Actually studies show exactly that. you visualize yourself thinner you get thinner. Same for sports, playing music and imagining practicing. Those who imagine practicing sinking backets or playing an instrument progress in reality over those who don't. It's proven.
I agree with you, Roland, and for example:
"In the book Peak Performance, Mental Training Techniques of the World’s
Greatest Athletes, Charles Garfield writes; “Without a doubt, the most dramatic
contribution to the advancement of goal-setting skills in recent years has been the
Soviet’s introduction of visualization. During mental rehearsal, athletes create mental
images of the exact movements they want to emulate in their sport. Use of this skill
substantially increases the effectiveness of goal-setting, which up until then had been
little more than a dull listing procedure.”
Garfield went on to talk about a startling experiment conducted by Soviet sports
scientists. The study examined the effect of mental training, including visualization, on
four groups of world-class athletes just prior to the 1980 Lake Placid Olympics. The four
groups of elite athletes were divided as follows:
Group 1 – 100% physical training
Group 2 – 75% physical training, 25% mental training
Group 3 – 50% physical training, 50% mental training
Group 4 – 25% physical training, 75% mental training What the researchers found was that group 4 – the group with the most mental
training – had shown significantly greater improvement than group 3. Likewise, group 3
showed more improvement than group 2 and group 2 showed more improvement than
group 1.
In Psycho-Cybernetics, Dr. Maltz shared a similar account of an experiment on
the effects of mental practice on improving basketball free throws. The study, published
in Research Quarterly, divided the subjects into three groups. Each group was tested for
free throw accuracy once at the beginning of the experiment and again at its conclusion.
Group one physically practiced free throws for 20 days. Group two performed no
practice at all. Group three spent 20 minutes a day getting into a deeply relaxed state and
visualizing themselves shooting free throws. When they missed, they would visualize
themselves correcting their aim accordingly. The results were remarkable: the first group,
which practiced 20 minutes a day, improved in scoring 24%. The second group, which
had no practice, showed no improvement. The third group, which practiced in their
minds, improved their scoring 23%! Amazingly, mental practice yielded results almost
identical to physical practice."
From: "Burn the Fat Feed the Muscle" by Tom Venuto
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
easily proven when you look at the shamins. i saw one slice a watermelon in half while it sat on the belly of another man. the shamin consentrated on the sword stopping before it hit the flesh.
the mind is only limited to those who believe it's limited. if you want to believe science; you're brain is trapped within the walls science has scribed. those who believe there is more; can experience more.
I saw a similar one where he actually sliced the guys throat by accident
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You're using the term "reality" in a misleading fashion here. What you're talking about is subjectivity, which is fine. But actual reality is singular. If your actual reality were different from my actual reality, our realities would contradict each other, thereby making something both true and false at the same time. You may potentially toe this philosophical road if you'd like, but nearly every concept in science, morality, and justice would be rendered invalid.
AND THERE YOU HAVE IT! our realities are opposite yet we exist and thrive in the same space. our magnetic field has both negative and positive poles; yet it exists as one. the properties that define the positive pole define it's reality. no matter where you go; those properties still define a positive magnetic pole. thus; scientifically defining it's reality.
in my reality; it is 72F outside. it is scientifically proven by a thermometer. if it's not 72F where you are; it contradicts your reality. unless you concede that reality has boundries; one of us doesn't exist or at least one of us does not exist in "reality".
I work on an error reporting team of 4. Although I prefer not to encounter problems and can easily visualize there not being any. Another workmate may encounter an error and that's something I'll be made aware of. That's the objective reality. When the exchange server goes down and everyone loses access to e-mail, that's objective reality. Imagining your e-mail works while the server is down, doesn't do a thing.
The idea of self-manifestation or "creating your own universe" only works with your own attitude and perception of objective reality. Some beliefs are self-fulfilling, but it doesn't mean that it's a different reality. The only dividing line between science and consciousness is qualia, which seems to me to just be a tricky word.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"In the book Peak Performance, Mental Training Techniques of the World’s
Greatest Athletes, Charles Garfield writes; “Without a doubt, the most dramatic
contribution to the advancement of goal-setting skills in recent years has been the
Soviet’s introduction of visualization. During mental rehearsal, athletes create mental
images of the exact movements they want to emulate in their sport. Use of this skill
substantially increases the effectiveness of goal-setting, which up until then had been
little more than a dull listing procedure.”
