The effect of thoughts and needs on reality

[Laird]

To what extent do our thoughts and our needs affect reality?

Some suggestive experiences from my recent past:
* I move to an isolated country town and find that one of my neighbours is both a computer programmer like myself as well as a deep-thinking philosopher, who reawakens within me thoughts that I would never have expected to find in a small village
* I remember my belief in God and a few days later the Jehovah's Witnesses show up on my doorstep
* My bedroom light switch becomes pretty much unresponsive. In timely fashion a lost electrician shows up on my doorstep looking for directions - I tell him about my problem and he solves it for me cheaply.

Each of these incidents in isolation can easily be described as a coincidence. When viewed together and with the many other similar incidents that have happened in the past though, they are suggestive of a pattern.

It is established scientific fact that the effects of our thoughts extend beyond our physical brain - witness the preliminary thought-responsive technology that has been around for a few years where a computer game character is controlled by thought through various sensors attached to the player's skull.[1]

Do the effects of thoughts extend even beyond the electromagnetic and into a spiritual/psychic realm where they draw to us situations appropriate to our current mental state?

What suggestive experiences have you had?

What have you read that sheds light on this topic?

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3485918.stm

[Dan Rowden]

It is established scientific fact that the effects of our thoughts extend beyond our physical brain - witness the preliminary thought-responsive technology that has been around for a few years where a computer game character is controlled by thought through various sensors attached to the player's skull.

If the brain is connected to the computer via sensors it isn't physically distant from anything. Brain activity gets monitored this way all the time in medicine. It's not an argument or evidence for the idea that brain activity can effect at a distance. I think the only pattern your experiences suggest is that of irrational thinking :)

[Laird]

If the brain is connected to the computer via sensors it isn't physically distant from anything.

The brain is directly connected to nothing: it is the scalp that is connected.

I think the only pattern your experiences suggest is that of irrational thinking :)

To be irrational is to deny meaningful patterns.

[Kevin Solway]

What suggestive experiences have you had?

You mean things suggestive of coincidence?

[Laird]

Laird: What suggestive experiences have you had?

Kevin: You mean things suggestive of coincidence?

Well, yes - however you're comfortable expressing it. Coincidence, synchronicity, "drawing things to you" - things that seem to be related to your thoughts, state of mind, desires or needs but that at the same time don't seem to have any direct causal connection.

[Kevin Solway]

Laird: What suggestive experiences have you had?

Kevin: You mean things suggestive of coincidence?

Well, yes - however you're comfortable expressing it. Coincidence, synchronicity, "drawing things to you"

Coincidence is just coincidence.

things that seem to be related to your thoughts

You will be more likely to notice things that you are thinking about. For example, if you are looking for a way out, then you will be more likely to notice an open door.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

We may have effects outside of our "selves" and the contradiction in the QRS belief system fascinates me on that point. How can Kevin see the planet as not really stopping and the atmosphere not really ending, yet think that we have such finite boundaries that despite being all one thing our range of effect is limited to like that of dominoes falling against each other rather than truly like one body. Quantum physics seems to be exploring this realm.

On the other hand, what you are describing seems more like attitudinal interpretation of causality rather than driving force (although to some extent, attitude is a driving force). For example, many people have been killed by drunk driving. One might say that the founders of MADD "needed" for their children to get killed in order to found such a worthwhile organization. Their children getting killed by drunk driving was a causative factor, as was the attitudes the mothers took of wanting to make something positive out of it - but it doesn't make sense to me that they drew the experience of their children getting killed to them out of a primary need. Just because someone gives meaning to an event does not mean the meaning was inherent.

Something less random might be an abusive marriage.. An abusive marriage often follows an abusive childhood, and one way of looking at that is that the individual needed to learn the lessons they never learned from their childhood abuse, so they recreated the same situation to have another opportunity to resolve it, this time as a victor, and from a position of more power (adults have more power than children). Another way of looking at it is that if they had learned the lessons they needed to have learned, they would not have been prone to falling into such a situation. They would have recognized, either consciously or subconsciously, that there was something wrong early enough to never get into the situation. Although "drawing the experience to them" is a more active view than viewing it as the result of a lack of understanding, therefore still passive.

Someone who takes the "drawing experience to them" attitude with an event such as child abuse, and asking the child "I wonder why you chose to be born into such a situation" (someone did ask me that as a child, and blaming the victim is not helpful) - although it might be palliative in moments where someone wants to feel as if they had control and there was a purpose for it all along, it does not seem realistic in the sense that if we all knew enough all along to know what to do to make things better, things would have just been better in the first place.
.

[Dan Rowden]

We may have effects outside of our "selves" and the contradiction in the QRS belief system fascinates me on that point. How can Kevin see the planet as not really stopping and the atmosphere not really ending, yet think that we have such finite boundaries that despite being all one thing our range of effect is limited to like that of dominoes falling against each other rather than truly like one body. Quantum physics seems to be exploring this realm.

