Thread: Thoughts have frequencies. My theory of everything.

yes, what is this "energy" made out of? atoms?

I mean I can seriously sympathize with you're situation, but I still think you are way off course.

I agree with most of what you are saying in the second half of you're writings though.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

And in this reality we live in now, If everyone on this planet believed that you could fly, it would be possible. I know that sounds far-fetched but just think about it for a minute.

I don't know, its so hard for me to type it out, its like it makes a lot of sense in my head lol.

no. You may in you're thoughts, and you're thoughts are real, but only defined by the limits of you're senses. When I'm awake my senses are much stronger, and so there for, so is the reality I am in.

If everyone were to fly, it would defy the nature of everything, including everything that has been known about how chemistry works (which is the basic fundamental key to life here).
The good thing about you're dreams, is that they don't have to obey the laws of our reality, but are certainly inspired by them.

I think you are trying to describe mind reading ability or somethin.

Originally Posted by dylanshmai

yes, what is this "energy" made out of? atoms?

I mean I can seriously sympathize with you're situation, but I still think you are way off course.

I agree with most of what you are saying in the second half of you're writings though.

Energy isn't made up of anything. Its a property of a system, just a way to measure things. That's like saying what is volts or inches made of.

You say that if everyone could fly, then it would defy nature. I'm saying we define our nature. Everything we know of is a possibility of thought.

Our minds don't operate on continuous things like frequency, they operate on discrete signals in our discrete neural networks. There is no collective conscious because our neural networks aren't causally linked to anybody else's neural networks.

Everything you said comes across to me as vague and meaningless...

Originally Posted by Xei

There is no collective conscious because our neural networks aren't causally linked to anybody else's neural networks.

Then how would you explain people that vibe with each other? Or people working on a project or something and come up with the same idea.

Consciousness allows us to think for ourselves. If we had no consciousness, sure we would still be here, but we'd have to live for some reason. Our creator would have given us a purpose to live.

Do you know your real purpose in life? Do you know for a fact why your even here?

A robot or A.I. would have a purpose in life. Such as to calculate such and such, or

We'd be like smart ass A.I. but we'd have to follow specific rules within our creator/programmer, etc.

Consciousness allows us to have free will and to think for our self.

Think of it this way. When you dream, you can't control what you do in your dream if your not lucid. Your just a being experiencing things. But when you become lucid/self-aware. You can think for yourself, do what you want. That's why you can't do anything logical why your in a dream state. Have you ever been in a non-lucid dream, and did some math, accurate math? See what i'm getting at?


That's why consciousness is so amazing. We have a GIFT. To be able to think for ourselves.

People that 'vibe' with each other have the same interests and outlooks... there is no 'frequency of thought'.

Free will is poorly defined, but most concepts of it do not really exist. Every choice that we make, we were always going to make; our brains are deterministic. Rewind time and we'd do the same thing. In that sense, there is no free will.

And supersmart AI is all we really are. If we made an artificial copy of a brain and uploaded it to a computer, that would effectively be the same mind. Our minds all follow specific rules, biologically ingrained. Basic ones are eating, sleeping, and finding a partner.

Yeah i had an idea that was like this as well lol itd be creepy if this were true, but amazing

HaRd_WiReD, I agree completely with your theory of everything. It has been shown that everything has a frequency based on it's mass. And basically everything that happens, has some sort of frequency to it. A horizontal line can be created by two periodic sine waves of the same frequency but with a 180 degree phase shift. Also, any signal can be broken down into a sum of sine waves, each of which oscillated at a certain frequency. Signals are sent in frequencies, which do change. Some signals are sent in impulses, which may at first seem to be lacking a frequency. However, when mathematically modeled, impulses can be dealt with by use of the heaviside function in combination with a fourrier series (an infinite sum of sine waves, which have frequencies).

