The effect of thoughts and needs on reality

[Kevin Solway]

...quantum physics teaches that any quantum event occurs at a probability but that its actual occurrence cannot be predicted.

It can in fact be predicted. That's what probability is about.

So what if this "New Age realm" is the ultimate cause of quantum events, so that the overall probabilities are respected but so that the particular occurrence of related sets of individual quantum events are controlled such that macro-level reality is affected in the desired manner?

Then there will be an effect in the macro world, and such effects are measurable. We may well be able to detect such "related sets of individual quantum events" just the same as we detect any other kind of physical cause.

I get the impression you haven't thought this through at all before posting it here.

. . . nothing more than noticing patterns of the sort that I suggested in my original post. So I suppose that it would be marginally amenable to scientific investigation after all.

"Noticing patterns" is entirely what science is about. So it's not just "amenable" to science, but is the very fodder of science.

[Jason]

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]

Witness the creepy, but spellbinding, thought-controlled and action-at-a-distance technology, I like to call "my hand". Marvel as the fingers depress each key on the keyboard, following a tighly controlled sequence, hypnotically complying with every thought-command transmitted their way. :)

[Jamesh]

Enough with the attacks on Laird - it least he isn't demonstratably insane. You dudes are just trying to reel him in by making him feel guilty about his more standard or normal viewpoints.

[Kelly Jones]

Enough with the attacks on Laird - it least he isn't demonstratably insane. You dudes are just trying to reel him in by making him feel guilty about his more standard or normal viewpoints.

"Laird" is really a talking-head, in this instance, James. He represents a way of thinking. How one deals with such a way of thinking is open game.

-

[Jamesh]

How one deals with such a way of thinking is open game.

sure, I just don't like it when the tool is peer pressure.

I doubt Laird will change his views on love - he looks like the type that has had too many hippy like experiences.

[Kelly Jones]

But [tactlessness] usually a one-off thing, as afterwards no one will want to confide in you ever again. So picking a worthy target would seem prudent.

This is proven false.

It depends on the courage of the reader.

I understand the pain that arises from having one's deepest ideals attacked by others. You know it too. Without these challenges, one is not so willing to understand the importance of non-attachment.

Kelly: My aim has been to get Laird to think about why he's using the Genius Forum. I think this is very important, philosophically.

Sue: So you never know - Laird may have a breakthrough in his thinking. Or he may become bored and wander off somewhere else. You just never know.

Sometimes, telling people that they are worthless liars can stimulate the love of truth in them, simply out of indignation.

They can see the lie, and are passionately offended by it. If they don't like the lie, and resist it, then they are pushed towards truth.

Of course, it doesn't work if the accuser is as much a liar, and others know it.

Kelly: Can you describe what you saw as gossip in my posts, Sue?

Sue: Laird isn’t a great mystery. He’s an ordinary bloke (a bit too ordinary) yet you felt it your job to publicly attack him with information that you obtained privately. I call that gossiping.

I divulged absolutely nothing that was not obvious already.

Being spellbound by Woman/Mother is exactly what should be publicly attacked in those who value love over truth.

Do you call this gossip?

Perhaps you are really meaning, gossip, in the sense of discussing things without orienting to Reality first. If so, that's for the individual to decide.

He had a perfectly good post sitting there that you could have directed your attention to and torn to smithereens by using your intelligence, but instead you chose to ignore it so that you could gossip about him. To me, that’s not doing philosophy.

Laird is avoiding discussing his attachment to love.

You have said in the past that one cannot do philosophy while attachments are dragging one down.


-

[Kelly Jones]

sure, I just don't like it when the tool is peer pressure.

The peer pressure in this instance would be bonding.

I made that mistake earlier, to a degree, when I gave Laird some advice about looking after oneself. He seems to think I did this because of being kind, rather than from being logical.

-

[Faust]

Faust, what is your real name? You seem like a fairly sincere and thoughtful person generally.

Thank you Kelly, I hold honesty one of the highest virtues and it always seems to be going in conflict with my other so-called "friends."