Garfield went on to talk about a startling experiment conducted by Soviet sports
scientists. The study examined the effect of mental training, including visualization, on
four groups of world-class athletes just prior to the 1980 Lake Placid Olympics. The four
groups of elite athletes were divided as follows:
Group 1 – 100% physical training
Group 2 – 75% physical training, 25% mental training
Group 3 – 50% physical training, 50% mental training
Group 4 – 25% physical training, 75% mental training What the researchers found was that group 4 – the group with the most mental
training – had shown significantly greater improvement than group 3. Likewise, group 3
showed more improvement than group 2 and group 2 showed more improvement than
group 1.
In Psycho-Cybernetics, Dr. Maltz shared a similar account of an experiment on
the effects of mental practice on improving basketball free throws. The study, published
in Research Quarterly, divided the subjects into three groups. Each group was tested for
free throw accuracy once at the beginning of the experiment and again at its conclusion.
Group one physically practiced free throws for 20 days. Group two performed no
practice at all. Group three spent 20 minutes a day getting into a deeply relaxed state and
visualizing themselves shooting free throws. When they missed, they would visualize
themselves correcting their aim accordingly. The results were remarkable: the first group,
which practiced 20 minutes a day, improved in scoring 24%. The second group, which
had no practice, showed no improvement. The third group, which practiced in their
minds, improved their scoring 23%! Amazingly, mental practice yielded results almost
identical to physical practice."
From: "Burn the Fat Feed the Muscle" by Tom Venuto
Cool stuff... I also believe to a large part personal wellness, longevity, and physical recovery from illness comes about from thoughts also.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
so he has not mastered the mind control yet. many can and have done it successfully thus proving it real.
Sure, I can juggle cards. So, I've become good at interacting with reality, but I don't actually change the physical properties of the cards.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You're using the term "reality" in a misleading fashion here. What you're talking about is subjectivity, which is fine. But actual reality is singular. If your actual reality were different from my actual reality, our realities would contradict each other, thereby making something both true and false at the same time. You may potentially toe this philosophical road if you'd like, but nearly every concept in science, morality, and justice would be rendered invalid.
AND THERE YOU HAVE IT! our realities are opposite yet we exist and thrive in the same space. our magnetic field has both negative and positive poles; yet it exists as one.
I agree: there you have it, farfromglorified!.....and onelongsong!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
AND THERE YOU HAVE IT! our realities are opposite yet we exist and thrive in the same space. our magnetic field has both negative and positive poles; yet it exists as one. the properties that define the positive pole define it's reality. no matter where you go; those properties still define a positive magnetic pole. thus; scientifically defining it's reality.
in my reality; it is 72F outside. it is scientifically proven by a thermometer. if it's not 72F where you are; it contradicts your reality. unless you concede that reality has boundries; one of us doesn't exist or at least one of us does not exist in "reality".
Umm...if our realities are "opposite" or different in any way, your thermometer is nothing more than a joke.
You seem to contradict yourself here. Are you saying that reality is an objective universal, or are you saying reality is a subjectively relative? How can you say our "realities are opposite" while at the same time talking about thermometers and "boundaries". I would certainly "concede" that reality has boundries. Those boundries are crossed when one goes from true into false, terms that imply an objective, universal reality.
Sure, I can juggle cards. So, I've become good at interacting with reality, but I don't actually change the physical properties of the cards.
If you move to a new city, you then effectively "juggle" your surroundings, so that your current literal physical reality is inherently completely and absolutely different than the previous one! Did you change the physical properties that you live in, on, and intermingle and interact with every day? You bet you did! Remember, it's all very normal.
edit:right, you did not change the properties of the buildings and individuals in your environment, but you've entirely changed your reality based on changes in your thoughts that precipitated the move to the new city.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. Certainly our beliefs, be them true or false, valid or invalid, common or uncommon, or however you want to classify them, are all "firmly intermingled" with an x-dimensional reality. That, however, does not make all beliefs equal. Everything that is real is "firmly intermingled" with reality. Yet not all things are the same. For example, death and life are two different states, both completely intermingled with reality. Yet death and life are not the same.
