls, you have lead a sheltered life.

  • NoetPoet Dec 22, 2013

    “So without firm scientific proof you believe in one of the many theories about the creation of the universe but anyone else who comes up with an unproven theory you denounce it because it's not scientifically proven. This is double standards isn't it??”

    >YAWN< See all my other comments about assessing the merit of a theory based on the available evidence, and the distinction between “evidence” and “proof”. No it’s not double standards.

    “I'm sorry but you absolutely flaw me with you illogical evaluations, your not a troll are you?”

    Right back at you. I’m not a troll, for you see trolls are as fictional creatures ;)

  • NoetPoet Dec 22, 2013

    “Ghosts: What you don't personally want to believe you won't believe but you expect everybody else to not believe as well.”

    Again (sigh!), all I am asking is that people 1) provide evidence when they claim to have encountered a ghost, and 2) that such claims be capable of withstanding rational critical scrutiny.

    “I haven't got proof they do exist but you haven't got proof they however like the creation of the universe it is still plausible but with you it's not point blank even if you can't prove they don't exist. My family & I had these ghosts touch us & I had one sing to me when no one else was about, if we just saw them as you did fair enough but it went much further than that. I'm not that ignorant to denounce everything under one heading of delusional, you might be that ignorant but I'm not!! “

    Yeah I bet you don’t have proof that ghosts exists. While it’s true that I can’t prove that they don’t exist either, I’m not too worried about that. Know why? Because you are committing the logical fallacy of “negative proof”, which says that X is true because there is no proof that X is false. However, if the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position to take is one of scepticism and not credulity: thus the burden of proof is on the person proposing the existence of “X”/ghosts, NOT on the person questioning existence. The fact that every alleged ghost encounter turns out to be either false or inconclusive – and NEVER verified as real – makes a position of scepticism on their existence all the more appropriate.

    Re the universe: no one, religious or sceptic, can convincingly show that it was actually *created*.

    Re your personal ghost experiences: the experiences of ghosts touching you can easily be explained as hallucinations, misperception and/or power of suggestion. Your claim that you heard a ghost sing to you when no one else was around is even less convincing, because in that case there is no third party verification whatsoever and it could easily be due to an audio hallucination. You’re family’s experiences with ghosts are probably due to an inherited genetic predisposition to hallucinations and/or power of suggestion being reinforced by groupthink.

  • NoetPoet Dec 22, 2013

    “You dictate to everybody else that they must supply scientific proof to what they are saying exists, how would a caveman able to do this so with your logic the fire couldn't have existed because there was no scientific proof of it's existence. You do realise cavemen used a different reasoning process to evaluate don't you, it wasn't deductive reasoning that is why they weren't stupid enough to put the fire out but you would have to because you had no scientific proof of it's existence. There has always been more than one way to reason & not all of them where logically based. “

    All I am saying is that when people make claims they should be willing and able to back them up. The more extraordinary the claim the more important it is to provide evidence for it. Who knows what caveman were thinking when they learned how to light fires, but I’d guess that their learning process went something like this:

    1) They observed fires in nature
    2) They noticed that these natural fires tended to occur in open air, require a fuel source, and were associated with extreme heat
    3) They observed that friction also caused heat
    4) Through a process of trial-and-error, they figured out how to bring air, friction-induced heat, and plant-based fuels together in ways that could reliably produce fire.

    This is classic scientific methodology: observation, inference, deductive testing of an inference, and the consequent development of reproducible methods which deliver consistent results. The scientific “proof” of controlled fire’s existence was that it behaved in ways fully consistent with natural fires, i.e. it was very hot, it burned things, and it occurred in the presence of air, heat and fuel. So don’t keep giving me this malarkey that fire couldn’t have existed according to “my” logic!

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 22, 2013

    G'day NeotPeot

    You dictate to everybody else that they must supply scientific proof to what they are saying exists, how would a caveman able to do this so with your logic the fire couldn't have existed because there was no scientific proof of it's existence. You do realise cavemen used a different reasoning process to evaluate don't you, it wasn't deductive reasoning that is why they weren't stupid enough to put the fire out but you would have to because you had no scientific proof of it's existence. There has always been more than one way to reason & not all of them where logically based.

    Ghosts: What you don't personally want to believe you won't believe but you expect everybody else to not believe as well. Again the fire could not have been scientifically proven so to you the fire couldn't exist just like ghosts. Sorry but I'm dumb founded at you personal kind of logics.

    I haven't got proof they do exist but you haven't got proof they however like the creation of the universe it is still plausible but with you it's not point blank even if you can't prove they don't exist. My family & I had these ghosts touch us & I had one sing to me when no one else was about, if we just saw them as you did fair enough but it went much further than that. I'm not that ignorant to denounce everything under one heading of delusional, you might be that ignorant but I'm not!!

    RE: "Scientists have theories about the origins and history of the universe which are formed from, and consistent with, the available data. They don’t have exact knowledge about the origins of the universe, but they have a much better idea than New Age fantasists!"

    So without firm scientific proof you believe in one of the many theories about the creation of the universe but anyone else who comes up with an unproven theory you denounce it because it's not scientifically proven. This is double standards isn't it??

    Look, I am absolutely dumb founded with you double standards, I can not believe someone who is supposed to be logically minded would act in this way. You are just utterly subjective to anything that doesn't fit within your own personal reasoning process.

    I'm sorry but you absolutely flaw me with you illogical evaluations, your not a troll are you?

  • NoetPoet Dec 22, 2013

    “Science is unable to prove exactly how the universe was created, actually to this date it's still all theory so how are they going to prove something that's not physical actually exists. In actual fact they have measured non-physical things like vibrative frequencies & ghosts are only a vibrational energy source, you would have to wonder why they can't measure such things. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't like UFO's, they are keeping it to themselves or obvious reasons. Just because it's science we are talking about doesn't make it honest & ethical, actually it's probably quite the opposite. “

    Scientists have theories about the origins and history of the universe which are formed from, and consistent with, the available data. They don’t have exact knowledge about the origins of the universe, but they have a much better idea than New Age fantasists!

    The reason scientists can’t measure the vibrations of ghosts is because ghosts don’t give off vibrations, because ghosts don’t' exist! Are crazy unfounded speculations about conspiracies and cover-ups really the best you can do to explain the utter lack of scientific evidence for ghosts?? Once again you are contradicting yourself with your wild baseless speculations, and projecting the dishonesty of the New Age industry onto science.

  • NoetPoet Dec 22, 2013

    “Have you yourself witness ghosts? Obviously not, so how come you are so sure they don't exist going by the example of the cave man? There are things today we can't prove scientifically, it doesn't make them unreal just not explainable as yet. “

    No I haven’t witnessed ghosts because they don’t exist. I *have* had experiences which I took at the time to be encounters with spirits, but later found out this was not the case.

