ok. to you this is fundamental. to me the psyche is formed partially by by what our five senses perceive. and yes, the etc., include those i didn't list. the psyche is no more a sense than is our memory or thought process. both are activities of the brain not sensual inputs. we experience or psyche but we perseive with our five senses. what perceptions that we miss or fail to interpret was the issue bean raised. not how is the psyche formed or how it works.

it's not a matter of believing it is there bean. we percieve it is there or we don't. it may be there and we don't see or hear it but if our mind doesn't receive input from the senses believing it is there is no more than fantasy.



i don't think this is accurate. we see with our eyes. it is one of the senses. of course we don't always comprehend what we see and yes we often cannot believe something is possible. suppose i were to bring isaac newton to our time and sit him down in front of a big screen plasma tv. here's the smartest man of his time, he sees and hears people talking that i've told him are on the other side of the world. he percieves but cannot comprehend what he sees.

The hypnotism experiments were real. To me this demonstrates that if a person believes something is NOT there, he cannot perceive it, hence he cannot "see it."

The experiment was one where the person was hypnotized and convinced that the person in the room with them was NOT there. He did not see that person at all. When that person lit a cigarette and walked across the room, the hypnotized person only saw a cigarette floating across the room. He eyes were working just fine. He could 'see' the cigarette. But he was convinced and did not believe a person was there and so his mind totally blocked that part out.

There have been other experiments of this kind that also demonstrates that if you do not believe it you cannot 'see' it or perhaps your brain or mind just does not perceive it.

One man was hypnotized that his daughter who was standing in front of him was not there. He could actually see right through her. The hypnotist held up a card and the man could see the card and tell the hypnotist what the card was. He could see right through his daughter.

Well, this is evidently the main view we see differently.

You view the psyche as nothing more than memory and thought processes.

I view it it as a 'source' of new ideas and creativity.

So as a 'source' of something new, I see it as a valid sense.

It's not sensing the physical world. But instead it's sensing the cosmic consciousness.

Now you might ask, "But why would I even suggest that such a thing as a cosmic consciousness exists? Where's my evidence for it?"

Well, my evidence for the existence of cosmic consciousness is no less concrete than the scientific evidence for the exitence of a quantum field.

Scientists postulate the existence of a quantum field from which phenomenom spring. They have even determined many of the properties of the quantum field. That description is what we call the mathematical theory of Quantum Mechanics.

So they even have a very complex mathematical description of this quantum field that they postulate must exist. Yet the quantum field itself is entirely undetectable and unmeasurable. The only things that can be observed and measured are the things that pop out of this undetectable non-physical thing they refer to as the quantum field.

Well, how is the postulation of a quantum consciousness any different?

It's crystal clear that we are capable of creating brand new thoughts, ideas, and insights from basically 'nowhere'. Out of the blue, as they say.

Well, if when scientists see the physical world popping into existence out of the blue they postulate an invisible undetectable quantum field, then why does it not make equally valid sense to postulate the existence of a quantum consciousness?

In fact, it may very well be the same thing as the quantum field. My hunch is that it is indeed the very same thing.

Any quantum physicist will tell you that 'virtual' particles are constantly popping into and out of existence all the time. In fact, science has postulated that this occurs infinitely often even within the space within atoms. Within the boundaries of an electron orbital and the nucleus of the atom. They absolutely must assume that this occurs in order for their phsyics to even work!

Our brains are made of atoms. Our brains are constantly being exposted to infinitely many virtual particles that are popping into and out of existence within and even between every atom that makes up our brain tissues.

Moroever, science has determined that these virtual particles have an observable effect on these atoms. If this wasn't the case they wouldn't have needed to postulate the existence of this virtual flux in the first place.

So I see to very important scientifically established facts here:

1. Our brains are being constantly affected by a quantum flux of virtual particles popping in and out of existence all the time.

That's physical even though the source of this physical phenomenon itself is non-physical (i.e. the quantum field)

So science itself recognizes non-physical sources of physically observable phenomenon.

Now if I postulate (or hypothesize), that this quantum flux of virtual particles is indeed our interface with the cosmic consciousness (which I also attribute as a property of the quantum field), then in what way would I be suggesting anything that doesn't already have a very well-recognized scientific observable basis?

All I'm suggesting is that our creativity springs from the quantum field just like virtual particles too (in fact, that may very well be the actual mechanism of the communiqué with the cosmic consciousness)

Why would I suggest that the quantum field is also a cosmic consciousness? Well, for the very reason that we have creative thoughts that seem to spring out of 'nowhere' just like particles do in physics.