What I was getting at is clarifying that everyone is actuallying tying their beliefs in with the physical reality, except possibly if you are in some way unconscious or catatonic.
It seems like some people think the beliefs people hold--especially the "unacceptable ones"-- are independent of reality. And the fact is that even with delusions, also known as obviously false beliefs, they are firmly entrenched in reality. Someone isn't in their imagination, but rather their thoughts are colouring everything they look at. Again, most people have a split consciousness: they believe that what they see is real, and then judge other people's "reality" against their own "real" one. The majority of people I have known do not recognize that the reality they see is based on unconscious decisions they make in their brain/mind.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity
Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable." "This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned.
Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.
To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities.
The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.
A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity
Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable." "This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned.
Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.
To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities.
The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.
Well, that's one view. And then we have Platos view: "Plato's Theory of Forms indicates that the sensory world that is the reality which we as human beings experience, is only a shadow of a higher realm. In this higher realm, Plato assures us that there exist the Forms that embody the true nature of the pale shadows. What we know as sweet is only an afterimage of the Form of Sweetness. The luminous brightness of the sun is only a corporeal display of the Form of Brightness."
What I was getting at is clarifying that everyone is actuallying tying their beliefs in with the physical reality, except possibly if you are in some way unconscious or catatonic.
Ok, cool. And even the unconscious or catatonic belief must be tied into physical reality as well.
It seems like some people think the beliefs people hold--especially the "unacceptable ones"-- are independent of reality. And the fact is that even with delusions, also known as obviously false beliefs, they are firmly entrenched in reality. Someone isn't in their imagination, but rather their thoughts are colouring everything they look at. Again, most people have a split consciousness: they believe that what they see is real, and then judge other people's "reality" against their own "real" one. The majority of people I have known do not recognize that the reality they see is based on unconscious decisions they make in their brain/mind.
Now you're getting into judgement, and that implies a host of other concepts. A judgement is either right or it is wrong. The judgement "angelica is a woman", is right. The judgement "angelica's beliefs are independent of reality" is wrong. Two judgements, just because they are judgements, are not equal.
One may certainly say that a judgement is wrong when that judgement is inconsistent with the attributes of reality. If I were to judge you as a racist, for example, I'd likely be wrong because racism does not appear to be an attribute of angelica.
Correct judgements (right) are typically those that function off of the object being judged. A classic example of this would be good science wherein the scientist removes himself or herself as much as possible and lets recorded data speak for itself. Incorrect judgements (wrong) are those that function off of the subject doing the judging. A classic example of this would be homophobia wherein a person confused about their own sexuality projects that on others.
Well, that's one view. And then we have Platos view: "Plato's Theory of Forms indicates that the sensory world that is the reality which we as human beings experience, is only a shadow of a higher realm. In this higher realm, Plato assures us that there exist the Forms that embody the true nature of the pale shadows. What we know as sweet is only an afterimage of the Form of Sweetness. The luminous brightness of the sun is only a corporeal display of the Form of Brightness."
Here's the problem with this. Plato is saying that this shadow world cannot be perceived, yet at the same time saying it exists. That would require a very troubling axiom: definition independent of perception. While reality may certainly exist beyond perception, definition requires perception. So beware the mystic that tells you about something defined only by an inability to define it.
Plato's "higher realm" is little more than philosophical speak for God. And while one cannot disprove a "higher realm" (disproof requires perception as much as proof does), one cannot prove it either. One either takes it on faith, or one discards it on faith. And plausibility cannot prove existence.
Umm...if our realities are "opposite" or different in any way, your thermometer is nothing more than a joke.
