Thread: "Thought" world-view (very interesting)

It's an interesting thought experiment, but I don't see any evidence or reason at all to believe it's true.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

It's an interesting thought experiment, but I don't see any evidence or reason at all to believe it's true.

Yeah, I was posting it for its uniqueness and the interest I had in it, also considering that to me it explained many phenomena we see in the world.

Originally Posted by elucid

also considering that to me it explained many phenomena we see in the world.

Like what?

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Like what?

One of the most interesting things that it helped clarify was the power of mind and suggestion. For example, there was an incident (though not certain of its authenticity) where a person under hypnosis was told that her daughter would be invisible, upon waking up, it came true. Shows the power a thought has on the world.

Another thing it helped clarify for me was the incredible amount of intelligence that we see in the world. Also it helped clarify how an object gets properties or how it evolves which is explained that as time goes on, and through experience, thoughts are exchanged, created, changed, thus the change in property of an object. It made more sense than the theory that they are all a bunch of atoms which in my mind should equal to the allegory of bricks on bricks makes more bricks, how do you change the color by increasing the amount of bricks.

Another useful thing it helped clarify was the motion that we see in the world, it makes more sense if there is an intelligence behind the motions such as thought.

I am in a bit hurry and I quickly summed up these things, if we get in more detail, we can make many predictions from this theory. For example, one of the predictions is that since these things are thoughts, it should make sense that you can hear them but at a different frequency for which I recommend meditation as I am sure you have heard of stories of people who talk to animals, plants, etc.

So with this world view, how fast will a small weight accelerate if I drop it at sea level?

One of the most interesting things that it helped clarify was the power of mind and suggestion. For example, there was an incident (though not certain of its authenticity) where a person under hypnosis was told that her daughter would be invisible, upon waking up, it came true. Shows the power a thought has on the world.

Our thoughts are inside owr mind not outside..... but this theorie is interresting thouhg...

So with this world view, how fast will a small weight accelerate if I drop it at sea level?

The same speed that it would accelerate in this world (without the view). What I am trying to say is that this world-view does not necessarily bring any changes to the laws of physics.

Although it may seem odd, but considering that this view merely tells us that these atoms that we see are actually thoughts, it does not necessarily have to change the behavior of the atoms. It goes to show the behavior of the thought.

Our thoughts are inside owr mind not outside..... but this theorie is interresting thouhg..

This theory is suggesting that the outside is our mind, there really is no distinction, all the particles that you see are thoughts, but not necessarily yours. All of our thoughts combined.

One of the most interesting things about this theory is how well it explains a property of an object, and how it leaves room for the evolution of the object. With this theory, it explains the evolution of us from a single cell, to mammals, to humans very well as it states that they are thoughts, and since thoughts can be exchanged, they can therefore be mixed and changed into other thoughts and since those things are thoughts, as the thoughts change, so does the object itself(a perfect fit for the theory of evolution). This is what I believe to be one of the major problems of the theory of evolution, the actual evolving part, before this it seemed to be merely magic.

Another important part in this theory is that it makes many predictions, some easy to test some may take some few centuries. The hard one in my opinion is that since these are thoughts, perhaps represented through their frequency, changing this frequency if I am correct that it correlates with the thought, then we can change the whole thought and thus change the whole object into something else.

Unfortunately, for it to be considerable as a valid theory, it has to have strong evidence to back it. Otherwise, it is a wild speculation, and wild speculations are dangerous, once one holds onto them long enough to start believing them.

So brainstorm with caution.

Originally Posted by elucid

The same speed that it would accelerate in this world (without the view). What I am trying to say is that this world-view does not necessarily bring any changes to the laws of physics.

So what precisely differentiates your theory from our current theories?

What is a prediction which your theory makes which we could use to distinguish it from some other theory claiming to be the theory of everything?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Unfortunately, for it to be considerable as a valid theory, it has to have strong evidence to back it. Otherwise, it is a wild speculation, and wild speculations are dangerous, once one holds onto them long enough to start believing them.

So brainstorm with caution.

Thanks, I will keep this in mind.

What is a prediction which your theory makes which we could use to distinguish it from some other theory claiming to be the theory of everything?

It would first be helpful if I can see these other theories of everything that I can then make a contrast and similarity chart with.

That's completely irrelevant. What's something that your hypothesis predicts that I could go out and observe in a repeatable manner. You shouldn't need to make reference to another hypothesis or theory in order to do this.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

That's completely irrelevant. What's something that your hypothesis predicts that I could go out and observe in a repeatable manner. You shouldn't need to make reference to another hypothesis or theory in order to do this.

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.