It makes sense to me that our thoughts too would have some frequency to them. Our voices have a frequency of vibration to them, and if we want, we can create a voice in our head with our thoughts. Also, everything we see has a frequency to it, with different frequencies being responsible for different colors. Everything we hear is a result of vibrational frequencies in whatever medium we're immersed in. I don't know enough about biology to say much about the other 3 senses. Our thoughts are mainly duplications of some combination of our senses, only expressed internally, in our imaginations. As our senses have a frequency to them, I'd say our replications of these same senses in thought, also have a frequency. However, as all our senses originate from our sensory organs, sending electric signals to our brains. And electric signals have a frequency to them, I believe all thought has a frequency.

When you're dreaming, you're the only one who has any beliefs / expectations as to what will happen in each situation, and as a result, you decide what will happen in your dreams. I don't know about anyone else, but for me, my dreams are just as vivid, if not more so than waking life (due to the brain creating the neural signals, instead of waiting to receive them, this cuts out any delay time, as well as any imperfections in our sensory organs that could distort how we perceive information.)

So, I would say the main difference between dreams and waking life is that in waking life, it is more than just you who are conscious and imposing beliefs on things.

As belief is the determining factor as to what happens in dreams, it's not too far of a stretch to say it has at least some impact in our waking lives. Belief in yourself will allow you to overcome many obstacles in our waking lives for instance. Also, aside from the randomness of dreams, (from you alone controlling them), dreams are nearly identical to reality.

If you were to consider the billions of people on this planet, each with their own beliefs as to how things will happen, clearly everyone's beliefs cannot be satisfied as there will be conflicting beliefs. This is most easily seen with all the different religions people believe in.

So if belief still controls everything, but everyone is believing different things, I think it would be what is most strongly believed that would come to be. Although there could be a wide variety of factors to consider, such as how different the belief is, how isolated the event to take place would be, how within a range of possibilities it is, and how much focus and legitimate belief without a doubt is behind what is to happen.

All the laws of reality we have, are just models of repeated events that have been observed. They do not govern what happens, they just attempt to explain a very small piece of what happens. In many cases, certain things happen that follow very predictable patterns, and the corresponding "laws" that govern them are very accurate. For other cases, there is a lot more "randomness" (a good word to use for, "we can't fit this into a mathematical model") involved, and the "laws" that govern those situations, are not as accurate at describing what happens, as there will be some events that do not follow these laws.

What I'm trying to say, is that the universe is way too complex to ever be completely described by any set of laws we could ever come up with. The best we can do is find trends in data, and relate these trends to a given set of variables through some mathematical function.

For instance, fluids flowing through pipes follow a very predictable flow pattern based on the fluid's density, viscosity, velocity, and pipe diameter. However, when any one of these variables becomes too large, the flow becomes turbulent, and as a result, the flow becomes unpredictable, and all the laws that applied previously, no longer apply at all. (Viscosity has the inverse effect, with the flow becoming turbulent at a very low viscosity) This does not invalidate the laws which apply before the variables are outside the range that causes turbulence, it just imposes limits on when these laws can be used.

Another example could be the stresses in a solid material. In a beam, the stress follows a linear relationship between the applied force, and the shape and size of the beam. But consider this same beam but near corners and supports, and these relationships that are very accurate away from such corners and supports, become unusable, and we have to resort to a numerical guess and check type of iteration to determine anything, the results of which do not follow a pattern we can model.

To avoid some likely confusion, my definition of a law is as follows:

The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law.

On a side note, we are taught in schools to believe many of these laws.

Originally Posted by Xei

Everything you said comes across to me as vague and meaningless...

Pretty much sums up most stuff in this forum.

Originally Posted by Xei

Our minds don't operate on continuous things like frequency, they operate on discrete signals in our discrete neural networks. There is no collective conscious because our neural networks aren't causally linked to anybody else's neural networks.

Everything you said comes across to me as vague and meaningless...

Thats the difference between you and him. He understands the possibility that science may not have a complete understanding of our consciousness.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Thats the difference between you and him. He understands the possibility that science may not have a complete understanding of our consciousness.

You can't know something, without knowing it.

Making shit up to fill in the gaps is the worst way to "further our knowledge"-- See religion.

So what practical applications do you think this theory has?

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

You can't know something, without knowing it.

Making shit up to fill in the gaps is the worst way to "further our knowledge"-- See religion.

