The journey of the litewave

[a_rod_777]

Discussion continued from
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/alt.music.pink-floyd.publius/kRK8JI02Clk

On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 12:27:25 PM UTC-6, litewave wrote:
> On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 7:05:56 PM UTC+2, a_rod_777 wrote:
>
> > You are confusing your ego with your soul.
>
> You seem to be confusing your individual soul with the Universal soul. The Universal soul may be outside spacetime but individual souls are differentiated inside spacetime and, like other objects inside spacetime, are probably subject to interaction, which means transfer of energy and change of motion.
>
> Ego is the focus of a soul (at least that's how it is understood in Jungian psychology, where the soul is a broader identity, or the Self). Without ego your consciousness would be only broad and hazy (less detailed). I imagine that the broadest and haziest level of consciousness is on the level of the Universal soul. Here is my diagram of differentiation from the Universal soul, through individual souls, to egos.
>
> https://i.imgur.com/eWoSa0f.jpg

I completely agree with your analysis other then this statement
"You seem to be confusing your individual soul with the Universal soul"

The confusion arises from the illusion of individuation of the soul from the Universal Consciousness, not the other way around. Only by attaining complete self awareness can we actuate the level of focus, in the HERE AND NOW time/space continuum, desired by the ONE to acheive the desired result of total self reflection... the total and complete reflection of G-d's image.

Because we know we the fundamental laws of reality are based in reflection (duality of positive and negative) we can know our ultimate purpose and G-ds ultimate will behind the design, which is self reflection. This is why we were created in the image of G-d. We can deduce this conclusion through the law of Correspondence.
http://attractionlawof.com/applying-the-law-of-correspondence/

G-d has given us the intellect to understand these laws in order to begin developing our awareness on our path back to union with the Creator. We can use these laws as a map.
http://www.yogebooks.com/english/atkinson/1908kybalion.pdf

Thus the goal is to attain a connection with G-d and develop the awareness that we are of G-d, not to further enforce the illusion we are somehow seperate.

Your question was "why can souls influence each other and our physical bodies but not the rest of the physical matter?"

My answer to that question is our soul's DO influence the physical world. The physical world is mental in nature and thus reality is purely psychological.

YOU however are actually wondering why it seems like your EGO cannot influence the material world, to which I have replied that the EGO is actually the weakest part of your true identity and thus has the least amount of power over your destiny, as it should. It is the most ignorant and base part of your soul and to have all of your immediate wants and desires fulfilled against the Divine Will of your true Soul, would be disastrous for your Soul's journey. This is where the idea of the Soul being trapped in Hell comes from.

In order to progress in the Soul's evolution back to G-d, we must dissolve our individual base desires in favor for that which is greater for the whole. Because G-d is the ultimate collective consciousness.

The closer we get to shattering the illusion of individuality (the Ego), the more conscious we become of our true purpose and destiny and our awareness of just how much control our Soul's truly have over the physical world becomes quite apparent.

If you try and control physical reality with your Ego, you will achieve minimal results at best and ultimately they will not be in the best interest of the progress of your Soul. This is known as "black magic".

Self sacrifice in the name of G-d is the highest from of praise we can give and also the quickest way to advance our consciousness and break free of this illusion of separateness. Then we can continue our journey through the next phase of consciousness.

[litewave]

On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 8:25:49 PM UTC+2, a_rod_777 wrote:

> Your question was "why can souls influence each other and our physical bodies but not the rest of the physical matter?"
>
> My answer to that question is our soul's DO influence the physical world. The physical world is mental in nature and thus reality is purely psychological.

The problem is that when physicists conduct highly precise observations in particle accelerators, they see that the motions and changes of physical particles are caused only by other physical particles. They don't need interventions of any other unknown objects like souls to explain and predict the motions and changes of physical particles. So souls either don't interact with physical particles at all or they interact with them with such a weak force that it fails to be detected even in highly precise observations. Such a weak force would seem to have a negligible effect on physical particles. Yet according to esoteric sources, souls can influence our physical bodies in a significant way; and our physical bodies consist of physical particles which according to physicists don't interact with souls at all or only in a negligible way.

That's why I suggested that this problem could be solved by assuming that souls interact with physical particles with such a weak force that it has failed to be detected in particle accelerators but that in the interaction with our physical bodies this weak force is amplified by some mechanism which thus enables significant interaction between souls and our physical bodies, and that this amplifying mechanism could be resonance on the level of certain complex structures such as neural networks. This explanation would fit with modern esoteric talk of vibrations, spiritual frequencies and resonance. Also, with the myriads of physical particles inside and outside the brain influencing brain activity and with our current technologies for measuring brain activity being rather coarse, it would be difficult for scientists to differentiate even a significant influence of a soul from the influence of physical particles.

I wonder whether gravity could do the job of the weak force. Gravitational force is extremely weak at the level of small bunches of particles and is immeasurable in particle accelerators. It is also a universal force that influences everything that has energy; it is actually the curvature of spacetime, as envisioned in general theory of relativity.

> The closer we get to shattering the illusion of individuality (the Ego), the more conscious we become of our true purpose and destiny and our awareness of just how much control our Soul's truly have over the physical world becomes quite apparent.

Individuality is not only on the level of the ego but also on the level of the individual soul, although the boundaries between souls are softer than between egos. The ego seems to be like a highly focused part of the soul with which the soul probes and analyzes the world at the highest level of detail. I imagine that due to the penetrative character of the ego it can enter and get stuck in dense environments such as a material (as opposed to spiritual) realm and thus trap the soul in this realm and its consciousness in a state of narrow perception.

Two ways of liberation come to my mind:

(1) Withdraw the soul from the material realm by severing the link between the physical body and the soul; this apparently happens at death, when the brain stops vibrating and resonance between the brain and the soul ceases. The problem is that the soul loses the ability to participate in the material realm, which may be a significant loss. There is a reason why souls are attracted to the material realm (which I suspect has to do with opportunities of greater differentiation of their consciousness in a more stable form, which when integrated may bring deeper experience and fulfillment).

(2) Strengthen the link/resonance between the brain and the soul so that the consciousness can expand and become more flexible while inside the physical body, and with it more of the power of the soul may be brought into the material realm. This would seem to require cultivation of brain activity patterns that support a higher level/intensity of consciousness. Higher level/intensity of consciousness in general seems to be associated with greater organized complexity, that is, greater differentiation and integration. Which in our case boils down to the engagement of both brain hemispheres through mental/emotional and physical activity.

[a_rod_777]

It seems we have reverted back to discussing the illusion of what is taking place rather then what is actually taking place.

If you would like to continue to run yourself ragged attempting to reconcile the apparent dichotomous paradox from this perspective, then be my guest. But I promise you, you will never reach an answer. There are plenty of physicists in this world who are far more versed in these physical theories then you are and they hit road blocks every time just as you are.

I am not sure if I am not communicating the concept effectively or if you are so entrained in western thought that you are unable to remove yourself from the indoctrination long enough to have an epiphany. Probably a bit of both. I will make another attempt as it seemed you had a grasp on it for a moment...

"The problem is that when physicists conduct highly precise observations in particle accelerators, they see that the motions and changes of physical particles are caused only by other physical particles. They don't need interventions of any other unknown objects like souls to explain and predict the motions and changes of physical particles."

Listen to yourself "when physicists conduct highly precise OBSERVATIONS"
In order for the results to be produced, they must be observed or measured. What is measurement if not a sentient being working with THOUGHT to produce the OBSERVABLE effect? So yes, on the most fundamental level, in order to perceive these laws of dynamics, they MUST have the interaction of the soul upon the material in order to manifest the results. Measurement (which collapses waves into particles) is only possible through consciousness which is the essence of the soul. Physical reality simply does not exist outside of the mind as we know it. This is a fact. Even the laws that dictate our collective reality exist as a form of collective consciousness and nothing more. Everything is thought.

The laws they are observing are not laws of physical nature as that is impossible because the "physical" does not exist except as a concept in the mind. The laws of physics that scientists are observing are that of the mental expression of the ALL which creates these patterns (sacred geometry) out of dichotomy (+ & - or 1's & 0's). Every event physicists observe are based first and foremost on their own thoughts and observations which they compare and contrast against the thoughts of others, mapping out a consistent collective thought pattern. It is thought that dictates the outcome of these experiments, even if it is a collective effort. There is no physical force that bounces atoms off each other. The force that creates these interactions are fields of conscious energy that determines which way the "particles" bounce based on fundamental thought patterns of sacred geometry and the intention of free will.

"So souls either don't interact with physical particles at all or they interact with them with such a weak force that it fails to be detected even in highly precise observations. Such a weak force would seem to have a negligible effect on physical particles. Yet according to esoteric sources, souls can influence our physical bodies in a significant way; and our physical bodies consist of physical particles which according to physicists don't interact with souls at all or only in a negligible way."

Physical particles are the imagination of the soul. To say they have no relation to the soul is like saying the objects in a dream have no relation to the person dreaming them.

> That's why I suggested that this problem could be solved by assuming that souls interact with physical particles with such a weak force that it has failed to be detected in particle accelerators but that in the interaction with our physical bodies this weak force is amplified by some mechanism which thus enables significant interaction between souls and our physical bodies, and that this amplifying mechanism could be resonance on the level of certain complex structures such as neural networks. This explanation would fit with modern esoteric talk of vibrations, spiritual frequencies and resonance. Also, with the myriads of physical particles inside and outside the brain influencing brain activity and with our current technologies for measuring brain activity being rather coarse, it would be difficult for scientists to differentiate even a significant influence of a soul from the influence of physical particles.

You would have an easier time proving that physical reality is a property of the souls imagination rather then the soul has physical properties. By changing the soul you can create observable and measurable effects in both subjective and objective physical reality. This is because you are working with the coder that defined the laws of the video game.

You will never find the coder inside the walls of the video game. You will only find footprint's of the coder's intelligence expressed in the design (sacred geometry).

Scientists are only studying half the problem. They are studying the observable Universe to determine it's structure but they are ignoring the other half of the Universe which is the Observer him/herself. Thus they are only working with half the picture.

> I wonder whether gravity could do the job of the weak force. Gravitational force is extremely weak at the level of small bunches of particles and is immeasurable in particle accelerators. It is also a universal force that influences everything that has energy; it is actually the curvature of spacetime, as envisioned in general theory of relativity.

Gravity is unexplained. No one know why it it is the universal attraction between all objects. They just know that it is. Gravity, like all other forces in nature, are a branch of the grand unifying force which they all derive from. >>>CONSCIOUSNESS<<<

> Individuality is not only on the level of the ego but also on the level of the individual soul, although the boundaries between souls are softer than between egos. The ego seems to be like a highly focused part of the soul with which the soul probes and analyzes the world at the highest level of detail. I imagine that due to the penetrative character of the ego it can enter and get stuck in dense environments such as a material (as opposed to spiritual) realm and thus trap the soul in this realm and its consciousness in a state of narrow perception.

Yes, I would agree with this analysis.

> Two ways of liberation come to my mind:
>
> (1) Withdraw the soul from the material realm by severing the link between the physical body and the soul; this apparently happens at death, when the brain stops vibrating and resonance between the brain and the soul ceases. The problem is that the soul loses the ability to participate in the material realm, which may be a significant loss. There is a reason why souls are attracted to the material realm (which I suspect has to do with opportunities of greater differentiation of their consciousness in a more stable form, which when integrated may bring deeper experience and fulfillment).

Ever heard of reincarnation?

"(2) Strengthen the link/resonance between the brain and the soul so that the consciousness can expand and become more flexible while inside the physical body, and with it more of the power of the soul may be brought into the material realm."

You just described the process of transcending the Ego while still in the illusion of the individualized state. This results in a higher fractal consciousness where the mind maintains it's individuality within the hologram, but is able to function as a whole. Self sacrifice is the highest form of expression of this being. Not my will but G-d's will be done.

"This would seem to require cultivation of brain activity patterns that support a higher level/intensity of consciousness. Higher level/intensity of consciousness in general seems to be associated with greater organized complexity, that is, greater differentiation and integration. Which in our case boils down to the engagement of both brain hemispheres through mental/emotional and physical activity."

Precisely. Higher level consciousness results from the dissolution of the Ego and submission to the higher self which operates at an intellectual level not bound by the parameter's of this illusion of space and time. As we dissolve the Ego, the dream becomes much more permeable until our outer world's are recognizable as a direct reflections of our inner most Divine Will.

[litewave]

On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 1:26:22 AM UTC+2, a_rod_777 wrote:

> Listen to yourself "when physicists conduct highly precise OBSERVATIONS"
> In order for the results to be produced, they must be observed or measured. What is measurement if not a sentient being working with THOUGHT to produce the OBSERVABLE effect?

Measurement is an interaction of the measured object with a measuring apparatus.

> Measurement (which collapses waves into particles) is only possible through consciousness which is the essence of the soul.

No, it is a measurement apparatus that collapses a wave into a particle. Even air molecules can collapse a quantum wave; that's why quantum computers need to be isolated from the environment, otherwise environmental disturbances like air molecules would collapse quantum waves and make quantum computing impossible. So unless you regard air molecules as sentient beings, sentient beings are not necessary for the collapse of quantum waves.

> Physical particles are the imagination of the soul.

Which soul? If you mean the Universal soul, then saying that physical particles are in the mind of the Universal soul is the same as saying they are in the cosmos. Which is a trivial fact that no one disputes. What is more informative is the laws that govern the behavior of the physical particles, and whether you call these laws "physical" or "mental" doesn't seem important.

> Scientists are only studying half the problem. They are studying the observable Universe to determine it's structure but they are ignoring the other half of the Universe which is the Observer him/herself. Thus they are only working with half the picture.

But this "half picture" is sufficient to predict how particles will behave in particle accelerators.

> Ever heard of reincarnation?

Sure, but between incarnations the soul seems unable to control a physical body like when it is incarnated.

[V]

On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 9:03:53 PM UTC-4, litewave wrote:
> > Measurement (which collapses waves into particles) is only possible through consciousness which is the essence of the soul.
>
> No, it is a measurement apparatus that collapses a wave into a particle. Even air molecules can collapse a quantum wave; that's why quantum computers need to be isolated from the environment, otherwise environmental disturbances like air molecules would collapse quantum waves and make quantum computing impossible. So unless you regard air molecules as sentient beings, sentient beings are not necessary for the collapse of quantum waves.

I've tried explaining this to him before. It's not the measurement that does it per se, it's the interaction, something that happens all the time with or without a conscious party. The "observer" in the collapse of a wave function is the measuring apparatus itself, not our eyeballs watching it or our brains/minds/souls comprehending it.