The contradiction you see isn't really there. There's simply no evidence at all that the electrical activity of the brain can affect anything at a distance - or that it can even be detected. It's not relevant that one can say that such emanations don't have any obvious end point. In fact, the lack of evidence can be taken as evidence that it doesn't effect at a distance as far as I'm concerned, given that so much study has gone into the question. There's no automatic or absolute barrier to the possibility of something like subtle forms of ESP that I can think of, but that's not a reason to believe it to be real or even feasible.

People can barely govern their own actions with their brains let alone effect whether Jehovahs turn up to their door.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There's a possible relation to the process of syncing of members of a system and what we experience as 'spooky action on a distance'. For example fireflies sync their blinking in ways that seems rather spontaneous. I'd suspect our brain processes synchronize in similar ways with our surroundings, perhaps time-wise, cycles within cycles, or just by being triggered by a sense or memory. A cool book about this seemingly spontaneous ordering is Sync, by Steven Strogatz.

It's very hard to establish any scientific reference frame for experiences like the arrival of Lairds Jehova's. Perhaps Jehova's come only in a certain season when they have found out people think more about God, or they distribute fliers the weeks before actually showing up. So many factors. It's certain that we pick out the things that somehow our brains are sensitive for a given moment. Like watching 11:11 on your digital clock. Ponder it, and before you know it your eyes will see it one or more times a day for some period. Weird but works if you have a clock within sight. Works less well with other numbers for some odd reasons.

[David Quinn]

Laird is merely revealing that he is insecure.

-

[Laird]

A cool book about this seemingly spontaneous ordering is Sync, by Steven Strogatz.

Thanks Diebert, that's the kind of thing that I was looking for.

[Laird]

How can Kevin see the planet as not really stopping and the atmosphere not really ending, yet think that we have such finite boundaries that despite being all one thing our range of effect is limited to like that of dominoes falling against each other rather than truly like one body. [...] On the other hand, what you are describing seems more like attitudinal interpretation of causality rather than driving force (although to some extent, attitude is a driving force).

Fair go Elizabeth, hop off the fence and take a position! :-)

Can attitude be a driving psychic/spiritual force? Just how far does the "pure" (electromagnetic/psychic/spiritual) influence of thought extend?

David: I'm interested to know how you explain your comment.

[Dan Rowden]

Can attitude be a driving psychic/spiritual force?

Isn't the answer obviously "yes"? Since such things drives our actions and subsequent thoughts this is almost a no-brainer to me.

Just how far does the "pure" (electromagnetic/psychic/spiritual) influence of thought extend?

No-one knows. The evidence thus far suggests that "not very far at all" is the answer. And what is the "psychic/spiritual" part of thought anyway?

[David Quinn]

Laird,

David: I'm interested to know how you explain your comment.

I can't be bothered. I don't have Kevin's patience when it comes to fools. You have been here long enough to show that you don't have any respect for reason and that you have never experienced a thought in your whole life. So as it stands, you are just wasting everyone's time here. You are wasting Kevin's time, my time, and everyone else's time. To be frank, I don't know how Kevin puts up with you down there.

If you're serious enough, you can easily work out what I meant by that comment above. It isn't difficult. All you have to do is start thinking.

-

[Dan Rowden]

Laird has said that he values love over truth, which is to say he values entertainment over reasoning. That's his prerogative but given that that's not the theme of the board one has to wonder what he gets out of being here.

Oh, hang on, he find its entertaining - [slaps forehead].

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Fair go Elizabeth, hop off the fence and take a position! :-)

There is no fence.

Can attitude be a driving psychic/spiritual force?

Isn't the answer obviously "yes"? Since such things drives our actions and subsequent thoughts this is almost a no-brainer to me.

Agreed. If anything, I'd say that attitude is a prime force of what, if anything, we do at all - but that's a very basic observation in the mundane world. What you seem to have meant, though, is in the sense portrayed in the movie What the Bleep do we Know? That goes on to what Dan was saying here -

Just how far does the "pure" (electromagnetic/psychic/spiritual) influence of thought extend?

No-one knows. The evidence thus far suggests that "not very far at all" is the answer.

Although I hold more of a belief in the less commonly accepted realms than the QRS does, I agree with Dan on the part of our not having a lot of effect in that realm. To me though, there is a difference between not a lot of effect and no connection whatsoever.

People can barely govern their own actions with their brains let alone effect whether Jehovahs turn up to their door.

Agreed. The looser the connection, the less well one can govern the other end. The point where the QRS and I seem to diverge on this issue is that I believe that under the right conditions (genetic, nutritional, development - both physically and development of the skill) that there is enough of a connection throughout The Whole that we can have subtle awarenesses and some limited influences beyond the standard 5 senses. Even with all the correct conditions though, operating through the standard 5 is a lot more reliable.
.