You seem to contradict yourself here. Are you saying that reality is an objective universal, or are you saying reality is a subjectively relative? How can you say our "realities are opposite" while at the same time talking about thermometers and "boundaries". I would certainly "concede" that reality has boundries. Those boundries are crossed when one goes from true into false, terms that imply an objective, universal reality.
in my reality (and that of thousands living in the area); it's very much as it was in 1885. sure we have satellite tv and internet. and we use solar power to generate our electricity; but we still carry guns and protect our property and basically live the lifestyle of the 1880's. if i feel the need to go somewhere; i saddle up my horse. tourists are always coming to see this reality. you can look to the amish and see their reality. here's a great mass of people living a different reality. their world is as real as ours.
it is 72F here and that is reality. that is true. it in no way crosses over to false. that is reality NOW. but reality is constantly changing.
reality's boundries are the mind. we can be in the same room yet i can feel warm while you feel cold. so which is real? a third party walks in and is comfortable. that's 3 different realities in one room.
you can talk in circles all day but reality to you is different from anyone else. you can point to facts but facts are constantly changing. science contradicts itself and is then left to general opinion. that opinion may change with the addition of new facts.
in my reality (and that of thousands living in the area); it's very much as it was in 1885. sure we have satellite tv and internet. and we use solar power to generate our electricity; but we still carry guns and protect our property and basically live the lifestyle of the 1880's. if i feel the need to go somewhere; i saddle up my horse. tourists are always coming to see this reality. you can look to the amish and see their reality. here's a great mass of people living a different reality. their world is as real as ours.
it is 72F here and that is reality. that is true. it in no way crosses over to false. that is reality NOW. but reality is constantly changing.
reality's boundries are the mind. we can be in the same room yet i can feel warm while you feel cold. so which is real? a third party walks in and is comfortable. that's 3 different realities in one room.
you can talk in circles all day but reality to you is different from anyone else. you can point to facts but facts are constantly changing. science contradicts itself and is then left to general opinion. that opinion may change with the addition of new facts.
All you're discussing here is attributes of individuals. Two individuals with a different set of attributes does not justify different realities. It simply justifies different individuals.
We're simply using the term "reality" differently. To you, reality is whatever is perceived. To me, reality is whatever exists, regardless of perception.
Individual light photons can physically exist in two separate places at the same time. This has been proven.
I should say the same photon of light can exist in two places at the same time.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
... Regardless, at that point we arguably re-enter the idea of belief driving reality as opposed to the other way around. And that likely sets up a contradiction wherein we say that reality gives rise to belief and belief gives rise to reality at the same time. Logically, it becomes very troubling.
Do you know that reality does not spring from consciousness? If so, how?
Isn't it possible that like numerous wise seers through the ages have stated, that everything springs from consciousness? --everything we can conceive of? Isn't it possible that we exist within our individual perspective within this consciousness? Isn't it possible that we create our reality in each moment in each day, by our thoughts? And that most of us live pretty mainstream similar lives due to that we continue to think the same 1000s of thoughts day in and out?
Within this mindset, it makes sense that some people believe and live out that they are victims of the environment, their history and those around them, whereas others believe they can rise above all the circumstances in their lives and therefore do so.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Here's the problem with this. Plato is saying that this shadow world cannot be perceived, yet at the same time saying it exists. That would require a very troubling axiom: definition independent of perception. While reality may certainly exist beyond perception, definition requires perception. So beware the mystic that tells you about something defined only by an inability to define it.
Plato's "higher realm" is little more than philosophical speak for God. And while one cannot disprove a "higher realm" (disproof requires perception as much as proof does), one cannot prove it either. One either takes it on faith, or one discards it on faith. And plausibility cannot prove existence.
Please point to me where is Plato saying this shadow world cannot be perceived?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Individual light photons can physically exist in two separate places at the same time. This has been proven.
This is accepted quantum theory, yes. There are, however, many physicists who believe this is an impossibility. There are unsolved contradictions between quantum and relative physics that, if true, would invalidate what I say. That said, a whole host of physical problems emerge from those contradictions that lead many physicists such as string theorists, to seek unified theories.
In other words, I would counter this simply by saying it's likely we have an incomplete understanding of physics. I expect that to bear out in time. However, it may not happen.