    Once when I was a child I saw my recently deceased great grandmother standing on the other side of park staring at me; when I did a double-take she had vanished without a trace. I later read about a how the recent death of a loved one can cause stress hallucinations by way of neurological activity, and my own experience was consistent with the symptoms of such hallucinations.

    I had a more recent “ghost encounter” a few years ago when I was travelling through Japan with my parents. One cool brisk night we were taking a stroll through the streets of this mountain town, and we came across this beautiful ancient temple lit up with many lights. My dad took a picture of the temple with his digital camera, and when we saw the picture we were stunned: it looked like a huge translucent white cloud was covering the temple, and in the middle of this cloud was a huge oriental-looking eye staring into the camera. For a long time I believed this to be a picture of a temple spirit, and it was far more impressive than any other ghost photo I’d ever seen.

    Then one day I was surfing the internet and I stumbled across the web page about certain types of photographical effects which are often mistaken for ghosts. One of these effects involved exhalation breath or cigarette smoke condensing on the camera lens when the camera’s flash went off. The example photos for this effect looked exactly like the “spirit” in my dad’s temple photo. What had happened was that my dad had been breathing out when he took that picture, his warm breath had risen to and condensed on the camera lens and the flash of the camera plus the lights of the temple had been blurred and refracted through the breath condensation on the lens, thus giving the visual impression of a “spirit” hovering over the temple.

    You say that just because we can’t “prove” something yet that it doesn’t make it unreal, but that cuts both ways: we can’t say that it’s real either, and we certainly can’t discount the possibility that when an explanation is found that it won’t be what we expected or hoped for (e.g. ghost encounters being the result of neurological activity). Until then, I have no more reason to believe in ghosts and direct thought materialisation than I do to believe that Elvis, Don Quixote and a giant man-sized bumblebee are running a secret underground meth lab beneath a house at the end of my street.

  • NoetPoet Dec 22, 2013

    “Your not getting it with the caveman example, fire could not have been proven scientifically in them days so with your kind of reasoning it couldn't have existed like ghosts.”

    What do you mean exactly by “scientifically proven”? Cavemen were able to learn from observing nature how to consistently and reliably produce actual fire using specific methods; they had an actual objective phenomenon which could be reproduced using those methods, without any dependence on the personal beliefs of anyone involved. How could you get any more scientific than that?? Indeed, controlled fire could be regarded as humankind’s first major scientific breakthrough.

    Ghosts and direct thought materialisation on the other hand cannot be reliably reproduced by specific methods. Ghosts are highly subjective phenomena which are often found to be the result of optical illusions, hoaxes, hallucinations, and other mundane causes. Although some ghost encounters are not conclusively shown to result from mundane causes, it must also be emphasised that these encounters have NEVER been conclusively shown to be actual ghosts either. Direct thought materialisation has never been demonstrated in real life, and all alleged incidences of it turn out to be the result of stage magic, hallucinations, or unsubstantiated stories. Experiences of ghosts and direct thought materialisation rely heavily on the power of suggestion on the part of witnesses. For these reasons it would have been entirely possible for a sceptical caveman to “believe” in fire but not in ghosts.

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 22, 2013

    G'day NoetPoet

    Your not getting it with the caveman example, fire could not have been proven scientifically in them days so with your kind of reasoning it couldn't have existed like ghosts. Have you yourself witness ghosts? Obviously not, so how come you are so sure they don't exist going by the example of the cave man? There are things today we can't prove scientifically, it doesn't make them unreal just not explainable as yet.

    It's OK, don't try to understand if you are unable to do so, it's no big deal.

    Science is unable to prove exactly how the universe was created, actually to this date it's still all theory so how are they going to prove something that's not physical actually exists. In actual fact they have measured non-physical things like vibrative frequencies & ghosts are only a vibrational energy source, you would have to wonder why they can't measure such things. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't like UFO's, they are keeping it to themselves or obvious reasons. Just because it's science we are talking about doesn't make it honest & ethical, actually it's probably quite the opposite.


  • NoetPoet Dec 21, 2013

    PS An explanation of collective hallucinations: http://www.skepdic.com/collective.html

  • NoetPoet Dec 21, 2013

    "Yes I know this is a possibility but when two people at the same time witness the same exact so called hallucination you must question this theory/assumption. I think it's extremely rare if not totally impossible for two people to witness the same exact hallucination."

    Memory is a funny thing, particularly when two or more people are involved and they can 'come to an agreement' on what happened after the fact, and especially when those people all share a desire to believe that something unusual and special really happened.

    "When science hasn't the capabilities to measure such things how do you measure it? Prove to me without a doubt it can't occur? You can't so!!"

    I'm sure scientists could "measure" physical objects being materialised into existence right in front of them.

    "With your kind of reasoning the cave men should have put out the fires because they couldn't scientifically prove how they existed, what!!! All I can say is thank God your kind of reasoning wasn't around back then, we would be extinct by now for sure. "

    Oh dear....Cavemen knew how to create fires by way of specific reproducible conditions, and the effects of the fire were physically real, objective and consistent beyond any doubt. Unlike the caveman's fire, direct thought materialisation meets NONE of these criteria.

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 21, 2013

    G'day NoetPoet

    RE: A book called "Hallucinations" by neurologist Oliver Sacks offers a thorough explanation of ghosts sightings as products of neurological activity within the observer's brain."

    Yes I know this is a possibility but when two people at the same time witness the same exact so called hallucination you must question this theory/assumption. I think it's extremely rare if not totally impossible for two people to witness the same exact hallucination.

    RE:"No one is asking you to dismiss the possibility of physical manifestation directly from thought; however, I am asking for you (or anyone) to either prove that it can actually occur or to come up with a testable and plausible hypothesis of how it could occur."

    When science hasn't the capabilities to measure such things how do you measure it? Prove to me without a doubt it can't occur? You can't so!!

    With your kind of reasoning the cave men should have put out the fires because they couldn't scientifically prove how they existed, what!!! All I can say is thank God your kind of reasoning wasn't around back then, we would be extinct by now for sure.

  • NoetPoet Dec 21, 2013

    @MrMathew

    "In saying this I’m not going to arrogantly discount the possibility of being able to manifest anything from just thought alone, how do ghosts interact with us without a brain? My whole family & I witnessed ghosts first hand & at one time both my bothers at the same time witnessed draws opening & closing all on their own. Just because science is unable to measure such things doesn’t make it unreal."

    A book called "Hallucinations" by neurologist Oliver Sacks offers a thorough explanation of ghosts sightings as products of neurological activity within the observer's brain.

    No one is asking you to dismiss the possibility of physical manifestation directly from thought; however, I am asking for you (or anyone) to either prove that it can actually occur or to come up with a testable and plausible hypothesis of how it could occur. Until then, I too will continue to "not" discount the possibility of direct thought manifestation in the same way that choose "not" to discount the possibility that magic unicorns are playing poker on my bed whenever I have my back turned.