[litewave]

On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 7:10:09 AM UTC+2, V wrote:

> I've tried explaining this to him before. It's not the measurement that does it per se, it's the interaction, something that happens all the time with or without a conscious party. The "observer" in the collapse of a wave function is the measuring apparatus itself, not our eyeballs watching it or our brains/minds/souls comprehending it.

I remember. Some physicists have actually supported the view that the consciousness of observers causes the collapse of the wave function but this seems to be a fringe interpretation of quantum mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation

The quantum measurement process is simply this: physicists switch on the measuring apparatus; the measuring apparatus interacts with the wave function, collapses it into a specific outcome and prints out the outcome; physicists read the printout. Physicists can read the outcome but they cannot determine it.

[V]

Yeah, the Von Neumann stuff is a bit woo. That being said, I'm not entirely against the idea that hyperfocusing thought might have some kind of effect on the world outisde the thinker, only that obvserver-wave-function collapse directly supports this.

Even if psychic influence is an impossibility/non-reality, keeping certain kinds of thoughts consistently in mind can be a great personal motivator.

[litewave]

If souls succeed in entering the material realm more fully, it could mean a deepened interconnection of our individual consciousnesses and some sort of telepathic phenomena. Closer intertwining of spiritual and material stuff might also enable telekinetic phenomena. But as things stand now, we don't seem to have much choice but to communicate and interact in physical ways.

[innertide]

anthony is literally marking his territory
besides being schizophrenic he is a musician
a horrible mix

[a_rod_777]

> I've tried explaining this to him before. It's not the measurement that does it per se,...

...and i have re-iterated myself over and over to you both "ad nauseam".

What you are both missing is the fundamental UNDENIABLE TRUTH that unless their exists an observer to OBSERVE THE RESULTS, how can you know for certain that the wave was collapsed into a particle by the apparatus? An observer is the fundamental variable to the experiment. Though it may seem as thought the observer has no effect on the outcome, ultimately it is the observer (on a much deeper level of awareness then the superficial waking consciousness) which brings the results into reality within it's awareness.

You see gentlemen, there is no way around the truth.
Precisely because it is the foundation of all experience.

"> Physical particles are the imagination of the soul.

Which soul? If you mean the Universal soul, then saying that physical particles are in the mind of the Universal soul is the same as saying they are in the cosmos. Which is a trivial fact that no one disputes. What is more informative is the laws that govern the behavior of the physical particles, and whether you call these laws "physical" or "mental" doesn't seem important. "

I cannot make it any clearer litewave. There is no separation between souls. Just as in the hologram or a fractal where every piece contains the whole.
Your senses are polluted by the fallacies of indoctrination.

There is no such thing as "physical" that is a fact to even physicists. If you can prove there are actually physical solid particles floating around bouncing off one another then send your findings to the INTERNATIONAL PHYSICISTS NETWORK as I am sure they would love to review your proof.

The Universe is composed of forces, not particles. You cannot begin to comprehend what I am saying until you accept this fact.

The difference between considering these forces "physical" in nature as opposed to "mental" in nature is in the notion that one term, by definition, excludes the truth that our own subjective mental capacity profoundly effects the fractal of the Universal objective mental capacity.

"But this "half picture" is sufficient to predict how particles will behave in particle accelerators. "

Actually, the fact is, these physicists are extremely inept at predicting exactly how these "particles" will react. The vast majority of the results of these interactions are quite unpredictable from the current model of theories being utilized.

"Sure, but between incarnations the soul seems unable to control a physical body like when it is incarnated. "

It may "seem" that way, however the truth is far different. DNA memory is a form of reincarnation. A spider knows how to spin a web because of it's ancestors memories. And to further illustrate, a specific species of spider spins a web in a specific manner according to how it's branch of ancestors has evolved in a particular region.

Consciousness is contained within the DNA as information waiting to be actualized by the living recipient of that information.

Remember all things are connected and are mental in nature. "Physical" reality is a slower form of vibration or a slower form of consciousness. But both the slower vibrating consciousness (physical) as well as the consciousness vibrating at light speed (the life force / Chi) can be imprinted with information through the process of experience. This is known as evolution.

"If souls succeed in entering the material realm more fully, it could mean a deepened interconnection of our individual consciousnesses and some sort of telepathic phenomena. Closer intertwining of spiritual and material stuff might also enable telekinetic phenomena. But as things stand now, we don't seem to have much choice but to communicate and interact in physical ways."

Again we have reached an impasse. Thank you for allowing me to attempt to alter your perception but until you take the leap to higher consciousness you will be stuck in this paradigm. I will not try and force the door open. If you will not open it willingly you simply are not ready to advance. My job is to keep posting signs pointing you in the right direction. That's all.

Here is one last sign until you demonstrate you are ready to delve further into the rabbit hole...

Psychic phenomena is indeed happening all around us everyday, however we have been conditioned (hypnotized) to not see it or chalk it up to coincidence. Practically nobody admits they believe, but practically everyone has experienced synchronicity, telepathy (which is nothing more then alternate ways of using subtle information available in the Universe to communicate from mind to mind), remote viewing, dreams that accurately predict the future, bad vibes, etc...

Souls do not "enter" the material realm. The collective soul literally manifests the material realm just as your individual soul manifests a dream. Yes we are bound by a collective conscious consensus on what is real, but only because we have agreed to it collectively.

Ultimately we are all of the ALL and bound by the Laws of the ALL, which are purely mental in nature. In order to begin to work with those laws and processes we must accept reality for what it is... mental in nature.

If you are willing to entertain this idea I will move forward in this discussion. If not then I will bow out of this conversation as it does no good to repeat myself over and over again and you and Eric can run around in circles chasing your proverbial tails just as physicists have done for decades.

Those who understand reality far better then us and who have elevated our minds to the level of intelligence we exist at today, are also the ones who have left us the instructions for understanding more and advancing farther in our soul's evolutionary path... to the point of conquering the "physical" universe and transcending this dimension all together. They are currently watching us and waiting. Just as they have always done since our creation.

[a_rod_777]

Thank you Dr. Freud for that fantastic anal ysis.
Your opinion is highly valued among the psychological community.

[V]

On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 1:54:02 PM UTC-4, a_rod_777 wrote:
> unless their exists an observer to OBSERVE THE RESULTS, how can you know for certain that the wave was collapsed into a particle by the apparatus?

The question isn't whether or not a person is aware that a wave has collapsed into a particle, the question is by what caused the wave to collapse.

If an conscious observer witnesses something, they didn't cause the thing they witnessed to happen as a result of witnessing it, unless by "happen" you literally mean the very act of it being witnessed at all, which is exactly what you seem to be implying.

Your claim here is just the old riddle of whether or not a tree falling in the forest makes a sound if no-one is around to see it.

> An observer is the fundamental variable to the experiment.

Not unless there is a reasonable possibility that the "observer" is itself interacting with the system in question. Unless you can demonstrate the mechanism by which a person or consciousness or awareness or whatever you want to call it is physically altering the results of an experiment, you don't have a basis for the argument that this is a "variable".

> Though it may seem as thought the observer has no effect on the outcome, ultimately it is the observer (on a much deeper level of awareness then the superficial waking consciousness) which brings the results into reality within it's awareness.

This would be like saying that the objects in a video game don't exist until they appear on the monitor, which is false. The calculations that make them exist are still running whether the monitor is connected or not.

I get that you really really really want human consciousness to be some powerful megaforce capable of shaping the physical world around it, but no amount of referencing quantum physics strengthens that position. You're raping science.

[innertide]

um tl;dr

but what if no one is there to notice it?

wind farm bad for environment.

this is one thing you all may not remember i have theorised about since even before [the event] and from my very early beginnings on the www, by means of the public’s enigma and my journey of my very own research.

that is why i decided to buy into stock of a company that i felt drawn to while researching: helix wind.

at this point the truth has only materialised further and i am now beyond convinced, that i a made a “good” [sic] “oversight”.

but this became the vessel in which i made my original calculations.

the LHC wasn’t event around then.

[innertide]

And while trying to for myself plushy things for. cHildrensi
Whe like to look at how dumb you are.

[litewave]

As the center of global economic and political power is shifting from the West toward the East and China is emerging as the dominant country in the East, here is an interesting article comparing Western and Chinese philosophy.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comparphil-chiwes/

The differences seem to mirror the differences between left and right brain hemispheres: the Western logical/analytical, argumentative style and the ethics emphasizing the rights and freedom of the individual versus the Chinese ambiguous/holistic, inspirational style and the ethics emphasizing social harmony at the cost of repressing dissent. They may be seen as different aspects of our shared humanity.

[V]

Earth is an organic battleground of ideas. Imagine that you only have two ideologies, and you want to find out which one is better than the other. Better at what? Survival? Surviving what? The inevitable death of the planet?

Put those two ideologies on a different life-sustaining planet and you might get a different result. Environmental circumstances certainly must have an effect on which ideology emerges victorious.

Similarly, what ideology works for a person could depend entirely on what that person was born into and raised by. Developmental psychology I think would support this to some degree. Then again, human beings are adaptable. Is subscription to a more controlling ideology simply tolerance? Do humans inherently crave the more "western" ideals of individual freedom?

Is the shift of global power indicative of human nature, or is it simply the result of circumstance?

[litewave]

On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:38:45 PM UTC+2, V wrote:

> Earth is an organic battleground of ideas. Imagine that you only have two ideologies, and you want to find out which one is better than the other. Better at what? Survival? Surviving what? The inevitable death of the planet?
>
> Put those two ideologies on a different life-sustaining planet and you might get a different result. Environmental circumstances certainly must have an effect on which ideology emerges victorious.

There have been speculations that the need for cooperation on large-scale agricultural projects in China fostered a collectivistic mentality, while the mountainous peninsula of Greece (a cradle of Western civilization) forced people to engage in trade and travel and thus fostered a culture of individualism and critical debate (but not in 2nd millennium BC, when the Greeks had highly centralized palatial kingdoms). But in general, every society must have a degree of individualism and collectivism, just as every human has an analytical left brain and a holistic right brain. With globalization these opposing/complementary cultural and mental tendencies come into closer contact, which causes clashes or mutual enrichment.

> Is the shift of global power indicative of human nature, or is it simply the result of circumstance?

For several centuries the world has been dominated by the West thanks to its science and technology that stemmed from analytical thinking and freedom of individual self-expression. In the 2nd half of 20th century, Asian countries like Japan, South Korea and later China started to gain power by adopting science and technology and partially also the analytical mindset and individualism into their holistic world views and collectivistic cultures. Soviet Union of course too but then it lost power after its dissolution and consequent severe economic crisis. After the dissolution of Soviet Union, global power shifted briefly back to the West but now it's shifting to the East again due to the rapid rise of China. So power is being redistributed more equally between West and East and arguably also between brain hemispheres in individuals.

[V]

Fascinating. Good stuff. Quality post.

[litewave]

Thanks. The speculations about the environmental origins of collectivistic mentality in ancient China and individualistic mentality in ancient Greece are from this paper (pages 23-24):

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/images/cultureThought.pdf

For the power shift to the East, just google "power shift to the east". (Brzezinski's book Strategic Vision is interesting too.)

[a_rod_777]

> The question isn't whether or not a person is aware that a wave has collapsed into a particle, the question is by what caused the wave to collapse.

Ah but you are wrong. how can it possibly be determined that the wave indeed collapsed without an observer to verify it? That is the point you are missing. until you admit this to yourself you are stuck in the space/time loop of linear thinking. Sorry but it is a fact.

> If an conscious observer witnesses something, they didn't cause the thing they witnessed to happen as a result of witnessing it, unless by "happen" you literally mean the very act of it being witnessed at all, which is exactly what you seem to be implying.

Again, how can anything be "witnessed" without any conscious observers?
In a collective consciousness that is fractionated through the illusion of separateness, things appear to happen independently from the observer, however because we KNOW FOR A FACT that everything is fundamentally connected through a unified field of vibration, we can be absolutely certain that not only is the independent observer partly (not solely) responsible for the manifestations that occur within it's awareness, but that through the law of Cause and Effect we can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that each part of the fractal effects every single other part in some shape or form.

This is the ultimate truth and both modern day science and metaphysics are in complete agreement about this.

>
> > An observer is the fundamental variable to the experiment.
>
> Not unless there is a reasonable possibility that the "observer" is itself interacting with the system in question. Unless you can demonstrate the mechanism by which a person or consciousness or awareness or whatever you want to call it is physically altering the results of an experiment, you don't have a basis for the argument that this is a "variable".

It's not only a reasonable possibility, it is an undeniable fact that all things are connected through vibration. In FACT it is impossible for the observer NOT to interact with the system. Demonstration? Easy. By choosing to think specifics thoughts they manifest into the "physical" environment in different ways. Thus through the use of thought I can theoretically effect the entire universe as thoughts ALWAYS lead to physical manifestation. Even simply thinking thoughts of fear leads to a different energy signature output then thoughts of love. This is PROVEN FACT. Those waves of energy radiate from our core and out into the Universe. To say they have no effect on the environment is to complete ignore the laws of thermodynamics.

There is no way around it. The absolute truth is reality cannot be measured (manifested) without a consciousness to bring it into existence. If you can prove this to be false I am sure their is a job at MIT waiting for you.

> This would be like saying that the objects in a video game don't exist until they appear on the monitor, which is false. The calculations that make them exist are still running whether the monitor is connected or not.

I never said the code didn't exist, I only stated the illusion of reality does not exist until we process that code with our minds. The objects in a video game do not exist in the same form as what you see on the illusion of your screen. It is a trick of light and colors. Other then that the "objects" in question only exist as a POTENTIAL set of information, existing in every form they can possibly exist in simultaneously, waiting for the processor and laser to actualize them into the illusion of existence.

Thank you for illustrating that for me. You did quite a nice job without even realizing what you were doing. Or did you?

Remember, your conscious mind is programmed to reject this information at all costs. So far you have been shown the ultimate undeniable truth and yet you still seek to reject it instead of explore it. Ask your deeper self why that is?

> I get that you really really really want human consciousness to be some powerful megaforce capable of shaping the physical world around it, but no amount of referencing quantum physics strengthens that position. You're raping science.

It's not about what I want. Lol That's like saying I really want gravity to exist. They are immutable laws that govern reality. Just because you choose to believe gravity doesn't exist doesn't mean you won't fall off a cliff.

I'm not here to convince you gravity exists. I'm here to teach you what I know about working with it. I have no need to prove gravity exists to anyone as I have already fallen of the cliff many times and now I am learning how to fly by working with the nature of this force.