All you're discussing here is attributes of individuals. Two individuals with a different set of attributes does not justify different realities. It simply justifies different individuals.
We're simply using the term "reality" differently. To you, reality is whatever is perceived. To me, reality is whatever exists, regardless of perception.
and the reality i speak of exists. is toronto the same as NYC? and the same as chicago? if you buy a dog and bring it into your home; your real life changes. your lifestyle changes. if you have a child the world you live in changes. you don't percieve it to change; it actually changes. your life is never the same. it can't be because you changed something.
If you take these arguments and put them in context of reality.
Main Entry: re·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: rE-'a-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : the quality or state of being real
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
3 : television programming that features videos of actual occurrences (as a police chase, stunt, or natural disaster) -- often used attributively <reality TV>
- in reality : in actual fact
They make no sense.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
and with enriched uranium; a proton can appear and disappear. existing and not existing in the same place.
You guys are getting into gray area. Superposition is speculation IMO. We have poor methods of testing for superposition. We could just be flat out wrong. I don't understand how people can swear by quantum superposition, but deny something like evolution.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Do you know that reality does not spring from consciousness? If so, how?
Because I cannot shape reality from consciousness. I cannot think food into existence. I cannot think myself immortal. I cannot think God into being. I cannot think my mind into being both a mind and not a mind at the same time. I must think of these things and then act in order to make them real, even then often failing to achieve my desires.
However, we can remove volition and reason from consciousness and we could simply say that perception is a "joke" and we would be philosophically consistent. Yet such a contention would be completely unproveable since it would require perception to prove. It woud be nothing more than a philosophical statement of plausibility. The words true, false, right, and wrong would could no longer apply in any meaningful way.
Isn't it possible that like numerous wise seers through the ages have stated, that everything springs from consciousness? --everything we can conceive of? Isn't it possible that we exist within our individual perspective within this consciousness? Isn't it possible that we create our reality in each moment in each day, by our thoughts? And that most of us live pretty mainstream similar lives due to that we continue to think the same 1000s of thoughts day in and out?
It's entirely possible. Look, we can go back to the solipsism and say that I am the only one who exists and everyone and everything else is simply a manifestation of my consciousness. If approached correctly, it's a perfectly logical concept. Yet I doubt we'll find a solipsist who, when discovering a car driving the wrong way in his or her lane on the highway, would simply scream at the other driver "you don't exist".
Within this mindset, it makes sense that some people believe and live out that they are victims of the environment, their history and those around them, whereas others believe they can rise above all the circumstances in their lives and therefore do so.
Of course! Completely agree here. The judgements a person makes about the world will ultimately determine their behavior within it. That's the purpose of the mind in the first place.
Comments
"In the book Peak Performance, Mental Training Techniques of the World’s
Greatest Athletes, Charles Garfield writes; “Without a doubt, the most dramatic
contribution to the advancement of goal-setting skills in recent years has been the
Soviet’s introduction of visualization. During mental rehearsal, athletes create mental
images of the exact movements they want to emulate in their sport. Use of this skill
substantially increases the effectiveness of goal-setting, which up until then had been
little more than a dull listing procedure.”
Garfield went on to talk about a startling experiment conducted by Soviet sports
scientists. The study examined the effect of mental training, including visualization, on
four groups of world-class athletes just prior to the 1980 Lake Placid Olympics. The four
groups of elite athletes were divided as follows:
Group 1 – 100% physical training
Group 2 – 75% physical training, 25% mental training
Group 3 – 50% physical training, 50% mental training
Group 4 – 25% physical training, 75% mental training
What the researchers found was that group 4 – the group with the most mental
training – had shown significantly greater improvement than group 3. Likewise, group 3
showed more improvement than group 2 and group 2 showed more improvement than
group 1.
In Psycho-Cybernetics, Dr. Maltz shared a similar account of an experiment on
the effects of mental practice on improving basketball free throws. The study, published
in Research Quarterly, divided the subjects into three groups. Each group was tested for
free throw accuracy once at the beginning of the experiment and again at its conclusion.