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 21, 2013

    G'day NeotPoet

    Actually this is a very good point to bring up.

    I know to some psychology isn't a science but once we psychologically induce certain points of focus we are able to do feats we once thought impossible for us to do, this is similar to taking placebo tablets.

    I had quite a big disagreement with spiritually aware people about this because they thought you could just sit there on you tail bone & manifest what you like at will & it will happen. To a point they were right however what was actually happening is they were psychologically changing their brain pattern that made them get of their tail bones & actually physically make these manifestations occur.

    In saying this I’m not going to arrogantly discount the possibility of being able to manifest anything from just thought alone, how do ghosts interact with us without a brain? My whole family & I witnessed ghosts first hand & at one time both my bothers at the same time witnessed draws opening & closing all on their own. Just because science is unable to measure such things doesn’t make it unreal.

  • DJA12 Dec 21, 2013

    I couldn't sleep because I had a thought. I very seriously believe that society as a whole is becoming much too materialistic and moral and ethical values are being pushed to the side. I know it is a fact that people today know more about the patriarch of Duck Dynasty or the latest episode of the housewives of somewhere or other than they do about the fact that the new paradigm of science offers support for the immortality of consciousness and possibly even the soul. I wrote an educational blog to explain to the layperson the meaning of the new scientific paradigm that began when we broke the atom. My hope is that I could get at least a few hundred people to read it and maybe 20% of the readers would would find the message interesting enough to spread the message to their friends and relatives. A snowball effect I hoped for. It
    thit me that what if others in this discussion group would also write educational blogs and do the same. The effect would be magnified greatly. I have no problem at all with people taking any information from my blog if it will help or make the task easier.
    I am really concerned. Last year I went into a store and brought something for $18.37. I gave the clerk a $20 bill. She tried the register and said "I'm sorry but the register is not working and I have no idea how much change you are getting." I told her $1.63 She said are you sure. Duck Dynasty, reality shows, video games. scienceandspirituality.net is my blog. I would like to know what others think.

  • NoetPoet Dec 21, 2013

    EDIT to previous post: substitute "verified by" for "consistent with"

  • NoetPoet Dec 21, 2013

    "Some people in this discussion and other discussions through IONS focus on scientific answers and seem to close their minds to nonscientific or "spiritual answers" but these cannot be so quickly ruled out."

    If a non-scientific "spiritual" answer is really worth a damn then it will either be consistent with the findings of rational scientific investigation or at least not conflict with them.

  • NoetPoet Dec 21, 2013

    “I was wondering what would happen if people focused their prayers on one specific issue. “

    Here’s what would happen:
    1) They would all be praying about the same specific issue
    2) The continual focus on the issue as a result of (1) would cause the people to alter their behaviour in ways that would help bring about the changes they were praying for. However the peoples’ thoughts would not directly affect the situation no matter how much and how many of them they prayed. Feel free to prove me wrong of course, or to propose a credible hypothesis for how peoples’ prayers could directly influence the physical world.

    “The idea comes from another book ‘a Blue Eyed Yogi.’”

    So the idea came from a story about the miraculous resurrection of a yogi, and the source of that story is the same yogi’s autobiography. Uh huh…

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 21, 2013

    G'day DJA12

    I can actually understand why people who can only reason deductively badly react to people who use more open reasoning processes to evaluate, they feel threatened because they will lose control & they will try every dirty trick they can to avoid this. It would be nice if they just stood by their logical reasoning but they don't, they deceive if threatened; I'm a good example of that.

    I'm using the ego quite effectively to show what actually happens when their reasoning process is threatened. Actually I'm quite disappointed as I thought intellectual people would respond more positively & thoughtfully but that's not the case, they are being quite thoughtless within their responses. I get a far more positive response from spiritually aware people mainly because a lot of them don't have the same controlling ego issues, no surprise but I'm still disappointed.

    I'm very good friends with a yogi teacher, we have some very good conversations about science & spirituality because as you know yoga is not just spiritually based but science based as well.

    Thanks for your compliment about my blog. My blogs definitely impartial towards science & spirituality, it at times I have ago at both science &spirituality so it's not everyone's cup of tea especially if you are fixated to one reasoning process or another.

    I must read your blog but at the moment my wife & I are looking after my brother. When I get onto a good read I don’t like being interrupted like when I’m writing.

    We are obviously here to make a dent DJA, if it doesn’t happen consciously I do think it happens subconsciously but of course everyone to their own course.

  • DJA12 Dec 21, 2013

    G'day Matthew
    The quote I made last night came from the book "Baba: Autobiography of a Blue-Eyed Yogi." Due, at least in part to our controlling ego, we belittle those who look at the world differently. Yes our materialistic science may have created incredible conveniences and weath but these are finite. Eastern philosophies look deep within and create a different type of wealth. A wealth that they hope may be infinite. Their "healthcare" may be different than our preoccupation with medications but "spiritual healthcare" may at times be the answer.
    Some people in this discussion and other discussions through IONS focus on scientific answers and seem to close their minds to nonscientific or "spiritual answers" but these cannot be so quickly ruled out.

    The current Dalai Lama is an active proponent of science. He has said, at a meeting with physicists " Buddhists have much to learn from physicists about the workings of the external universe, but physicists have much to learn from Buddhists about the workings of the inner universe." We, in a western society, have focused our minds on reductionism in science. Figuring that if we could find the smallest particle of matter we would be able to understand all. We broke the atom to evaluate it's parts and all we did is open Pandora's box. Reductionism obviously is not the answer to what we seek. What is I cannot say but I am willing to keep an open mind.
    Matthew, I thank you for sharing your blog.I enjoyed it. I wrote mine from the viewpoint that education is badly needed and encourage friends and relatives to read it. We each can only do our own parts. Maybe together we can make a dent. There is a world of spirit of beauty within each if only we open our eyes and hearts and ignore the cravings of a distorted ego. "I want more; am the best ;need power etc.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Dec 21, 2013

    Muslims pray several times a day, and in a certain direction. What does there collective "thoughts" manifest?
    Same can be said of Christmas mass.

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 21, 2013

    G'day Ros

    Thanks for your input here as it makes so much sense.

    I was also thinking, with groups of people you usually have a headsman, would on occasions & with certain practices would all the energy go through the headsman thus allowing for far less jumbled mess? It's probably why we ended up with heads of churches & religions.

    It's hard for most people to realise but conscious thought is energy & needs to be directed & formulated to take effect like any scientific experiment.

  • Anonymous Icon

    RealityOverScience Dec 21, 2013

    What is happening is that people are blindly, unwittingly, trying to influence the math, etc.. Not realizing that, they have a humongous amount of combinations to muddle through to bring about the change they want.