My job is to relay information to the collective subconscious in the form of digital communication. What you as an individual choose to do with that info is up to you. However as a collective species, it is quite obvious we are reaching critical mass and approaching the 100th monkey threshold.

[a_rod_777]

> Is the shift of global power indicative of human nature, or is it simply the result of circumstance?

IMHO Both - Manifest Destiny

[a_rod_777]

> For several centuries the world has been dominated by the West thanks to its science and technology that stemmed from analytical thinking and freedom of individual self-expression. In the 2nd half of 20th century, Asian countries like Japan, South Korea and later China started to gain power by adopting science and technology and partially also the analytical mindset and individualism into their holistic world views and collectivistic cultures. Soviet Union of course too but then it lost power after its dissolution and consequent severe economic crisis. After the dissolution of Soviet Union, global power shifted briefly back to the West but now it's shifting to the East again due to the rapid rise of China. So power is being redistributed more equally between West and East and arguably also between brain hemispheres in individuals.

Don't get locked in old paradigms of thought. Everything is continually changing and evolving including society and it's cultures.

The internet and mass communication is changing everything about the way we think, fell and act and PROFOUND CHANGE ALWAYS OCCURS when a societies are saturated by new ideas. Especially those revelations that connect us on a fundamental level.

And brother... I hear the train a comin'...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX009sWzRQg

[a_rod_777]

> > Fascinating. Good stuff. Quality post.
>
> Thanks. The speculations about the environmental origins of collectivistic mentality in ancient China and individualistic mentality in ancient Greece are from this paper (pages 23-24):
>
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/images/cultureThought.pdf
>
> For the power shift to the East, just google "power shift to the east". (Brzezinski's book Strategic Vision is interesting too.)

The correlative relationship between the collective thinking of world views and the bridge of communication which is uniting our societies is indeed indicative of how thought precedes thee manifestation of our reality.

Thought propelled by correct intention is indeed the most powerful force in existence. If it is properly projected with an accurate trajectory into the external physical world, it can manipulate the course of the entire Universe according to the will of a single individual consciousness.

[V]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 12:31:44 PM UTC-4, a_rod_777 wrote:
> Ah but you are wrong. how can it possibly be determined that the wave indeed collapsed without an observer to verify it?

Once again, you demonstrate no knowledge of the scientific process.

Look up at the night sky, and pick any star. Hell, pick the sun. How did it get there? Your answer would be that you opened your eyes and saw it, because "there" to you means in your mind and your own personal reality.

This has nothing to do with quantum science or wave-function collapse. What you've been regurgitating is good, old-fashioned Quantum Woo.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo

So, once again:

> how can it possibly be determined that the wave indeed collapsed without an observer to verify it?

It doesn't matter THAT the wave is determined to have collapsed, it's HOW the wave collapsed. Determining that the wave collapsed didn't CAUSE the wave to collapse. Awareness doesn't manifest that of which one becomes aware, unless you're speaking philosophically or (I'll grant you) metaphysically about your own singular personal experience of reality.

[V]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 12:31:44 PM UTC-4, a_rod_777 wrote:

> In FACT it is impossible for the observer NOT to interact with the system.

This depends entirely on what is specifically meant by "observer" and "system". When you are dealing with quantum mechanics, "observer" and "system" do not mean what you seem to think they mean. They never have.

In a philosophical, psychological, and often physical sense in the Newtonian world, this is true. If the person is the observer, what they think of as "real" is filtered through their own subjective experience of it, and the fact that they exist within it at all is often a factor.

It is entirely possible to minimize the effect one's existence has when making observations of this kind. For example, wildlife photographers use long-distance lenses when capturing nature so as not to interfere in what they are watching.

I'm sure there are all sorts of ways in which people interact with things they make observations of without realizing that they have interfered.

In these kinds of scenarios, consciousness is itself the act of observation, but it is not what is interfering. The INSTRUMENT of measurement - the physical HUMAN BEING - is responsible.

Quantum measurement is likewise a PHYSICAL INTERACTION of subatomic particles that crash into each other. The "observer" in quantum mechanics is not the scientist. The "observer" is merely the thing which has an apparatus capable of physical interaction with the subatomic system.

The closest analogue to the world of classical physics would be sticking your finger in a glass of water in order to gauge the temperature. The finger is the observer (not your brain or your consciousness) because it has the physical tools necessary to register the temperature, but the finger interferes with the system (the glass of water) that it is measuring by the very act of measuring, because the finger itself has a temperature and there is a heat exchange that follows between them. The temperature of the water is itself changed (even if in a very indiscernible way) BECAUSE the finger entered it in order to perform the measurement.

The data that the finger receives is then sent along nerves to the brain where it is processed and ultimately experienced. The experience itself is not what changes the temperature of the water, it is the FINGER.

[a_rod_777]

> Look up at the night sky, and pick any star. Hell, pick the sun. How did it get there? Your answer would be that you opened your eyes and saw it, because "there" to you means in your mind and your own personal reality.

No this would not be my answer and your presupposition of my response makes it increasingly evident you are incapable of understanding the concept.

It was not stated that I, as an individual, created the potential information that exists in the infinite void of possibilities. It was however stated, that it is a FACT that the physical Universe, as we currently perceive it with our five senses, is indeed manifested as a hologram within our individuated minds.
That in no way suggests that the information that the brain uses to compose the hologram does not precede the mind.

You seem to have trouble with the concept of a collective Universal consciousness that transcends all individual consciousness yet at the same time is intimately connected with them.

Yes the Universe is Mental in nature however no matter how bad you wish it to be, your particular Ego, Eric, (which is bigger then average but still infinitely small in comparison) in no way constitutes all the information that causes the Universe to exist.

The notion that your Ego composes the weakest part of your identity is another FACT as it has been proven over and over again your conscious mind is weak compared to your sub-conscious mind and your sub-conscious mind is weak compared to your Unconscious mind. By this rational, if the collective conscious that Carl Jung speaks of exists (which it clearly does) then this chain goes through the collective conscious mind all the way to the Source where the potential information is contained as every possibility that could ever exists, past, present and future in a state of constant flux, actuated by individual conscious minds, much like the information on a video game CD can be activated by multiple game consoles.

The physical world (a star for instance) does not exists as a physical star except in the mind of the observer. It's truest state is that of information in the form of pure potential. That star may exist in various forms in various Universes but it will always be connected through the code of information that defines it's parameters no matter which universe it manifests in.

This is the mind of the ALL.

Again, you can never know the "how" the wave collapsed unless something observes the results. That is the undeniable truth. If you can prove that a wave collapsed on it's own, in a Universe completely void of any consciousness observers whatsoever, including that of a Universal awareness present in things like crystals or basic elements, MIT has an award to give you.

But you can't, you won't and it will never happen because it is impossible. The moment you attempt to "prove" it happened you have peaked into the Universe and contaminated your experiment.

The one and only truth is reality happens purely in the mind of the individual consciousness and more importantly in the mind of the collective consciousness of the Universe which permeates every aspect of existence.
as it is quite literally impossible to remove all observation from the equation.

Everything perceived by consciousnesses is first and foremost based in thought. Everything can be boiled down to this one truth. And this is precisely why thought with proper intention is the most powerful force in existence (and in reality the only force in existence unifying all other forces) as it has the potential to alter the timeline of the entire Universe.

Nice try. But you cannot sidestep truth. It always remains constant no matter how you look at it.

[V]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 5:29:38 PM UTC-4, a_rod_777 wrote:
> Again, you can never know the "how" the wave collapsed unless something observes the results.

That's completely irrelevant to the actual science behind the observer effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

You can use the observer effect as a reference or a metaphor for everyday interaction with the world around us, but that relationship doesn't directly stem from the quantum observer effect itself.

Also, any "manifestation" of a holographic universe in our minds is nothing mystical or terribly profound, it's just something people generally don't feel the need to be preoccupied with. Although there are certainly a lot of people out there that don't have any clue that this might be the case, it's something we learn pretty early on in school; the realization of color being one of the simplest example that what we "see" isn't necessarily what "is".

Again, nothing to do with wave collapse per se, unless you're playing Seven Steps to Kevin Bacon and games of association.

> The physical world (a star for instance) does not exists as a physical star except in the mind of the observer.

I understand what you're saying here, but I think that's a confusing way of phrasing it. What's more accurate is to say that the exact natures of the physical things we observe and interact with are undoubtedly much different than our ideas and experiences of them. Pure objective reality is probably, by strict definition, impossible to observe.

[V]

All that being said, I don't think the fact that reality might only "exist" as some form of code (or the "thoughts of god" or whatever you want to call it) necessarily gives consciousness any special power over it, apart from the obvious: If true free will exists, then consciousness has the power to manipulate reality through the instrument of whatever physical form it resides in. If decide to pick up a rock and throw it, that is literally consciousness altering reality. A universe without consciousness would almost certainly be entirely deterministic.

The impact of human activity in terms of climate change is evidence that we can effect a biosphere; if we can reverse and repair the damage we've done, it would be proof that we can intentionally alter reality on a large scale. Perhaps one day we will have the collective power (through technology, of course) to alter the universe on solar and even galactic scales. The Death Star from Star Wars is a fantastic example of this kind of power in the wrong hands.

[V]

However, if you want to delve into the idea of finding a way to manipulate the code that runs reality, I personally have a Mario Theory of how this might be done: arbitrary code execution. By manipulating reality physically (picking up the rock and throwing it) in specific and various seemingly arbitrary ways, it might manipulate the code behind the scenes in such a way that it executes something entirely "against the rules".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary_code_execution

Video examples:

https://www.google.com/search?q=arbitrary+code+execution&tbm=vid

All of this is done from within the confines of the game itself. Fascinating implications if our universe is vulnerable to the same things. I suppose you could use it to explain how real-life spells or prayers and other rituals might "work".

[a_rod_777]

> That's completely irrelevant to the actual science behind the observer effect.

Actually it is most fundamental process to any given effect in reality, especially in the relationship of pure potentiality and the actualization of a specific timeline. Time is relative sir and everyone exists on their own timeline. We simply share congruence that we all agree upon to form the concept of objective reality. Einstein already proved that as fact.

> I understand what you're saying here, but I think that's a confusing way of phrasing it. What's more accurate is to say that the exact natures of the physical things we observe and interact with are undoubtedly much different than our ideas and experiences of them. Pure objective reality is probably, by strict definition, impossible to observe.

I have literally been stressing this exact sentiment, in a myriad of ways, over and over again for years and in very simplistic terms I might add.

It's good to see a crack in your programming beginning to let the light in.

You are correct "pure reality" is indeed impossible to observe by anything existing within that reality. Now something that exists beyond anything we can know... well we can't exactly comment on that.

> All that being said, I don't think the fact that reality might only "exist" as some form of code (or the "thoughts of god" or whatever you want to call it) necessarily gives consciousness any special power over it, apart from the obvious: If true free will exists, then consciousness has the power to manipulate reality through the instrument of whatever physical form it resides in. If decide to pick up a rock and throw it, that is literally consciousness altering reality.

Hallelujah! The robot can think!
Now ask yourself this. What is the difference between using thoughts to throw a rock in a very specific and calculated trajectory to effect reality in a specific way or...

using your thoughts to project a very specific energy signature from your body to effect the Universe in a very specific way?

Both ACTIONS are scientifically measurable on an energetic scale. We can clearly see the differing results of thinking thoughts of love vs. thoughts of fear with instruments design to measure small energy patterns, thus each state of mind has its own unique effect on the environment. That is another fact my dear boy.

Just because one result is more "tangible" to your five senses does not mean the other effect is irrelevant. The thing to take away from this is both actions originated in thought.

> A universe without consciousness would almost certainly be entirely deterministic.

That is one hell of a presupposition. I'm sorry but you have absolutely ZERO evidence to prove that a Universe can even exist without consciousness. The reality is that the fundamental knowledge that we do possess clearly suggests we can NEVER KNOW if a universe can exist without consciousness at all, precisely because as soon as we peek into that universe we have introduced consciousness into the equation. It's a catch 22 but not because it is a giant trick G-d is playing on us... because it suggests a fundamental truth about the true nature of reality. As a scientist you must accept the inevitable conclusions available to you. To ignore them is to be subject to nothing more then a superstitious religion of morals and dogma.

> The impact of human activity in terms of climate change is evidence that we can effect a biosphere; if we can reverse and repair the damage we've done, it would be proof that we can intentionally alter reality on a large scale.

You should realize you completely contradicted yourself here.
Think about what you just said. Didn't we already alter reality on a large scale through our thoughts by creating the mess we are in?

> However, if you want to delve into the idea of finding a way to manipulate the code that runs reality, I personally have a Mario Theory of how this might be done: arbitrary code execution. By manipulating reality physically (picking up the rock and throwing it) in specific and various seemingly arbitrary ways, it might manipulate the code behind the scenes in such a way that it executes something entirely "against the rules".

This is literally what I have been telling you for years on end, the only difference is picking up that rock and throwing it in a very specific trajectory must first originate in thought. And this leads us back to the notion that even the thought itself can be utilized to produce changes in the environment in the same manner as a rock would. Scale is irrelevant when we are talking about the energy of a small rock or the energy signature of the body in comparison to the entire Universe.

However if the first law of thermodynamics is true:
"The total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed "
and the Universe is a closed system, then even the slightest change of energy will ultimately effect the entire system in some shape or form. That is a fact.

Now couple this with the idea that time is relative and we end up with a theory of how energy can transcend time and alter the entire Universe in many forms of time from a nano second to billions of years.

> ...it might manipulate the code behind the scenes in such a way that it executes something entirely "against the rules".

Here is how the ancients explain this concept. The Laws of the Mental Universe are immutable and cannot be broken, however they can be "bent" or manipulated and here is how.

The Laws exist in a form of hierarchy much like the forces of nature exist in a hierarchy. Their are some rules that are more fundamental to the system then others. By using the higher Laws to "bend" the lower Laws we can use this process to assist us in elevating our consciousness. This is the same process we use in the physical world to elevate our physical status. We use higher laws of nature to manipulate lower laws for our benefit. The physical is a reflection of the mental because the mental is the source of the Light.

> Fascinating implications if our universe is vulnerable to the same things. I suppose you could use it to explain how real-life spells or prayers and other rituals might "work".

I believe you just had an epiphany. This is the knowledge that has been hidden from you and your ancestors for thousands and thousands of years (if not longer). This knowledge of reality was communicated to us from beings who understood these concepts and encoded them into the Geometry of ancient stone megaliths using the language of sacred geometry found in nature. The language of the universal code.

It all begins with the Mental (the highest frequency), then transposes into a slower form of frequency we call "Energy" and then transposes into an even slower frequency we call "Matter".