That would be a 'sense' (not merely a process). We would be 'sensing' the cosmic consciousness (the quantum field).

By the way, clearly the quantum field has some sort of structure since even in physics only certain things pop into existence from the quantum field.

So I feel that I have very solid (and even scientific-based reasoning and evidence) for postulating the existence, and even offering a potential mechanicism of communiqué with, a cosmic consciousness.

So we have dramatically different views on this. You see the brain as somehow being an isolated thing that can only process and remember thoughts.

I see the brain as being dynamically interfaced with the quantum field and thus can indeed 'sense' that field. So I see valid scientific reasons to believe in a sixth 'sense'.

My postulate that thoughts can arise spontanteously from this quantum field has every bit as much scientific credibility as the idea that virtual particles can arise from it.

We see human creativity ever day. Where does it come from?

I believe that it comes from the quantum field. In this sense the quantum field is indeed the cosmic mind.

That's about as rock solid as quantum mechanics. We observe something and postulate the existence of the thing that give rise to it.

I observe creativity, and postulate the existence of a cosmic consciousness that gives rise to it.

And the constant flux of virtual particles of quantum phsyics even gives me a scientific mechanics to explain how the communiqué can actually be implemented.

So I feel that my ideas are as scientifically grounded as they can be. At least just as much so as the scientific notion of a quantum field.

What say thee to this?

indeed



i say that i understand how you feel.

well bean if you'll direct me to the reposts that contain the results of these experiments i'll be interested in learning more.

"I understand how you feel" is a great response, even if you don't agree. I think I will borrow it.

hahaha. the responses i often recieve to my posts are more along the lines of, "you ignorant sob" or "what you are really saying is......" and "you must be blind. why cant you see what i see?". i consider myself to be a good communicator and i acknowledge good commuication. yes, even if i don't agree with what was communicated well.

That's certainly all I can ask for.

I'm not seeking agreement. Just understanding.

I personally find these kinds of claims to be highly questionable. The very simple and obvious reason being that if there were any genuinely consistent substance to these kinds of claims scientists would be able to reproduce these results dependably and it would become mainstream knowldge of fact.

Moreover, it also seems that a scientific interest in learning how to enter into the state of mind created by hypnotism would also be extremely high on the scientific agenda.

After all, if a man can see through his daughter perhaps he can also see through walls. Maybe even walk through walls. If reality is based on what a mind has been convinced to believe that could become a profound technological achievement.

Also, here's an interesting thought.

Imagine that a commercial airline pilot is hypnotized to believe that his plane is both, empty of passengers, and has the agility of a fighter jet. Would he be able to fly more fuel efficiently and even pilot more agile patterns? How many other people might also need to be hypnotized to believe this before it would become reality.

What if simultaneously one of the passengers was hypnotized to believe that the airplane was made of lead and could never possibly become airborn?

How's belief would rule the day?

This is where I have problems with beliefs creating reality. When two people have conflicting beliefs about the same event someone has to lose. In fact competitive games are a perfect example. Hypnotize both teams to believe that they will win the game. One team must necessarily meet with the fate of false beliefs.

So that's where I have difficulty with the idea of belief bringing about reality. How many people have to believe the same thing.

Did the hypnotist in the above experiment also need to believe that the hypnotized man could see through the girl? What about the girl. Did she have a clue what was going on? Did she also need to believe it?

One thing I find rather interesting is that in the Bible when it speaks about the tower of Babel it states the following:

"And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

That sure sounds like to me like it's suggesting that our imagination drives our reality. If we all imagine to build a tower to heaven to see the face of God, then we will indeed produce that result.

That sure seems to be what this is suggesting. Of course, I'm not a big believer in the Bible, and who knows where these words actually came from or how many times they were mistranslated. In fact, I've even spoken with Christians who totally reject the idea that this passage even remotely suggests what it appears to be suggesting. But still, I always find it interesting.

Abra said

The difficulty I have with this argument is that is dependent on the premise that there can be only one reality. (e.g. “only one team can win the game”.)

Now since it is agreed that there can multiple, different, opposing beliefs, it seems to me the premise inherently excludes the possibility of any relationship between beliefs and reality. In other words, there is not even any reason to present logic. The premise itself denies the possibility.