LOL at See Religion I completely agree.

and as for your theory of everything, it is pretty vague and not nearly detailed enough to hold up, but it is interesting nonetheless and borders with a lot of the same ideas that are in String Theory which I suggest you explore because I know you'd find that interesting. Yes they have proven that particles can know where another particle is I'm pretty sure. I think this has something to do with superposition, correct me if i'm wrong

Part of what seperates us from Strong Artificial Intelligence, aside from the theories brought forth by Igor Aleksander, is that machines operate to perform tasks which are manipulated through algorythms that are programmed into it. Consciousness should be seen as something that works off of non-algorythmic functions.

Didn't science prove two particles can actually "KNOW" what the other is doing even if they are miles away?

No. Do you actually know anything about Quantum Mechanics? For example, can you write down Dirac's wave equations?

Also, this is not a theory, it has no practical applications, it makes no predictions, and it is not falsifiable.

String Theory –Vibrating strands?

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

You can't know something, without knowing it.

Making shit up to fill in the gaps is the worst way to "further our knowledge"-- See religion.

Making shit up is also known as Theorizing.

Quantum mechanics as far as I'm aware did have something about two particles being affected miles and miles apart. What affected one affected the other, something like that.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Making shit up is also known as Theorizing.

Quantum mechanics as far as I'm aware did have something about two particles being affected miles and miles apart. What affected one affected the other, something like that.

No, theorizing =/= what I'm tlaking about.

Writing an unfalsifiable statement to explain something away without having to prove it is not the same as forming an idea to answer a question.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

No, theorizing =/= what I'm tlaking about.

Writing an unfalsifiable statement to explain something away without having to prove it is not the same as forming an idea to answer a question.

The first step to finding an answer is brainstorming. I highly doubt the first statement is always correct. Statements are only unfalsifiable to you.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

The first step to finding an answer is brainstorming. I highly doubt the first statement is always correct. Statements are only unfalsifiable to you.

If you understand this, I'll give you a cookie:

Given: X is X, but also Z.

Statement: Z is not X, and X is not X.

Problem: Given and Statement are contradictory.

Solution: Statement is false.

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

If you understand this, I'll give you a cookie:

I love how you post a simple problem that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You don't get a cookie, so I can't sugar-coat the answer to your problem for you.

This is your entire opening post in the form of a picture:



Maybe you should've made this thread in the Beyond Dreaming forum. It's more fitting there. :3

When philosophizing (which may or may not be a word), it's not necessary to run experiments. From what I understood (and correct me if I'm wrong), but in the philosophy forum, ideas about things can be tossed around.

When dealing with beliefs, there usually isn't any way to disprove them, or test for their validity. For my beliefs, I always have my eyes open for different ways of seeing things, or for beliefs that seem more likely than my current ones to combine into my belief system, or to replace beliefs that no longer seem to fit.

You don't have to believe in everything, but you can believe in anything. Personally, I find beliefs to be helpful in many aspects of life. However, some are obviously just speculative or theoretical, as we will never know how the universe began, what happens after we die, or everything there is to know about consciousness, and can only say what we believe about them. Not being a robot, I enjoy the luxury of speculation and the freedom to believe what I choose (note: beliefs are not set in stone, think Santa Claus or the tooth fairy).

Thats the difference between you and him. He understands the possibility that science may not have a complete understanding of our consciousness.

Actually my (correct) understanding is that science has yet to even define consciousness, let alone understand it. Please explain how you made the above (untrue) conclusion.

No, the difference between me and him is that I understand that it may be possible to scientifically comprehend some or all aspects of the mind, as science has been extremely successful in understanding the whole of the universe pretty well; he however makes up meaningless and hence untestable theories.

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

You don't get a cookie, so I can't sugar-coat the answer to your problem for you.

This is your entire opening post in the form of a picture:



Maybe you should've made this thread in the Beyond Dreaming forum. It's more fitting there. :3

Like I said, pointless post.

Maybe the op wasn't trying to run an experiment? Maybe he was just spitting thoughts, ideas, and concepts.

This is the Philosophy forum, not the Scientific Experiment forum.

Empricism isn't philosophy?

Yeah nice one.