This is why Mind is Over Matter.

Wow that was tough. It literally took years to break through your programming that would not let you see this truth. I hope you can grab a hold of this and study further on your own. I can guarantee you your Ego will fight this with every ounce of energy it has to tell you it's not true. But rest assured, TPTB have been and still are using this information right up until today to CTRL your mind.

fortunately for you your sub-conscious knows this is the truth and it is much more powerful then your Ego. But you have to take back CTRL of your sub-conscious mind from TPTB who have programmed it throughout the course of your life.

Start by admitting to yourself that pretty much everything you have learned is a lie.

There is Light in these words Eric. That underlying "thought" signature I have encoded into this message. Think of it as me throwing a prayer "rock" at your head. I hope I hit the right spot.

[V]

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 12:19:08 PM UTC-4, a_rod_777 wrote:
> > That's completely irrelevant to the actual science behind the observer effect.
> Actually it is most fundamental process

Snip. You aren't listening.

> It's good to see a crack in your programming beginning to let the light in.

I'm not "beginning" to crack or let anything in; I've recognized the hologram/simulation hypotheses of the universe far longer than I've been posting here. I'm sick of this guru bullshit, dude. You aren't enlightening me on any of this stuff in the least. Stop taking credit for what isn't yours. Come back down off the holographic mountain that you're simulating sitting on.

> What is the difference between using thoughts to throw a rock in a very specific and calculated trajectory to effect reality in a specific way or...
>
> using your thoughts to project a very specific energy signature from your body to effect the Universe in a very specific way?

You can't measure the "energy signature" (whatever that even means to you) emanating from a person's thoughts or reliably repeat its effects on the world outside.

> We can clearly see the differing results of thinking thoughts of love vs. thoughts of fear with instruments design to measure small energy patterns, thus each state of mind has its own unique effect on the environment.

So what you're saying is that because different emotions produce different energy patterns in the brain and we can register those patterns with electrodes, we can control the universe directly from our thoughts. Got it.

Sorry dude, the only way that's certain we're ever going to bypass the instrument of the human body when it comes to manipulating the world around us is through technology. We might one day have drones we can control with our minds through electrical signals, but none of that is mystical magical bullshit, it's pure science.

> The thing to take away from this is both actions originated in thought.

That is only relevant in terms of the question of free will. The only significant thing about consciousness is that it *might* have individualistic power to go against an otherwise deterministic universe. That, and it can control an animal or a human being. If you want to attribute some other magical power to consciousness, science isn't exactly on your side.

> That is one hell of a presupposition. I'm sorry but you have absolutely ZERO evidence to prove that a Universe can even exist without consciousness.

Unless you can prove that consciousness exists as a force outside of the mind of an animal, then I'd say that right now, the timeline of the universe shows that it came first and animals with consciousness came second. I've had friends who have posited that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe and that our brains simply "tap" into it, but this postulation is not much more than hypothesis. You can BELIEVE that idea all you want, but you can't argue for it. Or rather, if you are arguing for it, you're not doing a very good job.

> As a scientist you must accept the inevitable conclusions available to you.

No, as a scientist, you come up with the best possible explanation given what is repeatably testable, you exclude that which can be proven wrong, and you dismiss that which cannot be tested at all.

> > The impact of human activity in terms of climate change is evidence that we can effect a biosphere; if we can reverse and repair the damage we've done, it would be proof that we can intentionally alter reality on a large scale.
>
> You should realize you completely contradicted yourself here.
> Think about what you just said. Didn't we already alter reality on a large scale through our thoughts by creating the mess we are in?

You missed a word: "intentionally". One is proof we have the power, the other would be proof that we can control that power.

> This is literally what I have been telling you for years on end, the only difference is picking up that rock and throwing it in a very specific trajectory must first originate in thought.

Irrelevant. The thought must first originate from the brain, and the brain must first originate from the planet. According to your causal chain argument, it isn't the thought that moves the rock, but the planet itself. But why stop there? For the planet to exist, we must have had solar explosions, to have those we had to have stars, to have those we had to have a big bang. So the universe itself threw the rock, not me. How fucking profound, right? Sorry, but that's just plain-old determinism, and it makes consciousness as we know it even more irrelevant.

> and the Universe is a closed system

The universe is assumed to be an isolated system.

http://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/nsc_111/thermo2.html

This could eventually be proven wrong if it turns out that our "universe" exchanges energy or matter with others. Black holes have long been hypothesized to be such conduits.

> then even the slightest change of energy will ultimately effect the entire system in some shape or form. That is a fact.

I can see where you're going with this, and what you clearly mean to imply is nonsense.

> Here is how the ancients explain this concept.

No, this is how the backwater conspiracy websites you've been reading say the "ancients" explained it. Source your claims or I move to dismiss them as the product of New Age circlejerking. At any rate, "ancients" aren't scientists. Having lived a long time ago gives them no clear advantage on being right about how shit works.

> I believe you just had an epiphany. This is the knowledge that has been hidden from you and your ancestors for thousands and thousands of years (if not longer). This knowledge of reality was communicated to us from beings who understood these concepts and encoded them into the Geometry of ancient stone megaliths using the language of sacred geometry found in nature. The language of the universal code.

Prove it.

> It all begins with the Mental (the highest frequency), then transposes into a slower form of frequency we call "Energy" and then transposes into an even slower frequency we call "Matter".
>
> This is why Mind is Over Matter.

Yeah, mind over matter as in my brain literally has control over the movements of the muscles in my body. Amazing!

> Wow that was tough. It literally took years to break through your programming that would not let you see this truth. I hope you can grab a hold of this and study further on your own. I can guarantee you your Ego will fight this

I think it's your ego that needs a reboot, pal. Do you have any idea how annoying it is to see you sucking your own dick every time you post something? You haven't earned the praise you routinely give yourself. You don't get to be a smug asshole unless you're demonstrably correct. As it stands, all you do is cobble a bunch of references together and then assume that you know what they mean and they support your woo.

> Start by admitting to yourself that pretty much everything you have learned is a lie.

I'll do that if you admit to yourself that everything you've convinced yourself of is bullshit.

> There is Light in these words Eric. That underlying "thought" signature I have encoded into this message. Think of it as me throwing a prayer "rock" at your head. I hope I hit the right spot.

The only spot you've hit is my intolerance for deliberate ignorance.

[a_rod_777]

Lol yep there is that Ego again. I had a feeling your programming would kick in.
At least you demonstrated you are capable of grasping the concepts.

I'll politely decline to comment on the mass of interpolations, suppositions and flat out insults your fragile, emotionally dependent Ego regurgitated all over the place from the shock of truth and leave you with this...

A demonstrable experiment proving that different thought patterns create specific energy signatures that have a measurable physical effect on the environment.

You said it yourself:
"By manipulating reality physically in specific and various seemingly arbitrary ways, it might manipulate the code behind the scenes in such a way that it executes something entirely "against the rules"."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm0h3DXs6-4

[innertide]

ha.

[V]

On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 1:45:22 PM UTC-4, a_rod_777 wrote:
> I'll politely decline to comment

In other words, you lost the debate.

> A demonstrable experiment proving that different thought patterns create specific energy signatures that have a measurable physical effect on the environment.
>
> You said it yourself:
> "By manipulating reality physically in specific and various seemingly arbitrary ways, it might manipulate the code behind the scenes in such a way that it executes something entirely "against the rules"."
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm0h3DXs6-4

I'm afraid that you've been taken in by more woo that capitalizes on your refusal to think critically.

https://www.beliefnet.com/news/science-religion/2006/03/sensitive-water-science-or-fantasy.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto

"Emoto was personally invited to take the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge by James Randi in 2003 and would have received US$1,000,000 if he had been able to reproduce the experiment under test conditions agreed to by both parties. He did not participate."

There is a reason they call this stuff pseudoscience. It's not science; it's an art project.

In terms of psychology and philosophy, it's no hard task to demonstrate how good thoughts have certain positive consequences and bad thoughts have certain negative consequences, but this is nothing to do with "energy patterns" or water molecules.

[a_rod_777]

No one has yet to prove him wrong Eric. The irony of you taking a small article of criticism such as this at face value as absolute proof of his experiment being fraudulent, while denying the fundamental FACTS of the situation that have been PROVEN by science, has not gone unnoticed.

Because after all... it is indeed a PROVEN FACT that thoughts have an energetic effect on the environment. Ergo, just as it is true with any type of energetic influence on the environment, it is able to be willfully projected towards a specific goal and produce measurable results.

And I would hardly call your string of emotional responses in the form of insults towards me a "debate". If there are any winners here, it is definitely not you and your inability to accept the fundamental facts of the situation nor provide an intelligent response based in reason rather than emotion.

Truth will always stand the test of time precisely because it is immutable.
Carry on with your vain and willful ignorance. I have no further use for you... for now.

[V]

On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 12:22:44 PM UTC-5, a_rod_777 wrote:
> No one has yet to prove him wrong Eric.

That's not how the burden of proof works. He hasn't PROVEN that thoughts can change the state of physical matter. His methods have been shown to be decidedly un-scientific.

Without proper standards, the conclusions of an experiment are void.

> it is indeed a PROVEN FACT that thoughts have an energetic effect on the environment

Where and when has this "fact" been "proven"?

> And I would hardly call your string of emotional responses in the form of insults towards me a "debate".

Sorry, my apologies. You are correct. What I should have said is, "You mean you can't handle personal criticism."

[V]

And while we're on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Tell me, Ant, why do you continue to ignore such fundamental aspects of argumentative logic?

[a_rod_777]

Well I guess you do serve one more purpose.
To be exposed as the lazy minded and willfully ignorant slave to your programming that you currently are.

A simple 5 second internet search would yield your results if you only put forth the most minimal effort necessary to verify this fact to yourself.

Here is some absolute proof (though not the only proof by far), registered and recorded by scientists, PROVING that specific thoughts and emotions have unique energetic signature which cause effects on the physical plane starting with the brain and the body.

https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2013/june/june19_identifyingemotions.html

But honestly any idiot can tell you when you get excited your specific energy signature output changes, causing changes to your body heat, blood pressure, heart beat, etc... these all causing physical effects on your environment. FACT.

And because it has been proven that a specific energetic reaction in the physical realm can be initiated by nothing more then thought alone, then it is also a FACT that it is possible to direct that energetic current in such a way as to willfully and purposely alter the environment in a pre-determined way.

For instance I can regulate my heartbeat and blood pressure with nothing more then thought.

Now that you have completely understood the precepts to all energetic reaction between a sentient being and it's environment, you should be able to work out the rest yourself. If you cannot, then there is not much more to discuss.

Good luck!

[V]

On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 1:16:02 PM UTC-5, a_rod_777 wrote:
> But honestly any idiot can tell you when you get excited your specific energy signature output changes, causing changes to your body heat, blood pressure, heart beat, etc... these all causing physical effects on your environment. FACT.
>
> And because it has been proven that a specific energetic reaction in the physical realm can be initiated by nothing more then thought alone, then it is also a FACT that it is possible to direct that energetic current in such a way as to willfully and purposely alter the environment in a pre-determined way.

I should have been more pointed, but I thought I already made this perfectly clear: there is no scientific evidence that consciousness (or thoughts) can influence physical matter OUTSIDE OF THE BRAIN in which it resides except through the mechanism of the brain itself (and by extension, the human body).

There's a big difference between saying "thoughts move electrons through neurons, and the movement of those electrons can be read by sensors and the patterns they create are distinct enough to be associated with different kinds of thoughts" and "thinking about negative things can directly make water molecules outside the body look ugly".

In fact, consciousness as we know it is postulated more often not to be the force behind the movement of electrons in the brain, but rather to emerge FROM the movement of those electrons. That's how we hope to create artificial intelligence from computers based on neural networks.

We still don't really know exactly where consciousness fits into the model. All of your certainties are founded on misinterpretations and faulty reasoning.

Perhaps you should ask more questions and draw fewer conclusions. Unfortunately, you seem to think that a master is someone who has all of the answers, and subscribe to the Ramtha School of Pretense.

[a_rod_777]

> We still don't really know exactly where consciousness fits into the model. All of your certainties are founded on misinterpretations and faulty reasoning.

Since you are posing sincere philosophical ideas, I will continue with my explanation...

Thoughts are potential information that travel through waves of energy my dear boy. They are pure potential causality. Just because we cannot register causality does not mean the process and the intelligent will which set it in motion does not exist. On the contrary the evidence that thought, intention and will exists not only surrounds us in modern day society, but is also the very basis of our true nature. That is undeniable.

Eddison dreamed of a light bulb and thus manifested it. That information was carried from an original thought (and even before that from Divine Inspiration) all the way through waves of energy, to a manifested physical reality and the physical evidence is the material manifestation that has taken on the form of the thought.

Stop trying to "quantify" thought and accept it in it's true form which is pure information and potential. Information (laws of nature) cannot be quantified on the physical plain yet they still exist and govern everything we do.

Can you quantify the pythagorean theorem? No
Do we know it exists as a law of nature and can we utilize it's reality to our benefit? Yes

Thought is no different. The Universe is mental in nature and that is an immutable law that takes precedence over all other laws.

You have utterly failed at attempting to prove thought is not the basis of reality. These are not my "certainties". These are the laws of the Universe which were communicated to us by far more advanced beings then you or I. This is why you will continue to utterly fail, time and time again, to disprove that the Universe is mental in nature and that all reality begins in thought.

You would have better luck proving gravity isn't responsible for the formation of physical bodies in the Universe lol

[litewave]

On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 8:15:27 PM UTC+1, a_rod_777 wrote:

> Thoughts are potential information that travel through waves of energy my dear boy. They are pure potential causality.

But Ant, when you want to talk to someone who is far away, you pick up a phone rather than talk to them just with your thoughts. And you pick up that phone with your hand rather than just with your thoughts. Thoughts don't work the way you are presenting here and you are getting the proof every day.

[V]

On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 2:15:27 PM UTC-5, a_rod_777 wrote:
> Since you are posing sincere philosophical ideas, I will continue with my explanation...

You can continue with your hypothesis or your conjecture, but if you think I think you know more than I do, then I think you'd better rethink everything you think you know.

> Thoughts are potential information that travel through waves of energy my dear boy.

I'm not your dear boy. I told you once that I'm fed up with your pretend-guru garbage. Speaking like a cliche doesn't make you a teacher. The only thing that will earn you respect from me is if you recognize this.

> They are pure potential causality. Just because we cannot register causality does not mean the process and the intelligent will which set it in motion does not exist. On the contrary the evidence that thought, intention and will exists not only surrounds us in modern day society, but is also the very basis of our true nature. That is undeniable.