Group one physically practiced free throws for 20 days. Group two performed no
practice at all. Group three spent 20 minutes a day getting into a deeply relaxed state and
visualizing themselves shooting free throws. When they missed, they would visualize
themselves correcting their aim accordingly. The results were remarkable: the first group,
which practiced 20 minutes a day, improved in scoring 24%. The second group, which
had no practice, showed no improvement. The third group, which practiced in their
minds, improved their scoring 23%! Amazingly, mental practice yielded results almost
identical to physical practice."
From: "Burn the Fat Feed the Muscle" by Tom Venuto
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I saw a similar one where he actually sliced the guys throat by accident
AND THERE YOU HAVE IT! our realities are opposite yet we exist and thrive in the same space. our magnetic field has both negative and positive poles; yet it exists as one. the properties that define the positive pole define it's reality. no matter where you go; those properties still define a positive magnetic pole. thus; scientifically defining it's reality.
in my reality; it is 72F outside. it is scientifically proven by a thermometer. if it's not 72F where you are; it contradicts your reality. unless you concede that reality has boundries; one of us doesn't exist or at least one of us does not exist in "reality".
so he has not mastered the mind control yet. many can and have done it successfully thus proving it real.
The idea of self-manifestation or "creating your own universe" only works with your own attitude and perception of objective reality. Some beliefs are self-fulfilling, but it doesn't mean that it's a different reality. The only dividing line between science and consciousness is qualia, which seems to me to just be a tricky word.
Cool stuff... I also believe to a large part personal wellness, longevity, and physical recovery from illness comes about from thoughts also.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Sure, I can juggle cards. So, I've become good at interacting with reality, but I don't actually change the physical properties of the cards.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.vidmax.com/index.php/videos/view/986
how do bones seemingly get stronger than steel?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Umm...if our realities are "opposite" or different in any way, your thermometer is nothing more than a joke.
You seem to contradict yourself here. Are you saying that reality is an objective universal, or are you saying reality is a subjectively relative? How can you say our "realities are opposite" while at the same time talking about thermometers and "boundaries". I would certainly "concede" that reality has boundries. Those boundries are crossed when one goes from true into false, terms that imply an objective, universal reality.
edit:right, you did not change the properties of the buildings and individuals in your environment, but you've entirely changed your reality based on changes in your thoughts that precipitated the move to the new city.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
naděje umírá poslední
It seems like some people think the beliefs people hold--especially the "unacceptable ones"-- are independent of reality. And the fact is that even with delusions, also known as obviously false beliefs, they are firmly entrenched in reality. Someone isn't in their imagination, but rather their thoughts are colouring everything they look at. Again, most people have a split consciousness: they believe that what they see is real, and then judge other people's "reality" against their own "real" one. The majority of people I have known do not recognize that the reality they see is based on unconscious decisions they make in their brain/mind.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity
Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable." "This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned.
Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.
To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities.
The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok, cool. And even the unconscious or catatonic belief must be tied into physical reality as well.
Now you're getting into judgement, and that implies a host of other concepts. A judgement is either right or it is wrong. The judgement "angelica is a woman", is right. The judgement "angelica's beliefs are independent of reality" is wrong. Two judgements, just because they are judgements, are not equal.
One may certainly say that a judgement is wrong when that judgement is inconsistent with the attributes of reality. If I were to judge you as a racist, for example, I'd likely be wrong because racism does not appear to be an attribute of angelica.
Correct judgements (right) are typically those that function off of the object being judged. A classic example of this would be good science wherein the scientist removes himself or herself as much as possible and lets recorded data speak for itself. Incorrect judgements (wrong) are those that function off of the subject doing the judging. A classic example of this would be homophobia wherein a person confused about their own sexuality projects that on others.
Here's the problem with this. Plato is saying that this shadow world cannot be perceived, yet at the same time saying it exists. That would require a very troubling axiom: definition independent of perception. While reality may certainly exist beyond perception, definition requires perception. So beware the mystic that tells you about something defined only by an inability to define it.