    To extremely simplify an otherwise complex situation...

    Say you had the alphabet abc...to....xyz, but all the letters were jumbled up.

    With Consciousness of the Universal Physics Processes moving and motivating all things, all people, you would realize it's a jumbled alphabet, what the alphabet would be if organized into Order, that Order is truly the goal at hand, and quickly master the task.

    Without Consciousness of the Universal Physics Processes moving and motivating all things, you would be trying to organize a jumbled mess you don't otherwise recognize as an alphabet, let alone the Universal Laws underlying it, assuming everything is always going to be subjective Chaos anyway, no matter what you do, and you'd set about blindly trying to accomplish a goal of Order with nothing more to work with other than trying every possible combination until you eventually get lucky and hit upon an Ordered alphabet.

    With the monk situation, similarly they would have a Universally structured math, similar to playing cards (and playing cards, btw, ARE a reflection of Universal Mathematics, within and without, for real!), and so, to express it in an easy to understand way here... Say there were 3 people, and the monk, in the situation, with a deck of cards all shuffled, and to keep the monk alive all 4 would have to bring about a particular Order in the math: the separation of each set into their own type, clubs, diamonds, spades, hearts. The monk is too ill to be a part of it, but if the other 3 are Conscious enough, or lucky enough, to get their clubs, diamonds and spades in Order, that would leave the monk "holding" all the hearts, the magic combination, and he would be kept "in the game!" (If he was attentive and Conscious, he would know how to Order the math of it all, for all of them, completely from within himself!).

    With prayer... Praying, hands brought together symmetrically, meditation to the Core is reflectively simulated, but, unwittingly, it's an external (outer dependent) attempt at accomplishing what is really an internal (inner dependent) goal. The God Particle is NOT located at the Core, though, so it is always only going to be a simulation. Prayer brings about a dependent peace, in which the participants surrender all their own personal power to their Higher Being. The real (as in Ultimate) power is to invert that external dependency to an internal dependency. Most people (convention) are quite content to settle for the lesser goal of simulation, convincing themselves it's the real thing, feeling strengthened by a mistaken belief that they get to stay in control, by placing all responsibility onto their Deity.

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 20, 2013

    G'day DJA12

    Thanks for sharing this with us.

    Yes, all our perceptions are different so we will perceive peace differently, I think this is what religion has tried to do, get everyone of an order to think & perceive the same which of course hasn't worked. Like communism the concept is workable but the people teaching/enforcing these concepts have different perceptions of what is what.

    I think if we individually tried to only change ourselves instead of trying to change the world through group participation consciousness itself wouldn't be so confused or messed up like the world is today. When you think about this, the more we try to change the world the more it's messed up, this isn't just to do with praying or meditating either, Consumerist materialism has also messed up this world remembering consumerist materialism also influences consciousness itself because of our feelings of desire. Slavery is but another influence on consciousness & so is warring because everything that is influential gives us thoughts which affects the collective consciousness I believe which in turn gives us a chaotic reality, it snowballs human history shows us this.

    Ridding ourselves of the controlling influences of the ego for instance would change the way we think & perceive thus change this reality quite dramatically I believe.

    I will give you the address of my blog at your own peril.

    http://www.mgnaismith.blogspot.com.au/

  • DJA12 Dec 20, 2013

    When I made my comment about Jedi focusing what I intended to point out is that evening prayers focusing on a topic of world peace is such a wide issue. What is world peace to you may not be world peace to the next person. I was wondering what would happen if people focused their prayers on one specific issue. The idea comes from another book "a Blue Eyed Yogi." A young American college graduate travels to Northern India to study with a renowned Yogi. The yogi is dieing. A group of Yogi's and our student sit at his bedside 24 hours a day for more than a month. The clinic doctor tells them to go home. Their Yogi has flatlined. There is no brain activity. They don't give up, but continue with their prayers. Several weeks later the Yogi opens his eyes and reportedly says "why didn't you let me go." He lives for another year. The medical doctor left his practice and joined them. I will look for the reference and post it probably Sunday. Most of us were born and raised in western civilization. Understanding another culture with such totally different beliefs is hard for us, but it can't be ruled out so easily.
    p.s Mr Matthew you said you had a blog. I would like to read it.

  • Anonymous Icon

    RealityOverScience Dec 20, 2013

    Answer: Yes and no.

    Convention collectively focusing on the same goal will only influence...more convention, because it inadvertently locks itself into a closed loop.

    As I've posted, if you right click your mouse and choose "View Page Source," what looks so easy "on the surface" suddenly is realized as a complex system of mathematics and language. Life also works that way, with the collective unconscious convention only scratching the "surface" of what's reeeeally going on. People are essentially robots to the true Process without awareness of it, unwittingly moved and motivated by the higher Physics.

    Without Consciousness, there will always be "an escape hatch," so to speak, because the unconsidered math, multidimensionality, etc., tosses a wrench into their plan.

    With Consciousness of the Universal Physics Processes taking place, that math, etc. is attentively included.

    Several years ago, it was reported that European school children all jumping at the same time managed to influence seismic activity, but that would have been a different situation.

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 19, 2013

    G'day NoetPoet

    Only if you stop railroading people to your own reasoning process, also how many times have you gone off the topic in all while attacking me & others? Think carefully!!

    And by the way, the controlling ego has everything to do with the collective willpower but of course you can't accept this for the same reasons mentioned here.

    I also thought my reply to DJA12 was on the topic, surly you will allow me to state a fact, ah but only if you agree with it, I see!! I know it's difficult but stop dictating your own personal terms all the times to others.

  • NoetPoet Dec 19, 2013

    Stay on topic please.

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 19, 2013

    G'day NoetPoet

    RE: " Please stay on topic - don't use some offhand comment by another poster as a pretext to go on your usual boring tirade."

    Once again you are trying to dictate to others your own terms, what again does this denote? Nearly every time you converse with me you prove my point. All I was doing is obviously stating a fact was I not?

    I suppose I'm frothing at the mouth as well, your conjectures about me are half cocked as usual, grow up.

  • NoetPoet Dec 19, 2013

    @DJA12

    “ In, I believe, it was the new jedi series, the jedi academy is being attacked by the empire. All of the students and their teachers come together and visualize the empire destropyers being thrown far away. Puff and they disappear.”

    This is clearly intended as a dramatic metaphor, the point of that metaphor being that great things can be accomplished when enough people commit themselves to a common vision and goal.

    “Since all matter had the same beginning all matter is entangled.”

    I’m not sure that necessarily follows.

    “Entangled matter can apparently communicate in some way.”

    In what way can it communicate?

    “Maybe the problem is that all of these people supposedly praying (like the Muslim call to parayer) are too distracted by other factors in their lives and not focused enough like the fictional jedi.”

    Or maybe the ‘problem’ is that Jedi are *fictional*.

