You're making the assertion that reality is proven to be alterable over time, proven via experimentation, but you can't back it up with a single example?
Reality: Fact or Fiction
- Thread starter Cliffy
- Start date
You're making the assertion that reality is proven to be alterable over time, proven via experimentation, but you can't back it up with a single example?
Off the top of my head: 200 years ago human flight was thought to be a scientific impossibility. Underwater travel and space flight were believed to be the fantasy of lunatics. Galileo was thought to be under the influence of the devil.
YouTube - Jet-man: Human powered flight
But those aren't alterations of reality, they're improvements in our knowledge of it. And as one reviewer of What the Bleep put it, you don't have to do bad physics to feel good. JZ Knight channeling a 35,000 year old Cro-Magnon warrior, water responding to emotions... You really think there's any substance in those claims the movie makes? The movie's just dumb at best, at worst it's a lesson in blaming the victim: if you don't like your reality it's your fault for thinking about it the wrong way, which is not only dumb but pernicious.
All organisms (human included) project electric consciousness (mind) fields, transiting emotions are read from and written to that field, many animals (including human) have found water for a long long time that way. Your glass of water knows you are there. Dogs know what you think, they don't guess, they feel.
This paper is an amazing read and it doesn't come from the Santa Rosa community college either.
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/nelson-pp.pdf
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/nelson-pp.pdf
I will admit that JZ Knight is a questionable inclusion. Channeling isn't exactly science. But it doesn't make sense to me to discard all the science presented because one or two aspects are wonky or beyond your threshold of believability. As far as I know it was produced by people associated with her organization but like the review I posted, it is about challenging our preconceived notions. It is about stimulating thought rather than saying this is the way it is. That is the job of religion not science.
As for creating your own reality, you are only a victim if you don't know you do. You would only be a victim of circumstance if you don't exercise your responsibilty. Religion has kept that from us because if we did take that responsibility we wouldn't need religion or their authority. That is just an opposite view of the subject. It is empowering not victimizing.
I think the only way a relatively inert human can influence a change in reality just by being in the right spot and observing or not, is through the EMP that happen when electrochemical activity happens in the brain. And those EMPs are infinitesimal and shrink with distance anyway. Suffice it to say, I don't think we can influence much and reality just continues whether we are there or not.
Almost no real science was presented, it's about as scientific as Ben Stein's idiotic movie about creationism. Most people don't know science well enough to know when they're being handed a load of crap, which, in terms of its science content, that movie is.
Thanks for that link Petros, I remember an interview about this on CBC radio about six years ago. I'm going to enjoy reading the paper.
Heresy is a cradle; orthodoxy a coffin.
--- Robert Green Ingersoll
Empirical data that shows that the sub conscience has a direct effect on reality and the physical world comes in handy.
"Sometimes a nut is just a nut" - Hershey's
Especially when the physical body acts upon the reality. lol
Definitely. Especially the sex and food parts.
Back in my student days I got talked into a circular slide rule. The selling point was that the trigonomic and logrythmic scales were longer. Truth is, those scales were longer but Concise tried to pack too much into the instrument and it was a little crowded,
Circular Slide Rule (Introduction)
What is fact to you is not necessarily a fact to a liberal, or an Aborigine living in the desert of Australia. Facts are very subjective, just like reality. It is the old "if you have 10 witnesses at an event you will get 10 different stories of what happened there."
Just a guess, but I would say Hong Kong Dollars. One Canadian dollar buys about 75 Hong Kong Dollars
Now I am not sure if you are the researcher or the author, providing or illustrating this article Cliffy, but I would liek to feed you your wrongs.
That in bold is not he theory at all. The theory clearly states it is my presence not my expectations that alter the event. It is a matter of group moral.
EX. At a soccer game a goal is scored, It happened because I was watching
The tree falling in a forest quote is a complete separate theory of relativity to events and ideas.
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a matter of Carma. That which brings good or bad is relevant tot he people at hand, and their own association with well being, or in the more accurate matter of facts, The Lord God Jesus, our christ.
The lord god jesus christ may be your lord, but not everybody on the planet buys into that sort of subjugation trip. It is far too restrictive of our potential. We are entering a new phase of consciousness that will render all past mythologies invalid. As JC supposedly said, if you think what I do is special, just wait until you come into your full potential. You will make what I do look like cheap parlour tricks - or something to that effect.