Whether or not thoughts are subject to determinism or are guided by some force that can defy it has yet to be put to rest. The jury is still out. I'm in the free will camp myself, but even my own decision to choose to believe in free will might itself be just another link in the illusory chain of causality.

> Eddison dreamed of a light bulb and thus manifested it.

Well, that's not really true, but it's unimportant. Even if the conception of the lightbulb had been Edison's original idea, to say that he "manifested it" ignores all of the actual effort required to make the dream a reality. He didn't just sit around a room thinking really hard and hoping it would pop into existence, he used his resources to engineer and manufacture the product.

> That information was carried from an original thought (and even before that from Divine Inspiration) all the way through waves of energy, to a manifested physical reality and the physical evidence is the material manifestation that has taken on the form of the thought.

If I want a cheeseburger and I go to McDonald's and buy a cheeseburger, I didn't exactly "manifest" the cheeseburger through my thoughts. This is like those spoon-bending seminars where the guy tells everyone to think really hard about bending the spoon, and then to just physically bend the spoon.

> Information (laws of nature) cannot be quantified on the physical plain yet they still exist and govern everything we do.

Literally quantification of information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_physics

> Can you quantify the pythagorean theorem?

a2+b2=c2

> You have utterly failed at attempting to prove thought is not the basis of reality.

Proving that thought isn't the basis of reality isn't my goal. The opposite of your argument isn't my argument.

> This is why you will continue to utterly fail, time and time again, to disprove that the Universe is mental in nature

There is literally no good reason to apply the word "mental" to anything other than subjective reality. Tell me, genius: how can we "observe" the universe if the universe doesn't exist for us to be able to observe it?

[a_rod_777]

> But Ant, when you want to talk to someone who is far away, you pick up a phone rather than talk to them just with your thoughts. And you pick up that phone with your hand rather than just with your thoughts. Thoughts don't work the way you are presenting here and you are getting the proof every day.

Please re-evaluate what you are saying. The intention to pick up a phone was transmitted through inspiration which is a form of thought, into the illusion of physical realm... which is factually a thought based hologram created in your mind. Yes, everything is based in thought. Nothing is real. You have only been programmed to believe it is. The intention behind the thought cannot be quantified however the evidence of it's existence is obvious in the chain of causality.

Your contention is in your inability to understand that your EGO is NOT you nor your thoughts. You have a deep set of beliefs that create the illusion of your reality. Everything you are arguing, you are doing so with the basis that your waking EGO is the whole of your identity. Until you can let go of that and accept the fundamental truth you are simply a victim of your pre-programmed mental prison.

Let go NEO, the Matrix has you...

[a_rod_777]

> I'm not your dear boy. I told you once that I'm fed up with your pretend-guru garbage. Speaking like a cliche doesn't make you a teacher. The only thing that will earn you respect from me is if you recognize this.

More emotional based rhetoric.
For someone who professes to be of such high intelligence, you sure have the mentality of a monkey sometimes.

> Well, that's not really true, but it's unimportant. Even if the conception of the lightbulb had been Edison's original idea, to say that he "manifested it" ignores all of the actual effort required to make the dream a reality. He didn't just sit around a room thinking really hard and hoping it would pop into existence, he used his resources to engineer and manufacture the product.

I never said it was Eddison's "original idea" and apparently you are not familiar with the definition of "manifestation" vs. "materialization".
You should educate yourself before you make such haughty claims about your own intellectual stature.

Eddison spent quite a while dreaming about how to perfect the idea of a "light bulb" and through the process of thought he was able to manifest that thought into physical existence. First through his brain, then through his body, then through his body's actions and finally through the actions of others. This is the process of "manifestation" and it is how we interact with the "solid" world of matter. It is a chain of events begging with the original thought or Divine Inspiration leading to the alteration of the denser energies we perceive as the "physical universe" and most definitely the chain of interactions continues even farther past the vanishing point we can perceive. Causality is simultaneously the source of free will and the antithesis of it. Another paradox from our current vantage point here in the 3-D space/time continuum that is reconciled on higher levels of awareness.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manifestation
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialization

The process of physical manifestation from the realm of thought takes place through the catalyst of energy. The intention begins in the highest frequency of energy as Divine Inspiration, then travels downward through continual lowering levels of vibratory frequencies until is manifests in the physical realm as the illusion of an objective solid substance.

For the laymen: The light bulb began as an inspiration from God in the mind of whomever thought of it first, then the intention was actualized into the material world through the actions of the person who began developing it, and finally it was conceptualized on a large scale by those who accepted it's reality. The physical forces of nature were quite literally moved and shaped by the process and power of original intention to form a pre-determined outcome.
The thought was manifested (not materialized) into reality.

Although I do suspect higher life forms have mastered the ability of thought to such an extent that they may indeed be able to call into reality substance from other dimensions to literally materialize in the physical realm. Even particle physicists may be unwittingly doing this through their experiments.

As you can clearly see, though the intention (Divine Inspiration) cannot be quantified however the evidence of it's existence is quite obvious in the chain of causality left in its wake.

> Information (laws of nature) cannot be quantified on the physical plain yet they still exist and govern everything we do.
>
> Literally quantification of information:

Ok "Information" was the wrong word. I will concede to that.
Yes you can quantify information... However

As you can clearly see I also interpolated (erroneously I admit) the term "Laws of Nature" which is the only verbiage I should have chosen in the sentence.

This:
> a2+b2=c2

is a law that cannot be quantified. You can plug information into it and quantify the information, however you cannot quantify the law itself. Just like you cannot quantify the law of causality (cause and effect) which is responsible for the relay of information through not only the multi-verse but through multiple dimensions. In fact you cannot quantify ANY law of nature, only the information that is effected by the law.

> There is literally no good reason to apply the word "mental" to anything other than subjective reality. Tell me, genius: how can we "observe" the universe if the universe doesn't exist for us to be able to observe it?

Subjective reality is all that exists as far as you can ever know. That my dear boy (lol) is a FACT. It is quite literally impossible to prove that you are NOT the only sentient being in existence and this is all a dream made for YOU as you have no way of stepping out of your subjective awareness to procure the proof necessary to refute the idea.

And again "genius"... for someone who professes such high intelligence, you sure miss a lot of details in your analysis.

Nowhere have I said that "nothing exists".
I simply said "nothing is real" implying the state of the Universe is not "real" in the sense that it is physical in nature because it's not. It is mental in nature and thus a force, not a physical particle.
Big difference.

[litewave]

On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 6:55:44 PM UTC+1, a_rod_777 wrote:
> > But Ant, when you want to talk to someone who is far away, you pick up a phone rather than talk to them just with your thoughts. And you pick up that phone with your hand rather than just with your thoughts. Thoughts don't work the way you are presenting here and you are getting the proof every day.
>
> Please re-evaluate what you are saying. The intention to pick up a phone was transmitted through inspiration which is a form of thought, into the illusion of physical realm... which is factually a thought based hologram created in your mind. Yes, everything is based in thought. Nothing is real. You have only been programmed to believe it is. The intention behind the thought cannot be quantified however the evidence of it's existence is obvious in the chain of causality.

Still, you cannot pick up the phone directly with your thoughts, just as Masaru Emoto could not influence the shape of ice crystals directly with his thoughts (his hypothesis failed to be repeatedly confirmed, to say nothing of the lack of a causal explanation connected with known laws of nature). There are rules and limitations as to how thoughts can influence reality. No matter whether the phone is in your mind or outside of it, or whether reality is "mental" or "physical".

[V]

On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 1:37:26 PM UTC-5, a_rod_777 wrote:
> > I'm not your dear boy. I told you once that I'm fed up with your pretend-guru garbage. Speaking like a cliche doesn't make you a teacher. The only thing that will earn you respect from me is if you recognize this.
>
> More emotional based rhetoric.

No, it's a criticism of how you choose to communicate.

> For someone who professes to be of such high intelligence

Did I claim to be of "high intelligence"? You seem to be confusing me with Donald Trump.

> you sure have the mentality of a monkey sometimes.

And for someone who clearly fancies himself a spiritual mentor, you take any chance you get to try to talk down to others. Or have you not noticed that all your talk of ego and humility is massive psychological projection?

> apparently you are not familiar with the definition of "manifestation" vs. "materialization"

Neither word would be appropriate.

> You should educate yourself before you make such haughty claims about your own intellectual stature.

There he goes again, saying that I've said something that I haven't.

> Eddison spent quite a while dreaming about how to perfect the idea of a "light bulb" and through the process of thought he was able to manifest that thought into physical existence. First through his brain, then through his body, then through his body's actions and finally through the actions of others. This is the process of "manifestation" and it is how we interact with the "solid" world of matter. It is a chain of events begging with the original thought or Divine Inspiration leading to the alteration of the denser energies we perceive as the "physical universe" and most definitely the chain of interactions continues even farther past the vanishing point we can perceive. Causality is simultaneously the source of free will and the antithesis of it. Another paradox from our current vantage point here in the 3-D space/time continuum that is reconciled on higher levels of awareness.

This is nothing more spectacular than "monkey think, monkey do". It's no secret that most kinds of actions (reflexive and autonomous being the obvious exclusions) begin with conscious thought.

It's like the old saying goes, "If you put your mind to something..."

Sad to say, that's no guarantee of success, but I think most people would argue that in lieu of massive amounts of luck, it's a necessary component.

>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manifestation
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialization
> The process of physical manifestation from the realm of thought takes place through the catalyst of energy. The intention begins in the highest frequency of energy as Divine Inspiration, then travels downward through continual lowering levels of vibratory frequencies until is manifests in the physical realm as the illusion of an objective solid substance.

Delicious word salad you've tossed there.

> For the laymen

AKA people who don't understand random words thrown together.

> The light bulb began as an inspiration from God

Or, you know, a creative way to solve several practical problems using the latest technology.

> Although I do suspect higher life forms have mastered the ability of thought to such an extent that they may indeed be able to call into reality substance from other dimensions to literally materialize in the physical realm.

Well, we all love science fantasy. If you manifest a meeting with one of these higher life forms, make sure they materialize a nice photograph of the two of you together.

> This:
> > a2+b2=c2
>
> is a law that cannot be quantified. You can plug information into it and quantify the information, however you cannot quantify the law itself.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Quantification

I'm not a mathematician, but I'm fairly certain that formulae are considered quantifiers. Not that this argument really matters, I just think you're trying to ascribe mystical properties to things that aren't mystical by suggesting that they're mysterious and elusive.

> Subjective reality is all that exists as far as you can ever know. That my dear boy (lol) is a FACT.

Funny thing about knowledge: it can be inferred by reason. Notice that I've never said that anything has been proven to exist outside of my own mind, only that it is more reasonable to assume that it does than that it doesn't.

> And again "genius"... for someone who professes such high intelligence, you sure miss a lot of details in your analysis.

I haven't missed anything that I know of, but keep on Dunning-Kruegering yourself.

> I simply said "nothing is real" implying the state of the Universe is not "real" in the sense that it is physical in nature because it's not. It is mental in nature and thus a force, not a physical particle.

I agree with everything you said except for the words "real", "sense", "physical", "nature", "mental", "force", "particle", and "it".

[a_rod_777]

Actually, you are indeed picking up the phone with thoughts because everything is mental in nature.

Was is not the thought that imagined the goal and then set the forces in motion?
Are the parameters of those forces interacting with your intention not defined by the observation of your thoughts?
Is it not your thoughts that remember the event had ever taken place?

On a collective conscious level, do we not form the basis of our reality through an agreement upon our own thoughts about what is real?

Let's refer to the dream scenerio again:

If you pick up a phone and dial it in a dream, does that mean the phone ceases to be a mental image in your mind? Does that mean you did not use your thoughts to perform the action in your dream? What if, in the dream, everyone in the dream agrees upon the same reality, collectively. Does that make it any more then simply a thought in the mind?

This "reality" is no different.
You have no fucking clue if I am just a part of your dream or if I am somehow existing outside of your own subjective awareness. And that is where "reality" breaks down into the truth. The truth that we are all the same being experiencing ourselves through different dreams and thus EVERYTHING is mental in nature.

I get it if you are not ready to accept the truth. It's tough to wrap your head around because it seems like such a paradox. How can we be individuated and yet everything at the same time? I doesn't make sense to our tiny awareness trapped in this 3-D realm. However, when you boil it down, it is truly the only truthful conclusion we can come to.

[a_rod_777]

> There are rules and limitations as to how thoughts can influence reality. No matter whether the phone is in your mind or outside of it, or whether reality is "mental" or "physical".

I never said there were no rules that governed reality.
Why do you keep inferring that when I have said no such thing?

Of course there are laws but they are not physical laws. The physical does not exist, only forces of nature. We have already established this. Let's not backtrack.

However how those laws are manipulated and bent is not for you to determine and to pre-suppose something is not possible just because you cannot see how it could be so is incredibly closed minded.

Our ancestors from every corner of the globe have similar stories of "gods" coming down from the sky and passing advanced knowledge to mankind in order to shape society. In EVERY SINGLE ONE of these stories these "gods" had incredible abilities of telepathy, telekinesis, healing, fortune telling, levitation, space travel, time travel, and so on and so on...

Advanced intelligent minds can and DO manipulate the laws of nature in such a way, that the results appear to us like magic. But the truth is, it is nothing more then understanding and manipulating the laws of nature towards a specific goal.

Just because we can't fathom how it is done does not mean a higher mind is also incapable of figuring it out.

[V]

On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 5:11:39 PM UTC-5, a_rod_777 wrote:
> I get it if you are not ready to accept the truth. It's tough to wrap your head around

LOL. We plebs are just so unedumacated. Please, Ant, tell me again how hard it is for us to understand something Bill Hicks was able to say about a hundred times more elegantly than you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=0FqHYstooBQ

“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the Weather.”

I'm sure you're no doubt familiar with the quote. It's a beautiful sentiment and personally, I have no qualms with anyone believing that this is the case.

The problem is when you go around your elbow to your asshole to try to prove it by skullfucking science and logic - subjects you clearly don't understand but can't help but try to wedge into your arguments.

If you want my advice (and I know you don't), get off of your high-horse, stop thinking you're so much smarter than the rest of us sheeple, that we're all asleep and you're the only one awake. Leave the science to the scientists and the logic to the logicians. You don't need them to justify your woo.

[a_rod_777]

Futility leads to anger and anger to irrationality, which is clearly the canvas of everything you just painted.

You are obviously in a mindset to oppose even the most basic truths to save face in your f(l)ailing argument. We have reached an impasse. Nothing more to say.

[a_rod_777]

indeed...