  • NoetPoet Dec 19, 2013

    Please stay on topic - don't use some offhand comment by another poster as a pretext to go on your usual boring tirade.

  • mrmathew1963 Dec 19, 2013

    G'day DJA12

    I know certain controlling people are getting tired of this but maybe what's so distracting is the control that the ego can have on us. If we looked at these religions & asked are they of the controlling ego & the answer of course is yes for the main reason a lot of them are fear based plus they have a need to convert as many as possible to their own religion. I don't think Buddhism & Hinduism are like this however when we bring in the belief of karma, karma is fear based again I believe.

    Jedi are what we could be but aren't, it's a fantasy that could come to fruition, to a certain extent at least, however unlike the Jedi we have a controlling ego to contend with within ourselves. The Jedi had no internal controlling ego to contend with only an external controlling ego for most of them anyway, Skywalker was an exception!!

    The funny thing with control is one has to release being in control to gain full control but it's not actually control we are gaining but it is in the way we humanly think. With this kind of control you don’t have a need to control others or even yourself it just occurs.

  • NoetPoet Dec 19, 2013

    We can influence OUR reality - i.e.our perception of and interaction with reality - with both individual and collective thought.

  • DJA12 Dec 19, 2013

    This has been an extremely informed discussion. I would like to approach it from an alternative point. Science fiction writers have often been ahead of their time. We did make it to the moon afterall. In, I believe, it was the new jedi series, the jedi academy is being attacked by the empire. All of the students and their teachers come together and visualize the empire destropyers being thrown far away. Puff and they disappear.
    Accepting the big bang theory, all matter came into existence from the heat energy of the expolsion. Since all matter had the same beginning all matter is entangled. Entangled matter can apparently communicate in some way. Jahn's studies at Princeton did provide evidence that the more groups of people got to know each other the better they were at altering the random line generated. Maybe the problem is that all of these people supposedly praying (like the Muslim call to parayer) are too distracted by other factors in their lives and not focused enough like the fictional jedi.
    Just a thought

  • mrmathew1963 Oct 27, 2013

    G'day dustproduction

    A good point to bring up, I've also brought up similar queries myself, why after so many thousands of years of praying for a better existence are we no better off & in fact worse off in many ways? Simple, manifestation. What are we doing when trying to manifest by praying & meditating for example for a better life? To manifest for a better existence we first have to be aware that there is a problem & in the act of seeing this problem we are in fact manifesting this problem or flaw in the first place, we are actually feeding the thing we are trying to run from or change.

    The best way to manifest for a better existence is to not see a problem or a flaw in the first place but just a difference in the way we exist. If we conflict with any part of our existence this will only bring on more conflict & seeing a flaw or a problem within our present existence will only manifest more conflicts even though we might personally feel better within ourselves.

    How many people these days are more environmentally aware & concerned compared to a hundred years ago lets say? Has this improved on our destructiveness towards the environment? Hydraulic fracturing is a good example of what we have inadvertently manifested because we saw a problem or flaw within our destructive ways however hydraulic fracturing was brought about by a need, it wasn't inadvertently manifested by environmentally concerned people or was it? The collective thought moves in mysterious ways & not always in the way we pray or wish for them to go.

    I have a blog & I teach acceptance even of our destructive ways however the human emotional self usually overrides common sense so we become non-accepting which in my view is also accepted. Spiritually aware people are quite emotional especially when they start to feel this oneness in certain states of consciousness; they are inadvertently & unknowingly causing a bigger problem by seeing a problem in the first place instead of just a difference.

    I don’t like consumerist materialism personally but I accept it for what it is, just another way to exist that we have chosen collectively to live. Consumerist materialism & hydraulic fracturing for example aren’t flaws just a different way for us to exist that’s all, spiritualism is but another way to exist but if one or the other sees a problem within the other they will actually manifest more of that problem. WWI, the war to end all wars actually helped manifest more wars not less because wars were seen as a flaw. There are no true flaws just differences.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 25, 2013

    If it "COULD work, under the right circumstances," why isn't it more evident to us already?
    Humans are a sociable lot, and there is no shortage of collectivity. I have already mentioned the call to prayer each day in the Muslim community, where individuals world wide act a a collective on a world wide basis. Each Sunday Christians do the same thing at a given hour of the day. The Pope's celebration of midnight mass is a world wide event where prayer is afforded up for peace, etc, without much of a blip being registered.
    I will stick with the easy examples, and avoid issues like a traffic jam or a sporting event. We should see measurable evidence in everyday events if there is anything to collective thought experiments of this sort.

  • Tom Booth Oct 24, 2013

    I'm not a skeptic. I do think such an experiment COULD work, under the right circumstances.

    Perhaps when the majority of people learn to really accept such possibilities, a "Wide open to the public" experiment such as this will produce positive results.

  • mrmathew1963 Oct 23, 2013

    G'day Tom

    Interesting perspective Tom & yes I can see this being the case & why not if reality can be influenced by collective thought.

    One mans thought can influence many minds like Hitler for example which influenced reality so why can't the collective thought influence reality?

    This is inline with manifesting, to truly manifest a desire one has to convince oneself that the said desire will materialise however most often than not one has to also physically make one's desire come true.

    I'm not saying here that we can't manifest a desire without physical intervention because vibrative frequencies can be influenced by other vibrative frequencies & thought is but another variable vibration of frequencies, everything in existence vibrates because it's energy so why can't one lot of energy influence another?

  • Tom Booth Oct 22, 2013

    Here is the problem with this kind of online experiment:

    The object of the experiment is: "Can we influence reality with collective thought?"

    The opening post reads: "I ... don't think it will work,"

    The actual "collective thought" on average, of all those who become aware of the experiment, I would venture to guess, would turn out to be, if actually measurable, similarly in the negative.

    In other words, it WILL work and the Beagle will NOT move because, like it or not, that is likely the preponderance of "collective thought" on the subject.

    "Collective Thought" in this case breaks down to the individual thoughts of all who in one way or another find out about the experiment and have some thought or opinion about it. There is no screening of participants. No real knowledge about or control of the "variables".

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 15, 2013

    We might also consider the differences between collective thought and crowd psychology.

    "Crowd psychology, also known as mob psychology, is a branch of social psychology. Social psychologists have developed several theories for explaining the ways in which the psychology of the crowd differs from and interacts with that of the individuals within it."

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 15, 2013

    Let's consider a simple act that occurs several times a day, the call to prayer in the Muslim world.
    What does this "collective thought" accomplish, if anything?