I remain to be anonymous, for reasons of others knowing me and searching my name, but also because I don't think it will contribute to any further understanding. However, I can say that I was born in Iran, and currently living in Canada.

[Laird]

Laird: 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]

Jason: Witness the creepy, but spellbinding, thought-controlled and action-at-a-distance technology, I like to call "my hand". Marvel as the fingers depress each key on the keyboard, following a tighly controlled sequence, hypnotically complying with every thought-command transmitted their way. :)

Right! Exactly - thoughts obviously have effects. Some of them we know about already as you've pointed out. We're discovering new possibilities for thought to cause direct effects beyond the body as I've pointed out. Now I'm asking: are there other "spookier" effects of thought that we don't know about yet? Perhaps some of us do already know about - or have carefully considered - these other effects, which is why I bring the question to this forum.

[Laird]

It becomes a pattern only if you ignore the trillion of things that did not come about.

Yes, but those trillion things can be grouped into categories, and some of the categories are much larger than others. So my observation is that more frequently than I would expect based on the relative size of the category I experience events that come from a small-set category - unusually frequent coincidences.

[Wasn't there a few thoughts of lovely lasses beating down your door? - But instead you got Kevin! That doesn't sound like the universe offering up what you desire. Unless, that is, you think the universe is against you - then it all makes sense. ;p ]

To be honest Sue, my sole thought when moving here was sanctuary - women were not on my (conscious) mind in the slightest. There is no lack of beautiful women in this town though, some of whom seem to be comfortable talking to me, so I can't claim to have been ignored by the universe...

As to what I really want, I'm somewhat confused, which was the point of what I shared privately with Kelly. The "willy-nilly"ness of her assumptions was her conversion of my expression of confusion into a confirmed and certain intention on my part to find a relationship. I'm just not that black and white an emotional character.

[Carl G]

Laird wrote:

I'm just not that black and white an emotional character.

No, but Kelly Jones is.

[Laird]

Laird: ...quantum physics teaches that any quantum event occurs at a probability but that its actual occurrence cannot be predicted.

Kevin: It can in fact be predicted. That's what probability is about.

It cannot be predicted exactly. To me, an exact prediction would allow me to answer either "yes" or "no" to the question "will this nucleus decay after t seconds"? From what I understand of quantum theory, all that I can actually answer is "perhaps, at a probability of x%".

I get the impression you haven't thought this through at all before posting it here.

If you were to change "at all" to "very much" then I would agree with you. That's why I posed a lot of questions in my original post. I only provided some rough speculation because Elizabeth challenged me to come up with something. I think that my quantum link is actually a pretty cool idea, and might have some utility in the mind-body problem.

Laird: . . . nothing more than noticing patterns of the sort that I suggested in my original post. So I suppose that it would be marginally amenable to scientific investigation after all.

Kevin: "Noticing patterns" is entirely what science is about. So it's not just "amenable" to science, but is the very fodder of science.

Right, I concede that it would be possible to scientifically investigate my speculations.

[Laird]

Laird wrote: I'm just not that black and white an emotional character.

Carl G: No, but Kelly Jones is.

You would probably be surprised if you met Kelly in person. She is generous, considerate and interest(ed/ing). I found it hard to believe that she was the same character who writes into the forums. So, Kelly, no hard feelings, I actually quite like you, but I'm probably not going to interact with you very much if at all on these forums because you have broken my trust and shown no recognition of it, let alone any intention that might restore my faith in you.

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin: It can in fact be predicted. That's what probability is about.

It cannot be predicted exactly.

Can you tell me any physical event in the world that can be predicted with 100% certainty?

[Laird]

Kevin: It can in fact be predicted. That's what probability is about.

Laird: It cannot be predicted exactly.

Kevin: Can you tell me any physical event in the world that can be predicted with 100% certainty?

I don't personally know of any. Perhaps such predictive power exists on some level, and perhaps not. I don't have direct access to the absolute, if indeed the absolute even exists.

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin: It can in fact be predicted. That's what probability is about.

Laird: It cannot be predicted exactly.

Kevin: Can you tell me any physical event in the world that can be predicted with 100% certainty?

