Originally Posted by elucid
One prediction is the effectiveness of the use of mantras. They should theoretically work like a charm if used correctly. Another prediction is that you should be able to talk with the material of the world, I recommend meditation for this.
Of course, this theory is in its infancy, but you get the gist of it, everything is considered a thought, has some type of personality perhaps. From this you should be able to make predictions.
Mantras only work to change the person saying them. Do you have any examples of a case where they changed something outside of the person? You could theorize that mantras such as "may so-and-so be at ease" have an actual psychic effect on the person targeted, but this would be because of a psychic link between human minds. I find this to be unlikely what is actually occurring if anything is occurring. I think that what is happening is a changing of the relationship between people. When someone is aggressive, it is natural to react to this aggression, to react against it and create more conflict. If someone comes at you with negativity(a demand maybe) it is natural to defend yourself, to throw the negativity right back. What this mantra is trying to do is remove the ego from the interaction, to remove your reaction and to allow you to encounter the situation fresh, right now. It is to allow you to drop the emotional tension and to work with what is, the real things involved in the situation. To act logically in a sense.
What this mantra really changes is your perception of the person, not the person. With your perception changed from a reactionary state you are now free to act using your intellect, to interact with the person and possibly settle any past conflict held onto be the two of you. [/tangent]
But I'm more interested in how you think thoughts can effect non-thinking things.
You can't talk to the material world using human language, it doesn't have a human brain to understand it with. You can "talk" to it with existential language, by physically interacting with it. In using human language to talk to the world you are only talking to your mental thought based conception of the world.
Originally Posted by elucid
That was the case, but this theory leaves room for relativity. What was interesting was the hypnotist went behind the daughter and held out a watch and the man was able to see right through her.
I would guess that he projected an image of the watch, hypnosis is like a dream state, but I don't know much about it and without at least seeing a video of this it's hard to tell. Doesn't the fact that only his perception was changed contradict your theory?
Originally Posted by elucid
This is what I am thinking, that since we are receiving a "thought", during the transmission, it is reasonable to believe that it can change and our experience of the thought may change, but perhaps the original thought may not be able to change by our thoughts, unsure though. But with this theory, it allows for a change of the thought, we can influence an object to change its thought and change its properties, though it might take a heck of a long time.
1. We don't receive a thought, we create a thought through an association with an image(again I'm not an expert in science so if I'm wrong feel free to let me know).
2. An object is an object. A thought about an object is not the object.
3. Objects(other than people) don't have thoughts. Thoughts exist inside your brain, not outside of it inside of things. Things have physical properties which are then changed into thoughts when the brain takes in these properties through the senses. What you would be changing is your thoughts about the object, your own beliefs.
Originally Posted by elucid
Not necessarily, that is our assumptions about how it would work if the world was composed of thoughts. When you think of a dough, you don't necessarily get a dough in your brain do you? So it seems that it works in a different way, but who knows, perhaps if you practice long enough you might be able to do so.
So how would it work, since this is your theory? How would you practice this? You would fail every single time so how would you get any better at it?
Originally Posted by elucid
Seems correct to me, I am thinking that if no one has any expectations then it would move by its default speed which seems to be the case with the motion of planets and atoms. But then again, we are assuming here that the "thought" we are observing is "our" thought and it would move by "our" expectations, it could be that thoughts are self-generating at a point and move at their default physical laws and cannot be disturbed by our expectations.
Earlier you said it would work exactly the same. If the world is all in our minds then there is no default, it is all based on expectation, like in a LD. It either works one way or the other.
|
|
Bookmarks