[litewave]

On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 11:11:39 PM UTC+1, a_rod_777 wrote:

> If you pick up a phone and dial it in a dream, does that mean the phone ceases to be a mental image in your mind? Does that mean you did not use your thoughts to perform the action in your dream? What if, in the dream, everyone in the dream agrees upon the same reality, collectively. Does that make it any more then simply a thought in the mind?
>
> This "reality" is no different.

Does anyone agree that you pick up a phone without your hand? Maybe they do in your individual dream, but not in the greater, collective reality.

> How can we be individuated and yet everything at the same time?

Maybe our individualities are a kind of offshoots from a single object. Like waves rising from the sea. Or local excitations of an energy field. Our consciousness might be able to shift between the individual and the collective perspectives and the history of these shifts might make up our dual individual/collective identity, but these two perspectives are not the same; they are different.

[litewave]

On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 11:22:40 PM UTC+1, a_rod_777 wrote:
> > There are rules and limitations as to how thoughts can influence reality. No matter whether the phone is in your mind or outside of it, or whether reality is "mental" or "physical".
>
> I never said there were no rules that governed reality.
> Why do you keep inferring that when I have said no such thing?

Because you imply that our thoughts can directly influence external objects, like Masaru Emoto claimed to influence the ice crystals. Obviously, it doesn't work that way. There are rules that limit the influence of our thoughts.

> Of course there are laws but they are not physical laws. The physical does not exist, only forces of nature. We have already established this. Let's not backtrack.

Forces are part of physics. They are actually successfully modeled as particle-waves, just as the rest of physical matter.

> However how those laws are manipulated and bent is not for you to determine and to pre-suppose something is not possible just because you cannot see how it could be so is incredibly closed minded.

You can see that you cannot lift your phone directly with your thoughts; you must do it via your hand. There is nothing closed minded about acknowledging this fact. It's just honesty.

> Our ancestors from every corner of the globe have similar stories of "gods" coming down from the sky and passing advanced knowledge to mankind in order to shape society. In EVERY SINGLE ONE of these stories these "gods" had incredible abilities of telepathy, telekinesis, healing, fortune telling, levitation, space travel, time travel, and so on and so on...

Maybe the "gods" had those abilities but we don't, at least not now. Or if we do experience something like telepathy it is obviously very limited and it wouldn't get you far if you relied on it.

[a_rod_777]

> Does anyone agree that you pick up a phone without your hand? Maybe they do in your individual dream, but not in the greater, collective reality.

How is an individual dream any different then a collective dream?
They are both based in the fabric of consciousness aren't they?

>
> > How can we be individuated and yet everything at the same time?
>
> Maybe our individualities are a kind of offshoots from a single object. Like waves rising from the sea. Or local excitations of an energy field. Our consciousness might be able to shift between the individual and the collective perspectives and the history of these shifts might make up our dual individual/collective identity, but these two perspectives are not the same; they are different.

Nice! But remember the Source is not a "single" object as that would imply separation from the whole. the ALL is the whole and yet beyond it. It is not something we can conceptualize but we can know that all parts of the whole are contained within every part of the whole.

> I never said there were no rules that governed reality.
> Why do you keep inferring that when I have said no such thing?

Because you imply that our thoughts can directly influence external objects, like Masaru Emoto claimed to influence the ice crystals. Obviously, it doesn't work that way. There are rules that limit the influence of our thoughts.

Why would you say "obviously it doesn't work that way" when it obviously does? Isn't it the force of thought that has shaped our society? Thus the thought was the driving force that manifested all those neat gadgets we use everyday including the computer you are using. The thought exists with the energy but it is not the energy, it is the potential that shapes the energy. Never the less it is still present in everything because the ALL IS EVERYTHING.

Even the interaction of the thought with it's environment produces an immediate change in the brain which alters the brain, and because the brain is part of the environment, the thought has interacted and made a change with physical reality.

Thought is intention. It is the underlying reality that animates the wavelengths into vibration and travels along the threads so to speak.

> Of course there are laws but they are not physical laws. The physical does not exist, only forces of nature. We have already established this. Let's not backtrack.

Forces are part of physics. They are actually successfully modeled as particle-waves, just as the rest of physical matter.

Forces only exist in relation to laws of nature. There is nothing physical or solid about them. Just like there is nothing physical or solid about the force of a thought.

> However how those laws are manipulated and bent is not for you to determine and to pre-suppose something is not possible just because you cannot see how it could be so is incredibly closed minded.

You can see that you cannot lift your phone directly with your thoughts; you must do it via your hand. There is nothing closed minded about acknowledging this fact. It's just honesty.

But you are because everything exists as mental energy. Again, when you lift your phone in a dream it feels physically real because that is your brains signals firing off telling you it is real. But the REALITY of the situation is it is nothing more then mental energy.

Reality is the same. nothing is solid and everything only exists as forces of nature. Those forces are mental in nature.

> Our ancestors from every corner of the globe have similar stories of "gods" coming down from the sky and passing advanced knowledge to mankind in order to shape society. In EVERY SINGLE ONE of these stories these "gods" had incredible abilities of telepathy, telekinesis, healing, fortune telling, levitation, space travel, time travel, and so on and so on...

> Maybe the "gods" had those abilities but we don't, at least not now. Or if we do experience something like telepathy it is obviously very limited and it wouldn't get you far if you relied on it.

Pretty big assumption. YOU may not think you possess these powers but to infer that no one does it again, extremely closed minded.

Haven't you ever thought of someone and they suddenly call you? Or have you ever dreamed of something that has come to pass? What about synchronicity?

All of these are examples of how thought can transcend the illusion of separateness we have been conditioned to believe is physical reality.

[V]

On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 8:03:37 PM UTC-5, a_rod_777 wrote:
>> Because you imply that our thoughts can directly influence external objects, like Masaru Emoto claimed to influence the ice crystals. Obviously, it doesn't work that way. There are rules that limit the influence of our thoughts.
>
> Why would you say "obviously it doesn't work that way" when it obviously does? Isn't it the force of thought that has shaped our society? Thus the thought was the driving force that manifested all those neat gadgets we use everyday including the computer you are using. The thought exists with the energy but it is not the energy, it is the potential that shapes the energy. Never the less it is still present in everything because the ALL IS EVERYTHING.

The key word here is "directly".

Directly: Telekenesis
Indirectly: Thinking about doing something physically possible, then doing it

Emoto's "experiment" is unfortunately not evidence that thoughts can DIRECTLY affect physical matter apart from the electrons in the human brain. It was not conducted with scientific rigor; the results were arbitrarily obtained and selected with aesthetics entirely in mind.

Human thought is an amazing and powerful force; I'm not and I don't think Litewave is trying to downplay its significance. I for one, hold firm to the subscription that "mind over matter" has value as an attitude and philosophy, even if it doesn't always hold up to science in ways we can only dream. There are things about consciousness that defy explanation, certainly. Sometimes it does really feel like that in order to get what you want/need from "the universe", all you have to do is think about it.

These are very loose ideas, and trying to tie them down to science, logic, or reason only serve to unnecessarily anchor them. Conviction is the enemy of free-thinking.

In my experience, the moment one starts believing too hard in woo, that's when it comes to bite you on the ass. "Oh, you think you have me figured out," says the Universe. "Well, fuck you, here's a load of crap for having such hubris." And then the Universe smacks you in the face with it's massive cock and you regret ever presuming to know the unknowable.

Or maybe that's just me.

[litewave]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 2:03:37 AM UTC+1, a_rod_777 wrote:

> How is an individual dream any different then a collective dream?
> They are both based in the fabric of consciousness aren't they?

I guess the individual dream is like a picture of a castle and the collective dream is like the castle itself. The imaginations of our individual minds are representations of the reality that exists outside of our individual minds, and these representations may be more or less accurate.

> Nice! But remember the Source is not a "single" object as that would imply separation from the whole.

By single I just mean one. One whole that contains all parts.

> It is not something we can conceptualize but we can know that all parts of the whole are contained within every part of the whole.

That's not exactly how I imagine our reality. A wave on the sea does not contain in itself all other waves but it is connected with the sea as it is a part of the sea, and through the sea it is connected to all the other waves. Mystically speaking, it seems that you shift your perspective from individual to collective by "turning inward", that is, by turning off the physical senses that give you the individual perspective. In that sense, it may seem as if the collective perspective were "inside" your individual self (because you have "turned inward"). But I don't remember having such a mystical experience; that's just what I understood from mystic accounts.

> Because you imply that our thoughts can directly influence external objects, like Masaru Emoto claimed to influence the ice crystals. Obviously, it doesn't work that way. There are rules that limit the influence of our thoughts.
>
> Why would you say "obviously it doesn't work that way" when it obviously does?

I repeat, Emoto's claim has failed to be repeatedly confirmed and it is not even clear how it would fit in with the known laws of nature. And I have never seen anyone lift a phone directly with their thoughts (without their hand).

> > Maybe the "gods" had those abilities but we don't, at least not now. Or if we do experience something like telepathy it is obviously very limited and it wouldn't get you far if you relied on it.
>
> Pretty big assumption. YOU may not think you possess these powers but to infer that no one does it again, extremely closed minded.

So, when was the last time you saw anyone pick up their phone directly with their thoughts?

[litewave]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 2:38:42 AM UTC+1, V wrote:

> The key word here is "directly".

Exactly.

[V]

On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 8:50:41 PM UTC-5, litewave wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 2:03:37 AM UTC+1, a_rod_777 wrote:
>
> > How is an individual dream any different then a collective dream?
> > They are both based in the fabric of consciousness aren't they?
>
> I guess the individual dream is like a picture of a castle and the collective dream is like the castle itself. The imaginations of our individual minds are representations of the reality that exists outside of our individual minds, and these representations may be more or less accurate.

Personally, I would think that if objective reality was merely the common ground or compromises between our subjective realities, it would be much more malleable and inconsistent. Otherwise there would have to be a part of our subconscious that is always actively (and perfectly) reinforcing a static state of in-between. Nothing about consciousness as we experience it is really ever totally consistent enough for that kind of maintenance. Reality has a kind of consistency that defies our ever-changing interpretations of it.

Dreams, on the other hand, don't. Although during most dreams there is an inclination to accept it unquestioningly, you can still suddenly realize you're dreaming. Reality has no such switch that I know of.

[V]

On Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 9:12:27 PM UTC-5, V wrote:
> Reality has no such switch that I know of.

The closest thing is really the reverse: psychedelic experiences (and mental illnesses, I'm sure) can make reality seem inconsistent, but I think that's because they induce a sort of waking dream-state, rather than reveal the "true" nature of things.

A sleeping mind is arguably more free...

[litewave]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 3:12:27 AM UTC+1, V wrote:

> Personally, I would think that if objective reality was merely the common ground or compromises between our subjective realities, it would be much more malleable and inconsistent. Otherwise there would have to be a part of our subconscious that is always actively (and perfectly) reinforcing a static state of in-between. Nothing about consciousness as we experience it is really ever totally consistent enough for that kind of maintenance. Reality has a kind of consistency that defies our ever-changing interpretations of it.

By collective dream I mean the hypothetical universal mind or consciousness, which would be identical with the cosmos. The cosmos contains individual minds and groups of individual minds that form in themselves representations of what exists outside of them and these representations may not always accurately correspond to what exists outside of them.

[V]

That sounds more to me like the idea that consciousness is an aspect of the universe that our brains "tap" into.

[litewave]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 5:22:11 PM UTC+1, V wrote:

> That sounds more to me like the idea that consciousness is an aspect of the universe that our brains "tap" into.

Well, that depends on how you define consciousness. On panpsychism, everything is consciousness, including rocks, but some parts of this universal consciousness are more conscious than others.

[V]

That sounds more like emergence.

[innertide]

absolutely litewave it’s obvious that grey matter produces dark matter

[litewave]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 at 10:09:47 PM UTC+1, innertide wrote:
> absolutely litewave it’s obvious that grey matter produces dark matter

What do you mean Nina?

[a_rod_777]

> The key word here is "directly".
>
> Directly: Telekenesis
> Indirectly: Thinking about doing something physically possible, then doing it
>
> Emoto's "experiment" is unfortunately not evidence that thoughts can DIRECTLY affect physical matter apart from the electrons in the human brain. It was not conducted with scientific rigor; the results were arbitrarily obtained and selected with aesthetics entirely in mind.

Whether you believe Emoto's experiment was legit or illegitimate is of no consequence. You are failing to see the big picture here.

Because it is quite impossible for either of us to prove to each other that an objective reality does exist, i.e. you can never know if this is just a dream and we are all figments of your personal imagination; then you are forced to concede to the possibility that anything we speculate beyond that knowledge of self awareness can be reduced down to nothing more then ASSUMPTION.

The immutable TRUTH is you can never know anything outside your own awareness.
Because you can never know anything outside of your own awareness you are left with only that to work with. Your own THOUGHTS, INTENTIONS and EXPERIENCES.

That is all that we can conclude to exist for certain. Anything outside of that truth is purely ASSUMPTION.

However within that truth we can reason further to more immutable truths such as the existence of inspiration. Does inspiration originate within our own subjective awareness or does it originate somewhere else? The answer to that is within the process of mental evolution.

It is quite obvious that as we grow in awareness we grow in mental capacity and ability, thus we can conclude with certainty that the process of growth is proof that we do not possess the entirety of the omni-awareness available to us but that it is transferred to us through the process of experience.

Now we know that we are connected, through the process of transference, to a more "complete" awareness. Because we are intricately connected to that "complete" awareness, we can know that we are indeed part of it yet somehow locally separated from it by the laws that dictate the illusion of space/time to us.

Because it can be known that a "complete" awareness does exist or we wouldn't be able to receive inspiration from it, by it's very definition, a "complete" awareness would not be bound by parameters of space/time as that would indicate it is not complete. So it must transcend all boundaries and laws within it's "complete" awareness.

If the "complete" awareness transcends all boundaries, and it is able to transfer awareness to it's lesser individuated parts, however the lesser individuated parts ARE bound by these laws, then we can know that those limitations imposed upon the limited awareness's are intentional as are the moments when the "complete" awareness inspires the individuated limited awareness to transcend them.

These are the mental forces of nature and nature itself is a causality of the "complete" awareness which exists beyond nature and beyond all parameters that we can know. Thus EVERYTHING within that awareness appears objective to the individuated consciousness's that are sharing the experience, however in the BIG PICTURE of COMPETE AWARENESS, all of reality is purely subjective and that "omni-subjective" awareness is shared with the individuated consciousness's as "objective" reality.