Well it may not be a part of the theory of everything, but I have a theory that in your invisibility example the girl was not actual invisible regardless of what the man saw. Our perceptions are easily influenced. It may be that the man was hypnotized so that his perception was distorted, but regardless of what he believed it is extremely unlikely that his daughter was invisible. Even if everyone in the world believe that his daughter was invisible I don't think she would become so. I see no reason at all why she would. Our thoughts about things only effect our relationship to things, they do not change what the thing actually is. Only interactions on the existential level can change what a thing actually is. Even with positive thinking effecting health, this happens because of chemical changes in the body triggered by thoughts.

Another theory is that in order for dough to become bread I have to cook it. If the world were composed of thought, could I not just think about the dough becoming cooked and watch as it happens?

If this was all in the mind and you dropped a rock at sea level it would accelerate at whatever speed you expected it to accelerate at. It would be variable depending on who was watching it and who had the most psi.

Our perceptions are easily influenced. It may be that the man was hypnotized so that his perception was distorted, but

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.

Our thoughts about things only effect our relationship to things, they do not change what the thing actually is.

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.

If the world were composed of thought, could I not just think about the dough becoming cooked and watch as it happens?

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.

If this was all in the mind and you dropped a rock at sea level it would accelerate at whatever speed you expected it to accelerate at. It would be variable depending on who was watching it and who had the most psi.

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.

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.

The problem is that something is being proposed with no evidence to back it up. You claim that there is reason to believe that certain supernatural things are possible, but there's no scientific evidence that any paranormal claims are true. This million-dollar paranormal challenge makes that obvious. Don't you think if there were hypnotists who could really give people the ability to see right through someone, one of them would have claimed their million-dollar prize by now? It seems more likely that the guy knew the time, because people tend to be aware of the current time within a few minutes accuracy, so it wasn't difficult for him to guess what the watch said.

Actually, I don't put very much stock in the Million Dollar Challenge. Randi has been known for falsifying information and constantly moving the goalposts. Whether "skeptics" want to recognize it or not, Randi has a vested interest in not paying up that million dollars. I had posted an article, a long time ago, that lays this all out in detail. It's somewhere around DV, but I dunno where, at the time. The point is that Randi likes to up the ante on 'arguably positive' results, until he can find away to make them fail, even just once (much like a lucid dreamer saying that they can lucid dream, but then not having one, one night, because whether or not we can l lucid dream - like many things with the mind - isn't always 100%).

Of course everyone always uses that challenge as proof that there are no paranormal abilities, but it's not.

World = lots of thoughs together
home = some thoughs toguether
scientific theoryes = thoughts together
E=MC2 MY ASS EINSTAIN

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.

With this theory, you don't need a brain to think.

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.

According to your beliefs, with this theory, objects are thoughts, thoughts are objects.

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.

I was only making a suggestion that there exists a default. When you are in a lucid dream, do you create every single particle in that scene? Do you have expectations at every single moment? If not, then we can say that it can work without your expectations.

World = lots of thoughs together
home = some thoughs toguether
scientific theoryes = thoughts together
E=MC2 MY ASS EINSTAIN

This theory does not deny Einsteins theory.

do you really support this theoty?
whats do you think abot god?

do you really support this theoty?
whats do you think abot god?

I do support this theory. And what do I think about god? Well it gets down to the definition, in this case, a creator, in this theory, it gets a little hard to deal with that as it states that thought can come out of nowhere, thus making no one the creator/god. It could be said that the thought itself is its own creator/god.

well it might be true...
that you can change the world with your mind....

Originally Posted by elucid

With this theory, you don't need a brain to think.

HAHAHAH, I may just have to quote this. What allows you to think or recieve thoughts in your theory?

Originally Posted by elucid

According to your beliefs, with this theory, objects are thoughts, thoughts are objects.

This is not according to beliefs, this is observable. What is your definition of a thought? Can you brush your teeth with a thought?

Originally Posted by elucid

I was only making a suggestion that there exists a default. When you are in a lucid dream, do you create every single particle in that scene? Do you have expectations at every single moment? If not, then we can say that it can work without your expectations.

Yes, your mind creates every single part of the dream based on your expectations and past experiences. It is either created by conscious expectations or past experiences stored in the unconscious, which create a kind of intuitive expectation. You have unconscious expectations of what will happen. Isn't this the whole basis of your theory that the world we live in is built out of our unconscious assumptions and that if we freed ourselves from these assumptions then we could do anything?

This is true, but only to the extent that our ego and ideas about things limit what we do in this world, it does not apply to existential reality but to the "reality" in your head. Read this, it explains it better than I can.

I know what you are talking about, I believed this once while I was tripping my ass off, once I came down I realized that I was taking something that I had realized about myself and applying to the entire universe.

Originally Posted by elucid

I do support this theory. And what do I think about god? Well it gets down to the definition, in this case, a creator, in this theory, it gets a little hard to deal with that as it states that thought can come out of nowhere, thus making no one the creator/god. It could be said that the thought itself is its own creator/god.

Why do you support it? What made you think this?

And couldn't there be a God if I believed that there was with this theory?