Unless you are talking about a non-physical entity who creates a universe out of nothing but thought. Rights????

NovaRoma

My belief is yes.

As your mind can create images and dreams so can the universal mind create space-time and matter.

MEST (Matter, energy, space and time) are all mind created.

The mind is a unified field within which "matter" is manifested.

You, and this entire physical universe exists within the mind.

The idea that your 'mind' arises from 'your brain' is a backwards an incorrect assumption. (It's the other way around.)

We are the creators and we are observing our creation and wondering who created it and us. As long as we do that, we will never find out the true nature of the universe.


Its very funny.

JennieBean...if you believe that the mind can create images and dreams then why wouldn't space-time, matter and a belief in a universal mind not be included in the images and dreams that the mind has or can create

It wasn't even intended as an argument. It was just a statement of fact. The laws of physics are nothing more than mankind's feeble attempt to describe what can't be explained.

That just a fact. And the laws of physics of quantum mechanics drive home the point. Even when we see nothing more than mere random probabilites we just recognize that this is the "law of nature"

We may as well, just sum it up in Funch's words, "**** happens"



The bottom line is that we truly don't know anything. All we have are labels that label things we don't understand.

To even speak of a 'physical' universe is a joke because we don't even have a meaningful definition for what qualifies as "physical"

Bushidobillyclub attempts to describe the physical as anything that can interact. But like Sky often points out, our IDEAS most certainly do interact with this universe. If I have the IDEA to open my front door and walk out into my front lawn, and act upon that IDEA then that idea has interacted with this universe.

Therefore based on Bushio's defintion, ideas are necessarily physical because they interact with the universe.

Yet didn't he argue that they weren't physical?

You're always seeking 'arguments' to make cases for things. The problem is that an argument can be made for anything.

Even arguments are as semantically useless as the laws of physics.

All is semantics, and all semantics is necessarily circular.

You know of the Tao.

That which is the Tao cannot be named (i.e. it's beyond semantics)

The ten thousand things that arise from the Tao, arise because they can be named (i.e. they are nothing more than semantics)

Or to put it in Sky's terms, "The ten thousand things are nothing more than a matter of viewpoint".

Or to put it in JB's terms, "The ten thousand things are what the cosmic mind imagines" The cosmic mind itself is beyond imagination, it's beyond the ten thousand things, it is the Tao.

Oh isn't philosophy lovely!

Why wouldn't it? Who says it wouldn't?

So physics works becuase it doesn't explain anything . . yea sorry but your out of the ballpark wrong.

Physics is our best effort to understand the universe yes, and it has succeeded beyond humanities wildest dreams, even just 100 years ago those dreams would not have been as rich as the reality we see today due to the discoveries in physics.

You flail around trying to find meaning, end up making the most ludicrous statements.

Well, you are more than welcome to believe what every you desire. I do not challenge you or doubt the legitimacy of what you say. My only issue is that there is no tangible evidence to support your beliefs. I believe in god and again no evidence. But, when in context to my original post. Ideas definitely have a biological physical basis for them.

Abracadabra....you're confusing the laws of physics with religious belief ..can you name something that you do in your life that isn't governed or can't be explained by the laws of physics ...

..er..ok...my bad

Experience love.

What is funny to me about abra, is that he uses the word reductionism as a four letter derogatory term, but he is the ultimate reductionist, taking everything down to the smallest level then equivocating the phenomena to the largest scale and confusing epistemology for ontology.

I find it an interesting dichotomy to say the least and there is NOTHING wrong with reductionism, its a valid and powerful method of explaining complex systems, its when the scale of usage is outside of the magnification to be useful that it becomes the derogatory 4 letter term in common usage.

Its equivocating the phenomena at the smallest level to the highest level without linking the two through explanation of each in-between step.

When abra says science tries to explain the unexplainable he is equivocating Heisenberg uncertainty principle to all of science, ludicrous indeed. Even the uncertainty principle is exact in its uncertainty.



Even here he dodges the question and is ultimately wrong. Epiphenomena are being deeply studied TODAY, and good if not rigorous explanations already exist. In fact I read a study recently where with magnetic fields and fMRI to watch it we are able to induce feelings of love, irritation ect in people, or even a feeling of a presence, or of god.

These experiences are being replicated artificially, what does that say about the physicality of this experience, and how it must be explainable via physics if we can manipulate it via physical principles?

Abracadabra.....I will explain what love is using your very words

Love is "nothing more than mankind's feeble attempt to describe what can't be explained."

but anyway Love is a result of physical stimli being converted into chemical signals and/or electrical impules all which falls under the jurisdiction of the laws of physics

Funches what a load of crap.

Replicated artificially?

If "feelings of Love" can be induced, please describe exactly what a "feeling of Love" feels like. Are there any thoughts involved? Or is it more like taking some feel good drug?

If there are "feelings of Love" that involve thoughts, then you are talking about controlling people's thoughts. (Mind control)

Yes I have known about advanced mind control techniques going on for a long time. I suspect this is being used in sinister ways for the purpose of control.

That is why people should become aware of what they are feeling and take control of those feelings with the use of the will.

just like the concept of love.....which can be define as the degree of stupidity one is willing to endure for a person place or thing

Now there's something I can finally agree with you on!

Keep that thought!

In fact, the name itself is quite a misnomer, it truly should be called the Heisenberg Certainty Principle!

Absolutely! I totally favor that name change! This is, in fact, a far more correct description of the principle, mathematically speaking.



You were correct when you quoted me! Your second description is the lame and meaningless reply.

first JennieBean claim that it was a load of crap and then you claim that it was lame but amazingly neither one of you explain why it is

so come on Abracadabra help JennieBean out and you explain if love is not a result of physical and/or mental stimuli then what is it

If you believe that love can be reduced to nothing more than some sort of chemical euphoria then your concept of love cannot possibly be the same as mine.

All you've done here is show me that you have absolutely no understanding of love. At least not as I know it.

We're so different in our views I may as well be taking to the Borg here.

JB you said:


And then followed it up with this:



I can’t be the only one confused by this. Can you explain how part of your mind can practice mind control against your will on another part of your mind?

And can you also explain how emotions have anything to do with non-physical entities? As in how does your mind even possess emotions when the ‘spiritual’ nature of it has absolutely no need for emotion because if there is only one universal mind and that mind has a non-physical nature what good is emotion to it?

The universal mind is the container of shared universes occupied by individuals. These individuals have their own wills. We are not the Borg. We are each a thinking center with a unique perspective. We each gather information and experiences unique to us. We have individual wills of our own.

There is no "space" or "time" except that which we manifest for ourselves and our universes. Minds exist within other minds. Universes exist within other universes. Everything is here now.



I don't understand your question. We have taken human form. Humans have a wide range of emotions. Humans are physical beings.

Why would you think that emotion is of no use to a non-physical being?

I hope you are not confusing "love" for an "emotion." Love is the life force. It is not an emotion.

I realize that people call the thing between a man and a woman "love" and it is just a tiny part of the life force. This tiny part, after all, creates life when a man and woman come together and procreate. They sometimes call that "love" but it is not the whole of what love is.