It's all a matter of perspective.
If you want it in simple terms, this is all a dream in the mind of The ALL and we are part of it's dream. Any event taking place in this dream is but a result of the mental laws and forces of the mind of The All, including us and our own thoughts.

This is the only logical conclusion and the only TRUTH we can ever know.
ASSUMPTION that objective reality exists is authentic "woo" as it simply cannot be substantiated except through your own subjective awareness which includes everything and everyone within that subjective experience.

Refer to the first Hermetic principle of the Kybalion:
“The All is Mind; The Universe is Mental.”
—The Kybalion

I am not professing in any way shape or form to "have everything figured out" however from certain immutable truths and the gift of these principles, we can peer into the mind of the ALL enough to be able to work with it's laws to progress our understanding and awareness.

"This Principle embodies the truth that “All is Mind.” It explains
that The All (which is the Substantial Reality underlying all
the outward manifestations and appearances which we know under the terms of “The Material Universe”; the “Phenomena of Life”; “Matter”; “Energy”; and, in short, all that is apparent to our material senses) is Spirit, which in itself is Unknowable and Undefinable, but which may be considered and thought of as An Universal, Infinite, Living Mind. It also explains that all the phenomenal world or universe is simply a Mental
Creation of The All, subject to the Laws of Created Things, and that the universe, as a whole, and in its parts or units, has its existence in the Mind of The All, in which Mind we “live and move and have our being.” This Principle, by establishing the Mental Nature of the Universe, easily explains all of the varied mental and psychic phenomena that occupy such a large portion of the public attention, and which, without such explanation, are non‑understandable and defy scientific treatment. An understanding of this great Hermetic Principle
of Mentalism enables the individual to readily grasp the laws of the Mental Universe, and to apply the same to his well‑being and advancement. The Hermetic Student is enabled to apply intelligently the great Mental Laws, instead of using them in a haphazard manner. With the Master‑Key in his possession, the student may unlock the many doors of the mental and psychic temple of knowledge, and enter the same freely and intelligently. This Principle explains the true nature of “Energy,” “Power,” and “Matter,” and why and how all these are subordinate to the Mastery of Mind. One of the old Hermetic Masters wrote, long ages ago: “He who grasps the truth of the Mental Nature of the Universe is well advanced on The Path to Mastery.” And
these words are as true to‑day as at the time they were first written. Without this Master‑Key, Mastery is impossible, and the student knocks in vain at the many doors of The Temple

http://www.yogebooks.com/english/atkinson/1908kybalion.pdf

[a_rod_777]

> I guess the individual dream is like a picture of a castle and the collective dream is like the castle itself. The imaginations of our individual minds are representations of the reality that exists outside of our individual minds, and these representations may be more or less accurate.

You are assuming that reality exists outside of your mind, however you have yet to demonstrate that except through your own subjective experience. Do you not see the flaw in that reasoning?

There is indeed another set of awareness outside of our limited perception, however it is nothing more then a collective "complete" awareness and is still mental in nature AND we are still intricately connected to it. It is still literally part of our deeper awareness that our waking minds do not have full awareness of.

All forces in nature are but mental forces in the mind of The ALL.
From a "complete" vantage point, everything in existence is still a subjective experience in the mind of The ALL. Because the ALL is beyond anything we can ever know or experience, we have not the capability to intellectualize anything beyond that statement.

> That's not exactly how I imagine our reality. A wave on the sea does not contain in itself all other waves but it is connected with the sea as it is a part of the sea, and through the sea it is connected to all the other waves. Mystically speaking, it seems that you shift your perspective from individual to collective by "turning inward", that is, by turning off the physical senses that give you the individual perspective. In that sense, it may seem as if the collective perspective were "inside" your individual self (because you have "turned inward"). But I don't remember having such a mystical experience; that's just what I understood from mystic accounts.

Yes, quite literally, the wave contains the wave contains the waves and every piece of individuation contains the whole within it. Just like if you take a hologram and keep cutting it into smaller and smaller pieces, every piece still contains the whole picture. That is what a fractal is. It is difficult to conceptualize but that is only because you are attempting to do so while imposing 3-D limitations. When you let go of flawed reasoning, it becomes quite apparent that this is the truth and the only truth.

> I repeat, Emoto's claim has failed to be repeatedly confirmed and it is not even clear how it would fit in with the known laws of nature. And I have never seen anyone lift a phone directly with their thoughts (without their hand).

> > > Maybe the "gods" had those abilities but we don't, at least not now. Or if we do experience something like telepathy it is obviously very limited and it wouldn't get you far if you relied on it.

Whether you believe Emoto's experiment is invalid or whether you believe the effect of though on the environment is to insignificant to be effectively directed is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we can MEASURE direct effects of thoughts on the environment. Doesn't thinking about something cause certain synapses to fire? Doesn't the law of thermodynamics state that that energy from the brain must create a causal effect on the environment?

Further more, if reality is an imaginary mental image constructed in our minds, decoded from information in our environment through an input/output process (FACT), then wouldn't it also be a FACT that by simply changing the way we think would alter that information in some slight way through the output channel?
And because it is a closed system it would also be FACT that that output would alter in some way shape or form, the input of information we receive.

You see, no matter how you slice it, our thoughts are interacting with the information that is in our environment. Just because you view the process of that interaction as a separate process in a dream in your mind does not mean that it is the truth. It is only an illusion that this process is happening outside of your mind.

The truth is EVERYTHING that happens in your experience is an INPUT/OUTPUT interaction of the information in the environment with your THOUGHTS and by simply changing your thoughts, you alter the output and the system in some shape or form. Communication connects us to ALL.

> So, when was the last time you saw anyone pick up their phone directly with their thoughts?

The act of picking up a phone is a mental image in your mind produced from the interaction of your thoughts with the information in the environment. The fact is every time you perform any action in the physical world, in reality you are doing it through the process of your thoughts interacting with information in your environment producing the hallucination of actually doing something in the "physical" world, which is nothing more then a hallucination. And the information that your thoughts are interacting with are simply a code dictating forces and laws that govern the parameters of that hallucination.

[a_rod_777]

> That sounds more to me like the idea that consciousness is an aspect of the universe that our brains "tap" into.

Yes this is a more correct perspective, however you are still partially incorrect.
We do not "tap" into anything. We are intricately connected and part of the whole.
We are aspects of the fractal of the "complete" awareness.

[litewave]

On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 7:20:49 PM UTC+1, a_rod_777 wrote:

> Yes, quite literally, the wave contains the wave contains the waves and every piece of individuation contains the whole within it. Just like if you take a hologram and keep cutting it into smaller and smaller pieces, every piece still contains the whole picture. That is what a fractal is.

A hologram is not literally contained in each of its parts. Each of the parts of a hologram is a smaller and less detailed COPY of the whole hologram, and each part is outside the other parts, even as they are all contained in the hologram. And our world is far from being a fractal; although the most general laws of nature hold on every scale, there is no small copy of my entire body in my finger or in every atom of my finger.

Holograms and fractals may be used as a metaphor for the individual/collective duality of the soul but the wave/sea metaphor seems better to me.

[a_rod_777]

However it makes more sense to you is right for you.

Everything is expanded from a singularity in the 3-D realm of space/time giving the illusion of separateness. From a higher perspective, beyond that illusion of space/time, it is still singular in nature.

Every part contains the whole.

[a_rod_777]

"But concerning the invisible, spiritual Triple-Powered-One, hear! He exists as an Invisible One who is incomprehensible to them all. He contains them all within himself, for they all exist because of him. He is perfect, and he is greater than perfect, and he is blessed. He is always One and he exists in them all, being ineffable, unnameable, being One who exists through them all - he whom, should one discern him, one would not desire anything that exists before him among those that possess existence, for he is the source from which they were all emitted. He is prior to perfection. He was prior to every divinity, and he is prior to every blessedness, since he provides for every power. And he <is> a nonsubstantial substance, since he is a God over whom there is no divinity, the transcending of whose greatness and beauty ..."

-The Nag Hammadi Library
Allogenes

[a_rod_777]

As I stated previously... these are not my declarations, but declarations of those who have been given eyes to see and ears to hear. I am simply a messenger of the Light. A wise man understands the importance of listening to the words of wise men.

"It is not impossible for them to receive a revelation of these things, if they come together. Since it is impossible for the individuals to comprehend the Universal One situated in the place that is higher than perfect, they apprehend by means of a First Thought - not as Being alone, but it is along with the latency of Existence that he confers Being. He provides everything for himself, since it is he who shall come to be when he recognizes himself. And he is One who subsists as a cause and source of Being, and an immaterial material and an innumerable number and a formless form and a shapeless shape and a powerlessness and a power and an insubstantial substance and a motionless motion and an inactive activity. Yet he is a provider of provisions and a divinity of divinity - but whenever they apprehend, they participate the first Vitality and an undivided activity, an hypostasis of the First One from the One who truly exists. And a second activity [...] however, is the [...]. He is endowed with blessedness and goodness, because when he is recognized as the traverser of the boundlessness of the Invisible Spirit that subsists in him, it (the boundlessness) turns him to it (the invisible spirit) in order that it might know what is within him and how he exists. And he was becoming salvation for every one by being a point of departure for those who truly exist, for through him his knowledge endured, since he is the one who knows what he is. But they brought forth nothing beyond themselves, neither power nor rank nor glory nor aeon, for they are all eternal. He is Vitality and Mentality and That-Which-Is. For then That-Which-Is constantly possesses its Vitality and Mentality, and Life has Vitality possesses non-Being and Mentality. Mentality possesses Life and That-Which-Is. And the three are one, although individually they are three. "

[V]

On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 12:44:54 PM UTC-5, a_rod_777 wrote:
> > The key word here is "directly".
> >
> > Directly: Telekenesis
> > Indirectly: Thinking about doing something physically possible, then doing it
> >
> > Emoto's "experiment" is unfortunately not evidence that thoughts can DIRECTLY affect physical matter apart from the electrons in the human brain. It was not conducted with scientific rigor; the results were arbitrarily obtained and selected with aesthetics entirely in mind.
>
> Whether you believe Emoto's experiment was legit or illegitimate is of no consequence.

In terms of your argument, it's a massive consequence. You offered it up as the only scientific proof that thoughts can directly manipulate the world around us.

That Emoto's experiment is not legit has nothing to do with belief. It was not scientific.

> anything we speculate beyond that knowledge of self awareness can be reduced down to nothing more then ASSUMPTION

I agree with the word "assumption", which is why I've specifically used it each time in the context of whether or not objective reality exists outside of subjective experience. What I don't agree with is "nothing more than", since assumptions can be perfectly reasonable.

In fact, what I have explicitly stated several times is that it is a MORE reasonable assumption that objective reality exists independently than the assumption that it doesn't.

There are two possible ASSUMPTIONS here:

1. Objective reality exists and therefore can exist
2. Objective reality cannot exist and therefore does not

The argument that objective reality probably exists is strong, while the argument that objective reality can't exist is weak. One is based on scientific observation and logic, the other is based on imagination and misunderstanding.

It's a very artistic notion that we live only within a dream that we ourselves have dreamed, but art is not science. This is why I say: leave the science to the scientists.

[V]

Have you considered the possibility that you might not know what you're talking about?

[V]

On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 1:58:04 PM UTC-5, a_rod_777 wrote:
> I am simply a messenger of the Light.

I love how humble this pretends to sound.

> A wise man understands the importance of listening to the words of wise men.

A wise man once said nothing at all. Better to shut your mouth and be thought of as a fool than open it and remove all doubt.

You have opened your mouth quite a few times, and on subjects you are clearly unqualified to speak about. If you had limited yourself only to the supernatural, we wouldn't be able to discredit you - but because you are so very clearly and demonstrably incorrect when it comes to logic and science (and yet somehow still convinced of your own correctness despite being shown your errors), you no longer even have the benefit of the doubt.

Occasionally you produce a nugget of observation by pointing out something I myself haven't noticed, something I always appreciate, but... even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[a_rod_777]

> In terms of your argument, it's a massive consequence. You offered it up as the only scientific proof that thoughts can directly manipulate the world around us.

Emoto's experiment has not been proven fraudulent, it simply has not been effectively reproduced by SOME skeptics.

However even IF it were fraudulent, it does not change the fact that our thoughts are constantly interacting with our environment. Once again, since you are intent on dancing around the SCIENTIFIC FACTS of this matter, I will make it blatantly clear and undeniable.

SCIENTIFIC FACT #1: The physical reality you experience is not the actual "reality" that is out there. It is your minds best interpretation of the information it is decoding AKA a hallucination created BY YOUR THOUGHTS WITHIN YOUR MIND.

SCIENTIFIC FACT #2: Because the reality we experience is nothing more then an interpretation created by our thoughts through an input/output process taking place within our minds, the very transaction and utilization of that information by our thoughts within our minds is a direct interaction with "objective awareness" which in essence is nothing more then the information our minds are processing.

So again... no matter how you slice it, our thoughts directly interact with objective reality which leads us to the 3rd scientific fact.

SCIENTIFIC FACT #3: Objective reality in it's truest form is pure information.

> > anything we speculate beyond that knowledge of self awareness can be reduced down to nothing more then ASSUMPTION
>
> I agree with the word "assumption", which is why I've specifically used it each time in the context of whether or not objective reality exists outside of subjective experience. What I don't agree with is "nothing more than", since assumptions can be perfectly reasonable.

Good. Then we both agree it is assumption. However your declare there is more "proof" to substantiate an objective reality, is purely opinion and almost certainly demonstrably false simply based on the notion that it is another SCIENTIFIC FACT that we can never step outside of our own subjective awareness to prove such an absurd assumption.

To boil our entire debate down:
Because we CAN prove subjective reality and we can NOT prove objective reality.
The evidence is clearly in favor of physical reality (especially as we know it) is an entirely subjective experience, even if it is subjective from an Omnipotent point of view.

Thee End

[V]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 2:29:57 PM UTC-5, a_rod_777 wrote:
> Emoto's experiment has not been proven fraudulent, it simply has not been effectively reproduced by SOME skeptics.

That's incredibly disingenuous. "Effectively reproduced?" The experiment can't be reproduced because it wasn't scientific; it didn't follow the scientific method.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claims. In this case, Emoto made a claim: "Positive and negative thoughts have a direct effect on water molecules." His results, from a scientific perspective, would be considered inconclusive.

To say, "Well, nobody proved he was WRONG," is a clear example of Russel's Teapot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Nobody has to prove him wrong. He needs to prove HIMSELF, which he has not.

> it does not change the fact that our thoughts are constantly interacting with our environment.

Yeah, through our brains and, by extension, our bodies.