  • Anonymous Icon

    ericdashmund Oct 12, 2013

    there is always something that we cant explain even to ourselves. at some point of time we all will bear a sight of something inexplicable by current science.we will become aware; a new science will be named and several new experiments will be launched.things that we find hard to believe will become clear. the same goes for what we are discussing here. intentions rather powerful,concentrated and guided thoughts are nothing but a subtle energy and we know that.when a collection or a mass of people do that it gets magnified.thats why we have healing circles. my experiences with minor-scale pk experiments led me to believe that it is actually possible. a tangible result is produced.
    the mind is a powerful "thing" (i dont know what else can be used to describe it) that can accomplish great feats when it is guided and focused.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 24, 2013

    Have you seen the research here:

    http://noetic.org/topics/collective-consciousness/

  • Anonymous Icon

    NewtTrino Jul 23, 2013

    Phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding are defined for now as 'paranormal'. That may well be an apt description of an 18th Century hypothesis of a television. Paranormal can also mean - not yet normal.

    My struggle to understand my doubts and my hypersensitivity to emotional meaning has persisted sense I was very young in the 1960's. I would often hear in school about 'instinct' and wonder seriously if their scientific explanations were the best that they could come up with to make a 4th grader grasp the concept. I would hear about spiritual messages in church trying to describe an all knowing all seeing god and seriously doubt @ 10 years old why we were rely on such old data to form our beliefs. And finally, my ability to vicariously experience tactile feeling transmitted solely through emotional episodes gave rise to my interest in the physics of spirit.

    If there needs to be a framework for spiritual and genetic data to be transmitted; I will state with no hesitation that the current scientific and anecdotal data will support this idea as a highly probable fact. Nonetheless if the Higgs-Boson or some other god particle is so intently being sought after; there is good reason to believe that a matrix theory is well supported by the world's best thinkers. My contention that the neutrino is already staring us in the face with all the capability needed to link up with all of our known universe. Our sun produces them in prolific abundance. Untold millions of them pass through us every single waking and sleeping moment. Just because we have yet to recognize the mechanics of a wireless spiritual or emotional network does not necessarily mean it has not existed all along. Plato's Cave allegory used concepts of light reflection that must of made wave energy and mathematics appear like paranormal transformations of reality. Yet he could speak of their attributes without knowing of their physical properties.

    The framework is there -- or here - and everywhere already. It seems more informed to look for the mechanisms than to mystify the process or skeptically discount the possibility.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 23, 2013

    Great comment. Most of the time, I see my role as one of devils advocate. While I do have certain leanings in my understanding of things my objective to promote further investigation where belief only currently resides.
    Indeed there is far more that we do not know verse what is known, and any discussion of consciousness is always bases in hypothesis and conjecture. That is a given. But we do have certain pieces of the puzzle that we need to work with and make fit, they cannot be ignore.
    Many times I have called for a general framework that would combine various aspects of the paranormal into one model. Currently certain concepts conflict and that makes it difficult to distinguish what might be possible from what is highly improbable. In the end this serves to weaken the overall position that the paranormal tries to take.

    Best,


  • Anonymous Icon

    NewtTrino Jul 22, 2013

    You mean 'collective though-t' right? I only meant that as abstract as thought can be; we as a collective group make certain universal assumptions. We alter these assumptions as we evolve. The sun has a different meaning to us than to Neanderthal.

    I am humble enough to ascertain that as much as I think I know; I realize my ignorance when compared to how much there is to discover. I hope you agree with those guidelines going in. 'cos the last thing I need is a petty argument over a monumental.conundrum.

    I actually do know what makes the sun shine. But quantum theory allows so many variables about what reality actually means that you or I should not try to claim the answer. There are some that say we are living out a computer program -- or that there is a different universe created for every possible choice we make. We, I think, should add our pieces to the bigger puzzle that can only solved by sharing what little we know -- or by showing what grandiose things we can imagine. But I do believe we are a collective entity performing both constructive and debilitating functions based on individual will as shaped by external stimuli. You are free to question my thoughts -- they are not fact. But I'm pretty sure you won't claim to know the whole story either. Empirical science notwithstanding.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 22, 2013

    re: The same sun shines on us all per agreement by the collective.

    Are you discussing "the collective" or collective though. The sun does not shine because we collectively think it does.
    The question is "Can we influence reality with collective thought." I will argue that we cannot even comprehend reality, we are only reduced to perceiving it in a subjective way. While there is evidence of thoughts having and effect of our material existence, this still leaves open the question of whether there is a process of "collective though" which need a material explanation

  • Anonymous Icon

    NewtTrino Jul 22, 2013

    RE: This "external force" that you are referring to is actually our internal perception of the external, and we are back to a biological basis that exist in us.

    No need to quibble over semantics. We are talking theory by degree on the perimeters.

    However we perceive eternal stimuli; that power nonetheless can be an external and universal source. If we were perceive sunlight after an altered state of binging on alcohol as hell, it does not diminish the true realty of the source. The same sun shines on us all per agreement by the collective. I make this point to quantify that I believe we are connected by the intent and will of others -- that help shape and influence our individual existence. No man is an island however trite that may sound.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 22, 2013

    Antonio Damasio states the following, " The things that have to do with what is known as our internal milieu -- for example, the whole management of the chemistries within our body are, in fact, extremely maintained day after day for one very good reason. If you deviate too much in the parameters that are close to the midline of that life-permitting survival range, you go into disease or death. So we have an in-built system within our own lives that ensures some kind of continuity. I like to call it an almost infinite sameness from day to day. Because if you don't have that sameness, physiologically, you're going to be sick or you're going to die."

    This "external force" that you are referring to is actually our internal perception of the external, and we are back to a biological basis that exist in us.

  • Anonymous Icon

    NewtTrino Jul 22, 2013

    RE "epigenetics are incredibly complicated."

    To be sure. But in addition to what we have discovered; one has to wonder how external forces can shape gene expression. How do we as a species evolve in concert for example. How is our DNA not only stable in so many ways, yet adaptable to changes in climate, diet, physical and mental activities in other ways. Does it not make sense to believe e.g., that stampeding animals or migrating birds -- are seeming to 'read each others minds' when they just MAY be doing that precisely. Signals that may affect mob behavior such as these or rioting in humans may also use the same kind of signaling to inform our genes as to better ways of coping with external realities for the survival of our kinds. Just as our individual DNA signatures may produce a melodic vibration which some have dubbed as the controversial 'Aura'..: perhaps all the different species have esoteric frequencies that are unique to their group. An Aura may also help explain how we may establish an instant affinity or revulsion to another human being based solely on what we think of as a 'vibe'

    I know these may seem anecdotal. But inspiration comes from being sensitive to bolts of creativity. .The distance between knowing and feeling can be so very close. And the extremes can range from hopeless indifference to paranoid delusion. But in the end it will take many minds working as a unit to advance our understanding and our prospects for success.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 22, 2013

    Re: "epigenetic selection is informed by some means other than magic."