Perhaps such predictive power exists on some level

And perhaps it does on the quantum level too?

So what is your point?

[Laird]

Kevin: It can in fact be predicted. That's what probability is about.

Laird: It cannot be predicted exactly.

Kevin: Can you tell me any physical event in the world that can be predicted with 100% certainty?

Laird: Perhaps such predictive power exists on some level

Kevin: And perhaps it does on the quantum level too?

Indeed.

So what is your point?

My point is that neither of us can claim absolute certainty of these things and that it is unnecessary and unwise for us to do so.

[Kevin Solway]

And perhaps it does on the quantum level too?

Indeed.

Then you are contradicting yourself, because you said above "It cannot be predicted exactly".

In fact, it is an absolute certainty that empirical things cannot be predicted with 100% certainty. You only have to think it through for a few seconds to know that this is absolutely true.

My point is that neither of us can claim absolute certainty of these things

Unfortunately you haven't provided any good reasons for holding this point of view - even though you don't know for sure whether your point of view has any truth to it.

[Laird]

Kevin: And perhaps it does on the quantum level too?

Laird: Indeed.

Kevin: Then you are contradicting yourself, because you said above "It cannot be predicted exactly".

I also wrote: "From what I understand of quantum theory" indicating that I am not certain, but am speaking from what I have gathered from current scientific thought.

Laird: My point is that neither of us can claim absolute certainty of these things

Kevin: Unfortunately you haven't provided any good reasons for holding this point of view - even though you don't know for sure whether your point of view has any truth to it.

My point of view is that I don't know anything for certain except that I exist and that I experience, and that I am therefore unwilling to make claims based on certainty, but that I rather express possibilities at various levels of confidence. Those are some pretty solid reasons. It is you who claims access to a special mode of truth that is absolute - it is up to you to prove that you do indeed have special access to such truth, else you must acknowledge that you are as uncertain as me.

[Kevin Solway]

My point of view is that I don't know anything for certain except that I exist and that I experience

So that's two things that you claim that you know for certain. How many more are there?

[DHodges]

Yes, but those trillion things can be grouped into categories, and some of the categories are much larger than others. So my observation is that more frequently than I would expect based on the relative size of the category I experience events that come from a small-set category - unusually frequent coincidences.

It is well-known (among statisticians) that people do not have a good intuitive grasp of what is statistically normal or random, and what is significant. That is why anecdotal evidence is not considered scientifically valid.

[Jason]

Right! Exactly - thoughts obviously have effects. Some of them we know about already as you've pointed out. We're discovering new possibilities for thought to cause direct effects beyond the body as I've pointed out. Now I'm asking: are there other "spookier" effects of thought that we don't know about yet? Perhaps some of us do already know about - or have carefully considered - these other effects, which is why I bring the question to this forum.

I don't consider these ideas you're exploring to be very relevant to serious philosophy, they concern the scientific/empirical realm, which I'd generally characterize as being inherently uncertain, just like how you can never be sure the sun will rise tomorrow. Are you content to play with uncertainty, or would you like to try to find certainty in your philosophy Laird? Anyway, you might find this interesting: Global Consciousness Project, the effect of thought on the output of random number generators.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Are you content to play with uncertainty, or would you like to try to find certainty in your philosophy Laird?

Actually, that is a very valid place to start. What do you want from philosophy Laird?
.

[keenobserver]

Kevin: Unfortunately you haven't provided any good reasons for holding this point of view - even though you don't know for sure whether your point of view has any truth to it.

My point of view is that I don't know anything for certain except that I exist and that I experience, and that I am therefore unwilling to make claims based on certainty, but that I rather express possibilities at various levels of confidence. Those are some pretty solid reasons. It is you who claims access to a special mode of truth that is absolute - it is up to you to prove that you do indeed have special access to such truth, else you must acknowledge that you are as uncertain as me.