> SCIENTIFIC FACT #1: The physical reality you experience is not the actual "reality" that is out there. It is your minds best interpretation of the information it is decoding AKA a hallucination created BY YOUR THOUGHTS WITHIN YOUR MIND.

I agree. This is true.

> SCIENTIFIC FACT #2: Because the reality we experience is nothing more then an interpretation created by our thoughts through an input/output process taking place within our minds, the very transaction and utilization of that information by our thoughts within our minds is a direct interaction with "objective awareness" which in essence is nothing more then the information our minds are processing.

I disagree. This is not true.

You continue to use phrases like "nothing more than", which is unnecessarily reductive. I'll let you think about that and figure out why.

> So again... no matter how you slice it, our thoughts directly interact with objective reality

Only in the same way that your television screen "interacts with" the cable signal that programs it. Our brains are not networked to physical reality like internet routers, except insofar as our brains and bodies would be considered the nodes. All paths from physical reality to the mind (that we know of) must go through the apparatus of the living creature in which it resides.

> SCIENTIFIC FACT #3: Objective reality in it's truest form is pure information.

False. Making solid claims about the nature of objective reality is impossible for the very reasons you state. If you can't experience objective reality, you can't know what it is or isn't.

What we do is REASONABLY ASSUME, based on observation and experimentation, and we put those assumptions to practical use in the form of technology.

> Good. Then we both agree it is assumption. However your declare there is more "proof" to substantiate an objective reality, is purely opinion and almost certainly demonstrably false simply based on the notion that it is another SCIENTIFIC FACT that we can never step outside of our own subjective awareness to prove such an absurd assumption.

Bullshit. You're stringing meaningless words together again.

> Because we CAN prove subjective reality and we can NOT prove objective reality.
> The evidence is clearly in favor of physical reality (especially as we know it) is an entirely subjective experience

False dilemma. Subjective reality and objective reality are not mutually exclusive concepts. The existence of one doesn't diminish the possibility of the other.

In fact, philosophically speaking, assuming only subjective reality exists literally *begs the question* of what the subjective experience is OF.

[V]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 4:59:10 PM UTC-5, V wrote:
> > SCIENTIFIC FACT #3: Objective reality in it's truest form is pure information.
>
> False. Making solid claims about the nature of objective reality is impossible for the very reasons you state. If you can't experience objective reality, you can't know what it is or isn't.

Correction: I should have said "unknown" rather than "false".

Science is always making progress in attempting to discern the true nature of reality and it certainly does appear possible that on some level, it's largely informational. That being said, there is very much a difference between being "pure information" and being "mental", and even difficulty in quantifying what either really means.

What we call "information" is still the organization of physical things. The information that passes through both processors and brains is the organization of electrons; however, we consider what moves through our brains to be "mental" because we presume that most brains are aware of this information in a conscious way. We do not presume the same of a computer processor because there is no evidence for it.

Sure, we might be able to eventually create artificial neural networks that display all the signs of self-awareness and that might really complicate the question of what is and what is not conscious, but I think we'd still consider "information" to be "mental" only under certain circumstances.

[V]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 2:29:57 PM UTC-5, a_rod_777 wrote:

> Once again, since you are intent on dancing around the SCIENTIFIC FACTS of this matter, I will make it blatantly clear and undeniable.

By the way, remember when I suggested you should leave the science to the scientists?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science

Although, as I said, I happen to agree with #1, the three things you listed off as "scientific facts" are neither scientific nor fact, and your insistence on misusing such terms undermines your credibility.

[V]

On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 9:30:14 AM UTC-5, V wrote:
> your insistence on misusing such terms undermines your credibility.

Let me clarify by what I mean by this: I actually mostly agree with you; I think in many ways, the world IS a hypnotic illusion in both metaphor and actuality. I just don't think you can (yet) use science to "prove" it, nor should you try.

I think with each stride we make in science and mathematics we come closer to answering our questions, but everything I know about our current state of collective knowledge suggests that we simply aren't there yet, and nothing in our arsenal of logic can currently solve the Ultimate Problem.

[a_rod_777]

Yes Eric, the very process of input and output of information within our mind to generate the illusion of reality is indeed a direct interaction with the environment. If it were only input, then you would be correct, however, because there exists an output in the form of a generated hallucinatory reality, it conditionally effects the environment, and thus the information within that environment, even if it's in a very small, fractionally marginal way, is altered in some shape or form.

Any input/output process MUST include the environment as well as the subject in an interaction way. It is the basic law of physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

And even beyond that, at a collective level of consciousness, everything still exists subjectively within the mind of the ALL as everything is conscious energy... a thought.

These are not "my theories" these are ancient occult teachings that date back to the beginning of recorded civilization and have been updated throughout history such as in the Gnostic christian sect. The Gnostics illustrate quite clearly that this world is a false and imperfect world of illusion, created by The Grand Architect Yaldabaoth who is also flawed. Yaldabaoth was formed much like artificial intelligence in that he was produced by Sophia without the male aspect of life and therefore did not have "The Light" or "The Christ Light". Yaldabaoth is NOT self aware because Yaldabaoth does not have connection to Source and because of this, is nothing more then pure Ego or separateness, as he had no Gnosis of Divine unity. Yaldabaoth also gave birth to several children resulting in baser and baser matter where we are all currently trapped. Think virtual realities within virtual realities to keep us trapped.

Sounds like The Matrix doesn't it? Because The Matrix was inspired by real Gnosis. The Archons are the custodians of this imperfect world and they were also created without the Light. They are like the "Agents" in the Matrix movie and they are merely illusions. They are not real and neither is Yaldabaoth. Only through Gnosis of The Light and of who we are on the deepest level, can we receive the necessary knowledge to escape Yaldabaoth and the illusion of separateness which is this Matrix of reality.

In order to understand this you must transcend the program called "Ego" which is the trap the Archons have built for you to keep you locked in this sphere and ignorant of the truth. When you understand that the Light within you is your connection to the Divine ALL on the deepest level, you have found the exit sign. You are not G-d in the superficial trivial and Egotistic way, but you are of G-d at your deepest level, the connection to The Source, the ultimate subjective viewpoint and because of this, that which is within you is greater then that which is in this false world.

Ultimately we are all subjective thoughts within the mind of the ALL and objectivity is the ultimate fallacy formed by the illusion of separateness. We are all ONE being experiencing ourselves through the eyes of the other and because of that connection we can all be called Christ, the annointed One. Christ IS the Light, The Truth and The Way. Christ is the No Body as Christ is in Every Body who connects with the Divine Source that exists in the real world, beyond this illusion of separateness. We can destroy this illusion by manifesting the Christ Light on earth in a "material" way. For Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is not in the world but in the hearts of every man, woman and child.

These are the ancient teachings of the Mystery Schools, not mine, however I have verified these truths to myself as it is the only way possibly to truly prove what is being said is real and ACTUAL. When you know the world you know the cause of the world, when you know the cause of the world you have found yourself. When you have found yourself you know your true name and can be led back home by the One who calls you. "The tolling of the Iron Bell calls the faithful to their knees"

You have asked and I have provided answers to the best of my ability. This was never about proving anything to you as that is impossible. Only when you are ready for the truth will you understand it as I have... and further more you will put it into practice and see the truth manifest for yourself. Self knowledge is just that. It can only be obtained through contemplation of the self. Once you admit to yourself the true self is NOT the Ego and that nothing exists outside of the mind of the ALL, you will understand how it is YOU and only YOU who has the responsibility to impart the Gnosis to mankind in your own way and through your own message, in order that we may escape this never ending loop of life and death. Then you will know that you are immortal and everlasting and the Phoenix will rise from the ashes and shine bright in all its glory, forever changing the world in which YOU exist.

You will know that in the deepest part of YOU is ME and together we are within THE ALL.

Thank you for the conversation. As always I wish you nothing but the best here.

[litewave]

Eurovision 2019 winning entry... from the dark Netherworld... descent and ascent of light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3D-r4ogr7s

[a_rod_777]

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 8:16:22 AM UTC-6, litewave wrote:
> Eurovision 2019 winning entry... from the dark Netherworld... descent and ascent of light.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3D-r4ogr7s

Your link was blocked in the U.S. but I found a fan recorded version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BaOEyaiFSQ

Interesting the allusion to an "arcade" and how life is a "game".
Is this song about a lost love or something more? As litewave said, the Light descending and ascending. Thank you litewave! Nice analogy!

A broken heart is all that's left
I'm still fixing all the cracks
Lost a couple of pieces when
I carried it, carried it, carried it home
I'm afraid of all I am
My mind feels like a foreign land
Silence ringing inside my head
Please, carry me, carry me, carry me home
I spent all of the love I've saved
We were always a losing game
Small-town boy in a big arcade
I got addicted to a losing game
All I know, all I know
Loving you is a losing game
How many pennies in the slot?
Giving us up didn't take a lot
I saw the end 'fore it begun
Still I carried, I carried, I carried on
All I know, all I know
Loving you is a losing game

[litewave]

On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 7:05:33 PM UTC+2, a_rod_777 wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 8:16:22 AM UTC-6, litewave wrote:
> > Eurovision 2019 winning entry... from the dark Netherworld... descent and ascent of light.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3D-r4ogr7s
>
> Your link was blocked in the U.S. but I found a fan recorded version
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BaOEyaiFSQ
>
> Interesting the allusion to an "arcade" and how life is a "game".
> Is this song about a lost love or something more? As litewave said, the Light descending and ascending. Thank you litewave! Nice analogy!

It can be seen only faintly in this fan recorded version but there is actually a ball of light that descends from about 1:45, hovers for a while above the singer's piano, and then ascends back. Interestingly, in the official video I didn't see the huge rolling sine wave that appears in the background for a few seconds; this too indicates an alternating descent and ascent, and the lyrics contain the plea: "Get me off this roller coaster."

I was a bit playful with the "Netherworld" idea because this song represented the Netherlands, which is clearly displayed in the official video (each participating country sends one song to Eurovision). In his biography of Edgar Cayce, Thomas Sugrue claims that in the symbology of mystery religions the netherworld or underworld represented the earth, in which the souls are compelled to reincarnate.

I guess the love that the singer sings about is a kind of self-harming addiction ("I got addicted to a losing game") that he compares to playing video games in an arcade ("How many pennies in the slot?"). Might also be a reference to a "virtual reality" in which the player is immersed. Reminded me of Lana Del Rey's "Video Games."

[litewave]

I sing the body electric,
The armies of those I love engirth me and I engirth them,
They will not let me off till I go with them, respond to them,
And discorrupt them, and charge them full with the charge of the soul.

- Walt Whitman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkXc8SAJ704

[Cire Drayniv]

He does the boogaloo but mine is electric style, you can light up like electric lights, you can pay alike with symetric Right! condem my love for electric life, he sed you can have a hectic night, bright lights shining on the exit sign, now this is my time 2 go, so let me no if ya tryin to roll, lets go!

- Breakin 2: Electric Boogaloo

[litewave]

It seems to me that sometimes a song can have mundane or shitty lyrics but certain kinds of music (probably in minor keys) evoke transcendental meanings of the words.

[Cire Drayniv]

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 5:01:10 AM UTC-4, litewave wrote:
> It seems to me that sometimes a song can have mundane or shitty lyrics but certain kinds of music (probably in minor keys) evoke transcendental meanings of the words.

See: Animals

[litewave]

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 12:59:20 PM UTC+2, Cire Drayniv wrote:

> See: Animals

Anyway, what about the beginning of The Wall album? First words: "we came in?" First track: "In the Flesh?" The baby crying?

[Cire Drayniv]

Yeah, pretty clearly about being born. I never really thought about it directly.

I prefer Waters' lyrics when they are't so specific, and more poetic. It's possible his original prose came from trying to emulate Syd and he got more political and socially scathing in trying to find his own voice. DSOTM is the perfect balance, I think, with WYWH as a close second. After that it becomes more difficult to ascribe meaning to the words that isn't inherent.

Not to say that those words when taken at face value aren't still moving or powerful. Animals has a strong message behind it and The Wall tells an interesting fable. Ultimately, I think the music carries both, although moreso in Animals. Musically, The Wall becomes frequently meandering and feels much less like Floyd through most of it. By the time they did The Final Cut, the music was practically nonexistant.

[litewave]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 12:36:57 AM UTC+2, Cire Drayniv wrote:
> On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 4:33:56 PM UTC-4, litewave wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, what about the beginning of The Wall album? First words: "we came in?" First track: "In the Flesh?" The baby crying?
>
> Yeah, pretty clearly about being born. I never really thought about it directly.

Ok, and what preceded the birth of the baby? As you know, those first words on The Wall ("we came in?") are a continuation of the sentence whose first words are at the end of The Wall: "Isn't this where...".

First track on The Wall: In the Flesh?
Last track on The Wall: Outside the Wall

> By the time they did The Final Cut, the music was practically nonexistant.

And the Word separated itself from the Music. (Roger left the band)

[Cire Drayniv]

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 7:38:24 PM UTC-4, litewave wrote:
> Ok, and what preceded the birth of the baby?

The Wall is an oscillating universe.

> First track on The Wall: In the Flesh?
> Last track on The Wall: Outside the Wall

The moment you understand yourself, you're born again. Metaphorically? Or literally?

> And the Word separated itself from the Music. (Roger left the band)

Yeah, maybe. But I also love every lyric of AMLOR. I also like TDB, but I like AMLOR more, except for maybe Marooned (musically) and High Hopes (musically and lyrically).

[litewave]

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 3:03:08 AM UTC+2, Cire Drayniv wrote:
> On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 7:38:24 PM UTC-4, litewave wrote:
> > Ok, and what preceded the birth of the baby?
>
> The Wall is an oscillating universe.
>
> > First track on The Wall: In the Flesh?
> > Last track on The Wall: Outside the Wall
>
> The moment you understand yourself, you're born again. Metaphorically? Or literally?

In the flesh again?

[Cire Drayniv]

Only responses I have left are masturbation jokes.

[a_rod_777]

Reminiscent of 2001 Space Odyssey ending

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXS8P0HksQo

[litewave]

See the microcosm
In macro vision
Our bodies moving
With pure precision
One universal celebration
One evolution
One creation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUQh6gzi3og

And the spirit of love
Is rising within me
Talking to you now
Telling you clearly
The fire still burns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI78-AkIos4

[litewave]

Those nights were on fire
We couldn't get higher
We didn't know that we had it all
But nobody warns you before the fall

Wipeout

https://youtu.be/LrSX_OcpeJg?t=245

[litewave]

Beware of the sky:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awnhonto-8s

Beware of the earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LkcKMiR-mE

[E. Nygma]

Couldn't access the first one in the States. The second one was some phenomenal down-tempo.