    "Over the last several decades, researchers studying epigenetics have found that something in addition to DNA alters the expression of genes. For instance, a chemical marker, called methylation, can cause DNA to coil tightly, thereby preventing cellular machinery from copying DNA's genetic instructions.
    But epigenetics are incredibly complicated. For instance, studies in plants, mice and humans have found that the chemical marks on DNA can be stably passed down through the generations.

    http://www.livescience.com/37158-epigenetics-affect-natural-selection.html

  • Anonymous Icon

    NewtTrino Jul 22, 2013

    Our human anatomy is animated with electrical impulses. Copper, zinc and various other conductive metals are present in us to facilitate the use and conservation of energy. It seems obvious that if wireless phone and internet respond to various waves of energy then our bodies will respond to specific stimuli. Living under power lines seems to increase the risk of certain cancers. Atomic medicine is used to alter various conditions. And we must surely know that epigenetic selection is informed by some means other than magic. We are big interactive bio-atomic computers in a massive universal network. There is no doubt in my mind that we are generating and receiving sub atomic signals that affect our evolutionary journey in both the physical and the spiritual realm.

    http://web.mit.edu/people/skkelly/Papers/Baumann_CSF_TBME97.pdf

  • Anonymous Icon

    NewtTrino Jul 18, 2013

    V

    If we were to imagine that every single living and non living thing must be 'animated' in some way to reach our consciousness, then wouldn't we need to assume that an energy source is needed to tie the forces together -- and present them in an orderly fashion. Light, gravity and our own sensory perceptions all need a balance of forces ruled by mathematics and universal law. Anti-matter may provide the pressure to hold all the volatile actions and reactions that occur in our ever burgeoning reality in check. But it would seem that there is an order to the chaos. The cycles of rotation, expansion, decay and conflation have been in constant and, as far as we can observe, eternal flux. The math is undoubtedly staggering. But yet the laws do not change -- at least in this realm. So in order for there to be a collective consciousness; there must be particle physics that provide a 'wireless' network for us all to co-exist in.

    For better or worse we are evolving. To say that our intent and will do not help shape our destiny would be foolish. And to think we do not change the physical and spiritual climate within our sphere of influence would also seem ignorant.

    I truly believe that neutrinos with their prolific and cosmopolitan presence must be the universal atomic source that animates all of existence. And this existence is being shaped for better or worse by how we fuel the spiritual reality we, them and it all inhabit. These particles are too vast and too plentiful to not have a profound role in the physics of reality and consciousness. How else can we explain the spread of fear, love anger etc without a vehicle to carry the signals. How else do we inform our genes to adapt to a changing landscape? The neutrino, I maintain, is able to carry a charge long enough to perform specific tasks before it decays. The signal is stronger or is multiplied by the congruity that it finds in the transmission. Fashion, fads or politics as examples build momentum or disfavor based on the sentiment of the collective. The phenomenon of religion may find its fervor from a resonating message that transcends the written or spoken word. There IS power in spiritual energy -- and it is us.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 17, 2013

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/343939/description/When_Networks_Network

    A rich area of research has long been devoted to understanding how players — whether bodily organs, people, bus stops, companies or countries — connect and interact to create webs called networks. An advance in the late 1990s led to a boom in network science, enabling sophisticated analyses of how networks function and sometimes fail. But more recently investigators have awakened to the idea that it’s not enough to know how isolated networks work; studying how networks interact with one another is just as important. Today, the frontier field is not network science, but the science of networks of networks.

  • Anonymous Icon

    NewtTrino Jul 16, 2013

    dustproduction Jul 16, 2013

    Have you heard of "the network of networks?"

    No I haven't 'will look it up...

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jul 16, 2013

    Have you heard of "the network of networks?"

  • Anonymous Icon

    NewtTrino Jul 16, 2013

    Lepton-neutrinos and varieties of up and down quarks may play a role in flipping epigenetic and emotional triggers in our mental 'physiology' and conscious thought...'perhaps even in our autonomic responses. We must look at ourselves as atomically powered bio-chemical computers being run by programs that are generated by a collective conscience. We experience lust, anger, joy and all sorts of vicarious feelings generated by our fellow 'cells' If we look at ourselves as an interconnected part of a universal super-organism we might see ourselves as proteins or nutrients or as diseases and cancers. But we do nonetheless help shape the evolution of where we all are headed...IMHO

  • Anonymous Icon

    NewtTrino Jul 16, 2013

    The physiology of spirit is a concept that appeals to me. Just because we do not know how influence is transferred does not mean that esp or precognition is 'magic'. There must be a mathematical and physiological explanation of how fields are produced and propagated. Waves of influence must exist. And subatomic particles are the pixels in our matrix I believe. There is so much we don't know. But we now know enough to take the anecdotal incidents and apply the theoretical physics to solve the equations. A god-particle must be the answer. I nominate the neutrino as the 'messenger'. These particles could be animated with a charge from our intent and passed on. The strength of the signal may determine the rate of decay and or influence - for good or for not.

  • Anonymous Icon

    NewtTrino Jul 16, 2013

    Precognition or premonitions may well be transmissions of intent or from energy from iconography it seems to me. If 9/11 produced a wave of energy before the event; then it would seem that our field of influence could be affected by waves of energized particles. Intent I believe is the precursor to cognition. Some of us may be more attuned to signals than others. At the extremes may be paranoia and conversely ignorance. But energy contained within language, symbols and known icons may indeed have stored energy that can induce reactions within our psyche. These reactions are then passed on to the collective...

  • Anonymous Icon

    NewtTrino Jul 16, 2013

    The Higgs Boson is supposedly the illusive particle that billions of dollars are being spent to isolate. The direction that this boson is theoretically supposed to supply will, scientists say, fill in the blanks about how particle physics can be understood.But what if the god particle is no more than like plankton in the form of neutrinos. We already know they exist. We already know that like plankton they readily flow through us. We already know that they have a weak neutral charge and do not seem to be affected by gravity or the other 3 forces...So, again, what if like how plankton or coffee cherries are changed by having passed through another symbiotic being, that we charge these particles with our thoughts and intent. And what if, like plankton that is used as nourishment, our receptors are open to 'charged god particles' from other beings become spiritual influence on our evolution of thought.

    It can be observed, as I have stated here* numerous times, that influences such as anger, mob violence, lust etc must have some foundation in physiology. It can't be 'magic' I truly believe that neutrinos, before they decay and lose their charge are the pixels in our human computer displays and are the triggers for our expression of emotional energy...

    *http://thehomegroundandkatebushnewsandinfoforum.yuku.com/topic/17348/The-Theory-of-Everything?page=1#.UeU58awe5qQ

    and:

    http://katebush.proboards.com/thread/1247/universal-code

  • Anonymous Icon

    NewtTrino Jul 16, 2013

    The genesis of how thoughts became consciousness seems incomprehensible. It is almost as though there was a big bang of collective awareness. I wonder if from our infancy as sentient beings that we arose from a single spark from a single idea as a single being.