[Laird]

Laird: Fair go Elizabeth, hop off the fence and take a position! :-)

Elizabeth: There is no fence.
[but later...]
The point where the QRS and I seem to diverge on this issue is that I believe that under the right conditions (genetic, nutritional, development - both physically and development of the skill) that there is enough of a connection throughout The Whole that we can have subtle awarenesses and some limited influences beyond the standard 5 senses. Even with all the correct conditions though, operating through the standard 5 is a lot more reliable.

That's the kind of off-the-fence position-taking that I was after - thank you.

I can't be bothered. I don't have Kevin's patience when it comes to fools. You have been here long enough to show that you don't have any respect for reason and that you have never experienced a thought in your whole life.

If I had no respect for reason then I wouldn't be able to engage Kevin in the very long debates that we've had. The real translation of this quote of yours is: "Your thoughts don't match my own, therefore you are thoughtless". Funny, you know, but that doesn't seem to be a very "reasonable" claim to me. I can think of other words to describe it, but I can't be bothered to spell them out - I don't have the patience. ;-)

Laird has said that he values love over truth, which is to say he values entertainment over reasoning.

I have also said that I believe that food, water and shelter are forms of love, so the thinking man would be capable of inferring that what I mean is that I value the more essential parts of life over the more superfluous. Just how much of a thinking man are you Dan? ;-)

And what is the "psychic/spiritual" part of thought anyway?

If I had a solid answer to that question I probably wouldn't have started this thread to explore it in the first place...

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

And what is the "psychic/spiritual" part of thought anyway?

If I had a solid answer to that question I probably wouldn't have started this thread to explore it in the first place...

Laird, just go for some definitions. Psychic could mean mind reading, fortune telling, or that sort of thing, or it could mean psychological ("psychic pain" does not mean that one has an eyelash in their third eye, it means emotional or existential pain). Spiritual could mean following any of various paths (more deeply meaningful than religious, but along the same lines), it could mean being in tune with Nature... You must have meant something or you would not have been typing at us. We'll help you hammer out your thoughts, but we won't do your thinking for you.

Make a decision. At this point, it doesn't matter if it is right or wrong because you are still at step one. I don't think anyone expects you to have a solid answer right now, but people are starting to give up on you because you are not providing an answer at all. Now it's your turn to get off the fence.
.

[David Quinn]

Laird wrote:

If I had no respect for reason then I wouldn't be able to engage Kevin in the very long debates that we've had.

There hasn't been any debate. Kevin reasons, you gossip.

The real translation of this quote of yours is: "Your thoughts don't match my own, therefore you are thoughtless".

It is more to do with the fact that you're either incapable or unwilling to recognize a logical point. If only you had a thought - a real, logically-grounded thought - that would be wonderful. But I haven't seen it from you yet.

I haven't seen any evidence that you actually sit down and reflect on anything that Kevin has said. There is no depth to your responses. No signs of any understanding.

-

[Laird]

I don't think anyone expects you to have a solid answer right now, but people are starting to give up on you because you are not providing an answer at all. Now it's your turn to get off the fence.

OK, I'll throw some rough ideas at you. What if there's a higher aspect of reality that goes beyond the dimensions of space, time and the laws of physics as we currently understand them, and which each person is somehow connected to through that person's soul (where thoughts and consciousness are manifestations of the soul)? What if this aspect of reality can never be known to science? What if through the soul's connection (via its manifesting attitude, mindset, thoughts and needs) to this aspect of reality, other souls "negotiate" conditions of reality favourable for the current state of both souls, and through some unknown (and potentially unknowable) process, reality is forged through the known laws of physics such that those conditions occur?

[David Quinn]

More gossip.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

More gossip.

He's a beginner; I think it's a step up from what he was giving us before. If we are to nurture thinking, we have to start with where the person is. If someone is truly at the beginning, we should encourage any positive step, and provide extra guidance and direction until the person at least starts to get the hang of it.

This is different from coddling - it's that we can not expect a toddler to run a marathon.

Laird, I'll respond later. I'm tired right now.
.

[David Quinn]

I can't even think of him as a beginner. There isn't a recognition on his part that there is something to begin.

He won't be able to make even the very first step if he doesn't start getting real and recognize the importance of reason.

-

[Laird]

More gossip.

From dictionary.com:
gossip: idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others
speculation: the contemplation or consideration of some subject

[Kelly Jones]

Laird wants a girlfriend more than anything. Not much room for philosophy.

It probably sounds a bit nightmarish, Laird, but you're out of your depth here.

Ask girls out til you get one to have sex with you. Lust is pouring out of you anyway, so it's better not to pretend. If you like that sort of thing, then stick with it. If you never find your mother, maybe you'll realise she was all in your head.

You can always come back, but somehow I don't think that's going to happen.



-