Plato's "higher realm" is little more than philosophical speak for God. And while one cannot disprove a "higher realm" (disproof requires perception as much as proof does), one cannot prove it either. One either takes it on faith, or one discards it on faith. And plausibility cannot prove existence.
in my reality (and that of thousands living in the area); it's very much as it was in 1885. sure we have satellite tv and internet. and we use solar power to generate our electricity; but we still carry guns and protect our property and basically live the lifestyle of the 1880's. if i feel the need to go somewhere; i saddle up my horse. tourists are always coming to see this reality. you can look to the amish and see their reality. here's a great mass of people living a different reality. their world is as real as ours.
it is 72F here and that is reality. that is true. it in no way crosses over to false. that is reality NOW. but reality is constantly changing.
reality's boundries are the mind. we can be in the same room yet i can feel warm while you feel cold. so which is real? a third party walks in and is comfortable. that's 3 different realities in one room.
you can talk in circles all day but reality to you is different from anyone else. you can point to facts but facts are constantly changing. science contradicts itself and is then left to general opinion. that opinion may change with the addition of new facts.
All you're discussing here is attributes of individuals. Two individuals with a different set of attributes does not justify different realities. It simply justifies different individuals.
We're simply using the term "reality" differently. To you, reality is whatever is perceived. To me, reality is whatever exists, regardless of perception.
I should say the same photon of light can exist in two places at the same time.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Isn't it possible that like numerous wise seers through the ages have stated, that everything springs from consciousness? --everything we can conceive of? Isn't it possible that we exist within our individual perspective within this consciousness? Isn't it possible that we create our reality in each moment in each day, by our thoughts? And that most of us live pretty mainstream similar lives due to that we continue to think the same 1000s of thoughts day in and out?
Within this mindset, it makes sense that some people believe and live out that they are victims of the environment, their history and those around them, whereas others believe they can rise above all the circumstances in their lives and therefore do so.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
This is accepted quantum theory, yes. There are, however, many physicists who believe this is an impossibility. There are unsolved contradictions between quantum and relative physics that, if true, would invalidate what I say. That said, a whole host of physical problems emerge from those contradictions that lead many physicists such as string theorists, to seek unified theories.
In other words, I would counter this simply by saying it's likely we have an incomplete understanding of physics. I expect that to bear out in time. However, it may not happen.
Look at your quote:
"the sensory world that is the reality which we as human beings experience, is only a shadow of a higher realm"
The "higher realm" would therefore be beyond sensation which would make it beyond perception.
and the reality i speak of exists. is toronto the same as NYC? and the same as chicago? if you buy a dog and bring it into your home; your real life changes. your lifestyle changes. if you have a child the world you live in changes. you don't percieve it to change; it actually changes. your life is never the same. it can't be because you changed something.
Main Entry: re·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: rE-'a-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : the quality or state of being real
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
3 : television programming that features videos of actual occurrences (as a police chase, stunt, or natural disaster) -- often used attributively <reality TV>
- in reality : in actual fact
They make no sense.
and with enriched uranium; a proton can appear and disappear. existing and not existing in the same place.
You guys are getting into gray area. Superposition is speculation IMO. We have poor methods of testing for superposition. We could just be flat out wrong. I don't understand how people can swear by quantum superposition, but deny something like evolution.
Because I cannot shape reality from consciousness. I cannot think food into existence. I cannot think myself immortal. I cannot think God into being. I cannot think my mind into being both a mind and not a mind at the same time. I must think of these things and then act in order to make them real, even then often failing to achieve my desires.
However, we can remove volition and reason from consciousness and we could simply say that perception is a "joke" and we would be philosophically consistent. Yet such a contention would be completely unproveable since it would require perception to prove. It woud be nothing more than a philosophical statement of plausibility. The words true, false, right, and wrong would could no longer apply in any meaningful way.
It's entirely possible. Look, we can go back to the solipsism and say that I am the only one who exists and everyone and everything else is simply a manifestation of my consciousness. If approached correctly, it's a perfectly logical concept. Yet I doubt we'll find a solipsist who, when discovering a car driving the wrong way in his or her lane on the highway, would simply scream at the other driver "you don't exist".
Of course! Completely agree here. The judgements a person makes about the world will ultimately determine their behavior within it. That's the purpose of the mind in the first place.