    Are our thoughts the process of an evolution of external stimuli. Was our infancy a shared source that contained all of the physical and spiritual attributes of reality as an amorphous burgeoning super-organism. And do all of these attributes have an order and design that provide a road map of how we began and how we will evolve. And in that process is it but a never-ending cycle of birth, death decay and rebirth?

    I was 'thinking' recently about how as I grow older I am able to process external stimuli more successfully in terms of happiness and peace. And while failing memory may be able to reduce stress in varying degrees; there nonetheless are paths that can lead to various destinations based on choice and intent. An analogy occurred to me about how 'influence' is transmitted. We might call it god, or spirit or karma etc. But if there were to be a physiological explanation of how all the forces in the universe are marshaled and allowed to evolve for better or worse; then the concept of a god particle could truly unite religion with science and become the foundation for the unified field.

    The concept I postulated was analogous to filter feeders in the ocean processing plankton as the stuff of life. The sea represents the matrix we all are completely surrounded by. The plankton passes through our proverbial gills to be distinguished as valuable or as waste. The nutrients are consumed and used to fortify the body and mind. The waste is altered and sent back into the matrix of the sea. But it is interesting to imagine these plankton as influence much like a thought passed on in growing evolution as a species and as a collective consciousness. While on this tangent I was reminded of the influence of feral cats in Sumatra have on the most expensive coffee in the world -- Kopi Luwak. Through experience and discernment these animals select the most desirable 'cherries' that contain coffee beans within the husks. The digestion of these husks are said to influence the beans that are harvested from the droppings of excrement under their habitats.

    It is these types of anecdotal cycles that lead me to look for how influence is ongoing and evolutionary.

    Part one...

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jun 30, 2013

    This is one of those discussions that needs a framework to explain how and why would "work." What is the principle that would allow thought to effect matter, or outcomes?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Turgilsa Jun 29, 2013

    I was discussing this with a friend of mine and his position is that it is nonsense, intentions coming true is all a mind game. But he thinks that the mind and the brain are the same thing. I don’t think the mind and the brain are synonymous. The brain is a physical organ of the body. The mind is a function. In a way, the brain is the hard drive and the mind is the software that runs it. We are not our minds or our bodies, we are the Being that uses them.

    We are not our minds, we are Beings who have minds when we take on a physical body. The mind’s job is the survival of the Being and anything the Being considers itself to be. Another way to put it is with Werner Earhart’s definition (which I like): the mind is a linear arrangement of multi-sensory total records of successive moments of now. In other words, the mind (like a video camera) records all of the input from all five senses and stores it. It then periodically plays back experiences when a triggering event occurs. For instance….

    Jeannie is 6 years old when her mother takes her, her younger brother Bill, and their dog Fargo to the park to play. While her mother is visiting with her friends, Jeannie and Bill and Fargo start playing. There is a cement fountain in the middle of the park that is down for maintenance. There is no water in it, but the bottom is still damp. Jeannie is walking along the edge of the fountain when Bill nudges her and she falls in and hits her head on the damp cement, causing her to momentarily black out. Her mother hears her scream and comes running. When Jeannie becomes alert again, she hears her little brother saying “Oh, you’re okay, you’re not hurt.” She calls him a “poophead” just as Fargo starts licking her face and her mother bends down to pick her up and she sees the sun glint off her mother’s glasses. Her mother hugs her, carries her home, gives her some milk and cookies and puts her down for a nap.

    Now skip ahead and Jeannie is 17. She goes on a picnic with her boyfriend Moose. She is sitting next to him by a tree and they are holding hands. Unexpectedly, Moose reaches over and touches her breast and she jerks back, hitting her head against the damp tree trunk and momentarily blacking out. When she comes to, she sees the sun glinting off Moose’s glasses and hears him say, “You’re okay, you aren’t really hurt.” Suddenly, she is six years old again. She calls him a “poophead” and has an uncontrollable urge to have milk and cookies and take a nap. Moose has no idea what the hell is wrong with her. She may even want him to lick her face.

    Obviously, the secret of success in life is to go out of your mind and stay out. Not an easy thing to do. I can reach that point occasionally. But like everyone else, I get trapped in the illusion that I am what my mind defines me to be and my ego fights to make me right about that definition. It’s a constant struggle. The illusion of life on earth is very powerful.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Turgilsa Jun 29, 2013

    Let’s discuss for a moment the use of what is called “Intentions” because Intention is basically mind-power of the kind you are talking about. One of the things that I like about the use of intentions is that it fits in nicely with quantum mechanics: we can affect the universe in very profound ways. But I think we have to be careful about what we intend. One of the groups that is using the intention process sent me an email message saying that everyone should intend that we have world peace. That sounds nice, but it probably won’t work and I don’t think it should. I am not against world peace, I am against shoving it down people’s throats when they haven’t yet learned to really want it.

    One thing that psychologists learn early on is that you can’t take someone’s pain away from them, because you never really know why they need it. Life’s lessons are often, if not always, painful. We suffer that pain until we can no longer tolerate it and thus change the way we think and behave.

    That is true on a societal level too. We have war and violence, drugs and crime, hatred of others who are different from us, and fear in general until we grow out of the need for them. An “intention” to take those things away from people is like a parent taking a child out of school because he or she is having a hard and uncomfortable time learning. Or, in other words, telling a six-pyear-old to "stop acting like a child."

    Our intentions should always be for ourselves. We can’t know why others are experiencing the things that they are, but we can be sure they are.

    I once knew a young girl who was in a wheelchair, paralyzed from the waist down and in nearly constant discomfort. Doctors were puzzled. Although she had been in a minor auto accident, there did not seem to be anything physically wrong with her. But they didn’t know her story. She had become hooked on methamphetamines when she was fifteen. Her parents were clueless and pretty much ignored her. She became a prostitute at sixteen in order to make enough money to support her habit. She finally reached the point where she tried to commit suicide because the pain of living was too much to bear.

    After the accident, she was in a wheelchair and her parents committed themselves to taking care of her, taking her to school and picking her up, spending time with her, tending to her needs. Subconsciously, she had figured out a way to stay alive. That may not seem to others like the best coping method in the world, but it worked for her.

    Saying “I intend for there to be world peace” is like saying “I intend to take other people’s learning experiences away from them so they won’t have to be unhappy.”

    That is probably a harmless intention, but it won’t work and would be counter-productive.

    Keep your intentions for your own betterment. One of the instructions for intentions is to include “If it is for the highest good.” That is a good intention in itself.

    At least, that’s my theory.

  • Billgreenjeans May 08, 2013

    To me this is akin to healing at a distance. It should have great possibilities. It has in the past in the form of prayer.

  • or Sign Up to Add a Comment

Stay in touch with IONS