But if one starts with the premise that there can be multiple realities, then the answer to the question “ How many people have to believe the same thing. ” is simply: Just one.

I don't see where multiple realities would solve anything. It seems to me that the only thing that could salvage this one is solipsism. But with solipsism there's no need to ask "how many must believe" because in solipsism there is on ONE. All the rest is a figment of the imagination of the one.

I can't logically disprove solipsism. It may very well be true. I reject it solely on intuitive grounds.

But I don't see where multiple realities would solve the problem in this case anyway. In the scenario of sports teams, wouldn't the winners and the losers both need to continue to exist in each other's realities? Yet if they all believed that they were going to be winners, then you have a problem do you not?

How would multiple realities solve the problem?

It seems to me that you'd ultimately need to resort to also accepting that every individual also has "multiple beliefs", but that flies in the face of the original hypothesis that belief is what determines reality.

So I don't see where multiple realities solves this one.

I have not posted any of these. I have several books on hypnotism here at home. It is a very interesting subject.

I think hypnotism is an interesting subject and there is a lot I don't know about it. I have read a few books with claims, but I have no way of knowing how true or accurate they are.

I think the man who could see through his daughter only depended on his own belief, not the girl or the hypnotist. I am also not sure if this same thing could be accomplished with a different person, or if he did not just get lucky and guess the correct card. I too would like to extend this kind of experiment a lot further if I were a scientist.

I would like to see if you could hypnotize a person to see through a wall. Just think what that could be use for in spying and investigating work.

I think the success of hypnotism depends on the person being hypnotized as much as the hypnotist. I have heard that one person was made to believe that he would die on a certain day... years in advance of his actual death, and he actually did die on that day. He just dropped dead. Coincidence? I don't know.

On "1000 Ways to Die" (a t.v show) there was a story of a man who was stood in front of a firing squad to be shot and every one of the people shooting him missed. (Probably on purpose) But the guy fell down and died anyway. There was not a mark on him. He just dropped dead. They called it a heart attack. Well when you are dead, your heart stops. That is called a heart attack.

Did he have heart problems and did his heart just happen to fail at the time he was in front of a firing squad being shot at? I doubt it. Maybe he just died because he was convinced he was going to die.
Would this happen to everyone? Probably not. I think it is an individual thing.

James, you even said that divining was sometimes dangerous because people believe what they are told and the future becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I totally agree with this. I tell people that "belief is a powerful force in the implicate order" so I do not read for people who believe that the tarot cards are a tool of the devil or if they have religious objection to them.

I also tell people that their future is primarily in their own hands, and that the cards only read the current energy of the event in progress. Any outcome is simply the probable outcome resulting from the momentum of the current event.

Well the first thing to do is clear up the issue of how time relates to the whole concept. You speak of the winners and losers in one sentence as if they were in the present or past, and in the next sentence you say "will be" – speaking of the future.

Now as I see it the error there is in attributing an inherent "delay" between the belief and the resulting reality. As if it were a Newtonian billiard-ball-cause-and-effect concept. But that's not the way I see it. The way I see it is similar to quantum non-locality, where there is an "instantaneous connection". The belief doesn’t “cause the reality to manifest in the future”. The belief “determines the reality at the instant of belief”.

And as I see it, multiple realities are a logical necessity from that viewpoint. Simply because there are different beliefs.

If we look at the “winners and losers” scenario, one team believes they are the winner and one team believes they are the loser. But all that says is that they both believe the same thing and have thus determined the same reality.

On the other hand, if they both believed they were the winners, then we can assume that at some point there was a divergence in their beliefs. Which would be the exact point at which they began experiencing differing realities.

Then of course the next question is – what about when two people share some common beliefs, but do not share others? Well that would indicate that realities can “overlap” where the “overlapping” portions would be called “common reality” and the non-overlapping portions would be called “personal” reality.

If you want to have one reality with a winners and losers this is how it works.

Take a football team. All of them believe they are the winner. The last score pushed team #1 over the top. Team #2 was ahead until then. They both believe they won. Team #1 challenges the play and the touch down.

Okay, a decision has to be made. Was the touch down good or not? They play the tapes and a decision is made. At that point, a winner is declared via the belief of the umpires which disrupts the balance of the two team's belief.

Its all about balance... and agreement. We decided that there can't be two winners in a game. That was an agreement.

One tiny seed of doubt can tip the scales from winning to loosing. One decision.

Both teams can continue to believe they won, but the losing team will likely accept the decision.