If it hasnt been explained I will do so now - there is no way anyone could "prove" their reality to you let alone absolute truth, we only attempt to point you and hope something stimulates your mind into making the necessary connections.
That is why anyone in the know is wasting their time chatting with you. If you are presently close, then in little time the teaching will move you closer, if you are very far indeed, then the teaching may have no blessed effect.
But its silly to insist someone in the know prove their understanding to you. And you will never hear what you want to hear from an enlightened person since their knowledge is unshakeable, they cannot pretend to be down there where you wallow in confusion and self doubt.
I really hate to see such a smart well written guy as you remain
there in uncertainty when the prize of all prizes is just moments away.
Christ!

[Laird]

Laird: My point of view is that I don't know anything for certain except that I exist and that I experience

Kevin: So that's two things that you claim that you know for certain. How many more are there?

Nothing that I can think of right now that doesn't boil down to "I experience" - namely, "I feel" and "I think".

Jason: Are you content to play with uncertainty, or would you like to try to find certainty in your philosophy Laird?

Elizabeth: What do you want from philosophy Laird?

I've been searching for certainty for years, and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that it is an illusion or at least nowhere nearby. I'm willing to change my conclusion should I somehow happen upon the path to certainty. In the meantime, I'm content to play with uncertainty in the hope that it better illuminates the path. What I want from philosophy is two things. Firstly understanding of the nature of existence (answers to the big questions) and secondly principles that guide me in my behaviour. There seems to be a lot of the first form of philosophy practiced here and precious little of the latter, which is why I titled my first thread "The behavioural implications of absolute truth" - it didn't quite pan out as I'd hoped.

Anyway, you might find this interesting: Global Consciousness Project, the effect of thought on the output of random number generators.

Yes, that's very interesting and is some evidence for the ideas that I'm trying to explore. I also came across in the links section of that article a link to the article on Synchronicity, where I found that I am not the first person to have noticed unusual coincidences (not that I really believed that I was anyway...):

A well-known example of synchronicity is the true story of the French writer Émile Deschamps who in 1805 was treated to some plum pudding by the stranger Monsieur de Fortgibu. Ten years later, he encountered plum pudding on the menu of a Paris restaurant, and wanted to order some, but the waiter told him the last dish had already been served to another customer, who turned out to be de Fortgibu. Many years later in 1832 Émile Deschamps was at a diner, and was once again offered plum pudding. He recalled the earlier incident and told his friends that only de Fortgibu was missing to make the setting complete — and in the same instant the now senile de Fortgibu entered the room.

Those are the sort of incidents that I was hoping that people here would be willing to share.

It is well-known (among statisticians) that people do not have a good intuitive grasp of what is statistically normal or random, and what is significant. That is why anecdotal evidence is not considered scientifically valid.

Fair call - in that case I'd be interested to know how many statisticians have made a study of these phenomena and what their conclusions have been.

If it hasnt been explained I will do so now - there is no way anyone could "prove" their reality to you let alone absolute truth, we only attempt to point you and hope something stimulates your mind into making the necessary connections.

And yet the claim is that all of the truths are purely logical. If I am, as you write, "a smart well written guy", then surely this is some evidence for a logical mind, in which case all that need be done is to put the proof in front of me. I've heard the reasoning through Kevin and have seen arguments on the forums - I haven't yet read the books. Perhaps there is something in Wisdom of the Infinite and Poison for the Heart that is illuminating beyond the arguments that I've seen so far.

I think that my quantum link is actually a pretty cool idea, and might have some utility in the mind-body problem.

I've just discovered though through my readings that I am not the first to have such an idea:

This idea has already been seized on by some theologians, who have noticed that quantum indeterminism offers a window for God to act in the universe, to manipulate at the atomic level by "loading the quantum dice," without violating the laws of classical (i.e., nonquantum) physics. In this way God's purposes could be imprinted on a malleable cosmos without upsetting the physicists too much. In chapter 9 I shall describe a specific proposal of this sort.

I haven't reached chapter 9 yet but I might report back if anything of further interest is revealed there.

This discovery is in itself a coincidence of the type that I tried to point to in my first post - what are the odds that I will discuss an idea in a thread on an internet forum and no more than a few days later come across a variation of that idea in a(n admittedly related) book?